My Suspension As An MP Was Against All Rules - by Priyanka Chaturvedi

The suspension of 12 Opposition Members of parliament has come to an end, and I want to address the matter at hand and narrate my side of the story since this government is pushing a false narrative and is not ready to hear something that does not come from their end of the line.

On the last day (August 11, 2021) of the 254th session of the parliament, the government introduced, without much scrutiny and debate, and with quickly adjourning the House for the day, the Insurance Bill in Rajya Sabha, an extremely important Bill concerning the privatisation of the insurance sector. The Opposition, including myself, having become familiarised with this government's tactics, raised our voices for the thousands of workers who would lose their jobs, and made our stand clear against the privatization of national assets, and against the undemocratic passage of the Bill. But the Bill was passed without any debate and the House was adjourned. Throughout the monsoon session, issues of major concern - Pegasus, farm laws and protests by farmers were neglected and dismissed by the government. Bills were passed without any discussion or scrutiny while the Opposition relentlessly tried to engage with the government on these issues. But the government couldn't care less about matters concerned with people of the country unless it's election season.

When this winter session of parliament began, 12 MPs were punished for raising their voices for the people of the country. We were suspended on the first day and remain suspended for the entirety of the winter session. The undemocratic and unparliamentarian suspension of MPs is not in accordance with the rules. Per the Rules of Procedures and Conduct of Business in the Council of States (Rajya Sabha), rule number 256, (which the government has blatantly misused), the suspension has to be on account of 'persistent and wilful obstruction' and suspension can be for a period not exceeding the remainder of the session. The breakdown of this rule is as follows:

Rule 256(1) states that the chairman of the house "if he deems it necessary, name a member who disregards the authority of the Chair or abuses the rules of the Council by persistently and wilfully obstructing the business" of the house. The Chairman never called out the names of the members as required under Rule 256(1), and this negates the suspension motion which was passed under Rule 256.

Sub clause 2 of this rule states that after the member is named, a motion can be moved for their suspension for a maximum period of the "remainder of the session". This would mean that if the member is suspended on the last day of the session, the period of suspension will be for only a day and should not carry forward to the next session. A Member of parliament cannot be suspended for something which has happened in the last session, and since the 254th session was adjourned, you cannot take action against them in the next session (255th session). 

In consideration of these two points themselves, the suspension turns out to be undemocratic and unjust. The government's been stating that parliamentary records are proof of our 'misbehaviour' but the records clearly state a contradictory picture. Past parliamentary participation records can be checked. In the uncorrected debates of Rajya Sabha for the said date, my name has not been mentioned by the Chairman for causing 'disruption' throughout the proceedings. In fact, in the continued practice of stating in the parliament bulletin the names of MPs who, according to the Chairman are behaving unruly, my name has been listed only once for the entire session, the day the government hurried with the passage of the Insurance Bill. Hence, parliamentary records are proof that the government has been unjust and unfair.

As a Member of parliament, it is my constitutional duty to ensure that debates and discussions are held on Bills that are introduced in the Parliament. I was only discharging my duty as a sincere Opposition MP and my conduct has always been in accordance with the oath that I took as Member of parliament. Therefore, it is disheartening and undemocratic that firstly, a motion concerning the last session was moved in a new and important parliament session. Secondly, the full proceedings of the situation, and my account of the situation have not been considered. Lastly and most importantly, suspending an MP for almost the entire session in which important Bills are listed, does not follow parliamentary principles. 

The undemocratic and parliamentarian suspension of Members of parliament raises a larger question of how a government can misuse rules and procedures to their advantage and silence the voice of the Opposition. Dissent is not a new concept, it has always been a part of democracy and part of our ethos and culture. This government fears criticism and dissent. Therefore, they are continuously trying to cover the ears and eyes of the people by pushing a false narrative, and silencing the voices of the Opposition. There is a need to bring forth reforms in parliamentary practices. The Opposition has to be given more time and space to put forward their agenda. In the UK parliament, Opposition days (around 20 days per session) are allocated in the House of Commons for the discussion of subjects chosen by non-government parties. We should bring a similar concept to the Indian parliament so that voices of the Opposition can be finally heard.

We took an oath to bear true faith and allegiance to the Constitution of India, uphold the sovereignty and integrity of India and discharge our duties faithfully. This suspension will not silence our voices nor stop us from raising matters of public importance. History has been kind to the people who have raised their voices against authoritarian regimes; we sat for days in in protest at the Gandhi statue in parliament; I'm sure history will remember us for of having fought for upholding India's parliamentary democracy.

(Priyanka Chaturvedi is Member of Rajya Sabha and Deputy Leader Shiv Sena.)

Disclaimer: The opinions expressed within this article are the personal opinions of the author. The facts and opinions appearing in the article do not reflect the views of NDTV and NDTV does not assume any responsibility or liability for the same.