MPs’ Suspension | Was Opposition played by BJP?

Had a proper debate been allowed just days before the current session of Parliament was coming to an end, it is quite likely that the criminal justice Bills would not have become law so easily.

The 143 suspended MPs could hardly have expected their protest to lead to their suspension for the remainder of the parliamentary session. Their demand for a statement by Home Minister Amit Shah or Prime Minister Narendra Modi was genuine given the unprecedented nature of the breach. However, using their absence from the two Houses the government has been able to pass three controversial new criminal law Bills and sundry others without any debate.

Neither the presiding officers nor the government have shown any seriousness in explaining how the breach took place or in acting against those held responsible. No action has been taken against Bharatiya Janata Party (BJP) MP Prathap Simha who issued passes for the Visitors’ Gallery to two of the accused, in effect, giving a guarantee for their behaviour. Nor have Shah or Modi made a statement on the security breach in Parliament. Yet the presiding officers of the two Houses used their powers in an unprecedentedly harsh manner.

Far worse disruptions have taken place in Parliament in the past without attracting such a savage response. During the debate on the Bill for creating a separate state of Telangana, an MP used pepper spray in the House and another reportedly pulled out a knife! But never have so many MPs been summarily ousted for the remaining session — 11 from the Rajya Sabha have been suspended till the Privileges Committee of the House gives its report on their ‘misconduct’.

Never mind that Opposition MP Mohua Moitra was referred to the Ethics Committee and suspended for far less. Whether Moitra’s sharing of her username and password threatened national security or not will only be known after the Central Bureau of Investigation (CBI) completes its enquiry. But was not Simha’s even more egregious? The entire nation saw the breach of security on TV cameras made possible by Simha issuing visitor’s passes to the accused. Why then was Simha’s misdemeanour not referred to an appropriate parliamentary committee for effectively vouching for the perpetrators? Curiously, the Speaker appears to have been satisfied with a personal explanation provided to him by Simha in a closed-door meeting.

The art of presiding over Parliament requires a light touch and clever handling of MPs. The notion of ‘control’ itself is debatable in the case of Parliament where the free flow of ideas and discussion must be allowed unless what is being said is highly objectionable. The presiding officers cannot reduce their role to that of being enforcers for the government to get its business done in Parliament. Yet both incumbent presiding officers have exercised their powers with an iron hand, and are not demonstrably as non-partisan as is expected of their office.

Surely the Chairman of the Rajya Sabha has earned the ire of the Opposition with his uncalled for declarations putting Modi as “Yug Purush” (man of the era) above Mahatma Gandhi as only a “Maha Purush” (great man) of the last century. Nor is there any basis for him to accuse the Opposition of making him a figure of fun because he is a “Jat”, of a “farmer” caste. That is, unless he is playing up his caste because he sees his future career depending on it.

Similarly, Speaker of the Lok Sabha Om Birla may think that being ‘strict’ with Opposition MPs will enhance his political future. He could learn something from his predecessor’s fate. Though Sumitra Mahajan was not as ‘strict’ as him, she did little without a nod and a wink from the Treasury benches. Yet she was not fielded in the next Lok Sabha election by the BJP.

While the presiding officers of both Houses may have been looking at their own political futures, in 2024 and beyond, it is the government that seems to be the immediate gainer of their disciplinary efforts.

The Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 (BNS), the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (BNSS), and the Bharatiya Sakshya Bill, 2023 (BSB) — have been the subject of much debate and criticism. Congress President Mallikarjun Kharge was quick to observe that the unprecedented mass suspension of MPs from the two Houses of Parliament was meant to push through the three criminal law Bills converting them into law in this session of Parliament itself. A Bill to provide a process for the selection of Chief Election Commissioner and Election Commissioners is also pending passage in the Lok Sabha. Like the criminal law Bills that too will have a smooth transition into law without a debate in the remaining two days of this session.

Had a proper debate been allowed just days before the current session of Parliament was coming to an end, it is quite likely that the Bills would not have become law so easily. The government would then have had to follow the ordinance route to implement the Bills, until they could be presented again to Parliament. As ordinances, they could have been challenged in the courts leading to a lengthy and unpredictable delay.

The ruling party would have had to face the next elections without having the enactments showcasing their agenda of having instituted a new Bharat with an ‘Indianised’ criminal justice system. However, now with the three criminal law Bills having the stamp of the legislature, the role of the courts has become marginal. By inviting suspension, however unjustified, has the Opposition once again played into the hands of the government and the ruling BJP?

(Bharat Bhushan is a Delhi-based journalist.)

Disclaimer: The views expressed above are the author's own. They do not necessarily reflect the views of DH.