Legal immunity is being misused here
If our lawmakers create a ruckus in Parliament or assemblies as in Tamil Nadu, they must be held criminally liable
Scenes of violence inside the Tamil Nadu assembly on Saturday were not only appalling , but also dented the image and utility of an institution that represents the very essence of our democracy.
The house of elected representatives is a law-making body where the government is answerable and the Opposition gets an opportunity to question it. Articles 105 and 194 grant immunity to the people’s representatives with respect to their vote or speech inside the House. This free speech is without risk and fear of prosecution.
Scenes of violence in assemblies are not uncommon. Assemblies in Tamil Nadu and Andhra Pradesh, and even Parliament, have witnessed such ruckus. In such riotous situations, MLAs often damage public property like tables, chairs and microphones. Such conduct outside the precincts of Parliament or assembly would invite criminal prosecution against the lawmakers. However, offending legislators get off scot-free because of the protection the Constitution guarantees them.
Senior advocate Rajeev Dhavan says the immunity was meant for good behaviour, to confer unrestricted freedom of speech and expression within the House. “Unfortunately, it now covers the bad behaviour of legislators,” he said. Should such disgraceful acts on the floor be immune from criminal prosecution?
Damage to public property is a punishable offence under the Prevention of Damage to Public Property Act, 1984 with a jail term of five years and a fine.
The pertinent question is whether the IPC and PDPP should become non-operative for criminal acts on the floor of the House. Only the Speaker of the House has the prerogative of taking action against erring members by a motion — voted or moved out. But, the procedure is hardly resorted to.
A Speaker enjoys unlimited powers to either suspend or expel a member for a period. Suspension can either be for a particular debate or a day, while expulsion can be for a session. The Speaker usually treads a safer path which is to adjourn the House to stop the disruption.
However, the violence in the Tamil Nadu assembly calls for an amendment to the rules and procedure of Parliament and legislatures, empowering the Speaker to deal sternly with incidents that are in violation of the law. He should be allowed to deal with such crimes and hand out severe punishment for wasting the taxpayer’s money and reducing the proceedings of the assembly to a farce or worse.
Dhavan says the problem arises when a Speaker — usually from the ruling party — becomes partisan. “A Speaker has extraordinary powers and also has a voting right. He should know the art of holding a session.”
He agrees that unruly behaviour by lawmakers should invite criminal action but is also nervous about giving unbridled powers to any Speaker.
Going by the ability of the misuse of abuse of the law for political purposes, the time has also come for the codification of privileges (immunity) and powers of the Speaker to deal with breach of privilege and contempt of the House.