By TwoCircles.net staff reporter
New Delhi: In likely to be a landmark development, Vice President of India and Rajya Sabha Chairman, Hamid Ansari, began a crucial debate on 4th March questioning an MP’s right to disrupt parliamentary proceedings.
He has referred the question of privilege to the Committee on Privileges. Ansari took note of a complaint by a group of MPs alleging that fellow members had prevented them from participating freely in question hour. This, they argued, amounted to an infringement of their rights as members of the House.
The Indian Parliament is yet to codify its privileges, but this case should open up debate on what freedom of expression means in our legislative chambers. Parliamentary privileges, for instance, protect an MP from action in any court for what he may say in the House or how he may vote. But what of disruptions? When an MP is prevented from speaking or participating in proceedings by another using disruptive technique, which of the two is more entitled to claim freedom of expression?
Parliament’s own rec¬ords attest to its inability to run its proceedings peacefully. In Budget Session 2007, for instance, Lok Sabha worked for only 51% of its originally scheduled time. Rajya Sabha did worse; it used 43% of its scheduled time.