news details |
|
|
| The Speaker’s authority | | |
NB Rakshit
IN a historic judgment, the Supreme Court has ruled that the actions of the Speaker of the Lok Sabha and those of the assemblies are not above judicial scrutiny. A five-member Constitution Bench has settled a controversial issue. However, by following the British practice, our Constitution has, under Article 122, declared that the validity of parliamentary proceedings shall not be questioned on the ground of allegedly irregular procedure. The Speaker will not be subject to the jurisdiction of any court for his rulings or the way of conducting the business of the House. Article 212 has, similarly, granted considerable powers to assembly Speakers.
The Indian Constitution has inserted certain provisions primarily to follow the British model. First, the Speaker is elected by the members and, as such, his appointment cannot be determined by the executive authorities. Second, he is responsible not to the executive, but to the legislators who can oust him only by a majority vote. Third, his salary and allowances are granted from the Consolidated Fund so that the disgruntled members cannot financially let him down. Finally, he can cast his vote only in the event of a tie. Thus, his political opinion, if any, remains unknown to everybody, because normally he votes for neither side.
Biased ruling
HOWEVER, the opposition, both at the Centre and in the states, allege that the treatment meted out to them by the Speakers have not always been fair and just. Even constitutional experts have observed that the Speaker’s rulings have often been biased and that the office is almost invariably used in the interests of the ruling party.
There are certain basic differences between the Indian system and the British model. (i) Our Speakers are party leaders and not non-partisan persons; (ii) They have to win in a re-election; (iii) Some of them have not been retained in their office even after their electoral victory; (iv) The Speakership in India is exchangeable with ministership; and (v) They may be offered any political office after the expiry of one term.
Such provisions are almost unthinkable in the British constitutional system. After his election as the Speaker, he becomes a non-partisan person. Second, he does not face any contest for his parliamentary seat. Third, he holds his office without any internal contest. Fourth, Speakership and a ministerial berth are never exchangeable. And, finally, after his voluntary exit from his office, he is nominated as a Peer of the House of Lords ~ no other office is open for him.
Clearly, we have failed to reach an indubitable position in this matter. However, during the pre-independence era, VJ Patel and Abdur Rahman of the Central Assembly had severed their ties with the party in order to follow the British precedent. Naturally, they earned the faith and respect even from the Opposition.
However, P Tandon, who was the UP Speaker, remained a partyman though he had pledged to act impartially. But it was a self-contradictory promise which wasn’t fulfilled. If a person remains loyal to his party outside the House, he can hardly be impartial inside.
After independence, GV Mabhalankar, A Ayyenger, GS Dhillon and some others had readily accepted the British model of neutrality. Indeed, Mavalankar’s approach was reflected in his words ~ “The Indian Speaker acting as such will be absolutely a non-party man meaning whereby that he keeps aloof from party deliberations and controversies. Though a Congressman, it will be my duty and effort to deal with all members and sections of the House with justice and equality.” His rulings proved that he was an impartial functionary.
The tradition that was set by him was scrupulously followed by his successor, A Ayyanger. While assuming the office on 8 March 1956, he said: “I assure every section of this House, every group and every individual who doesn’t belong to any political group that I will never let down their privileges”. However, he too, like his predecessor, didn’t sever his ties with his party. He maintained a non-partisan role as Speaker. While assuming this office for the second time, he said: “It may be that I am not resigning my membership from the party, but I shall so conduct myself as to infuse confidence in the minds of all to raise the standards, conventions and the traditions of the House.”
It was a historic moment in India’s parliamentary democracy when N Sanjeeva Reddy, the Speaker of the Lok Sabha, declared after assuming office on 17 March 1967, that he was, like the British Speaker, resigning his membership of the Congress. He maintained that the Speaker must act with impartiality and independence and, as a corollary to this tradition, he should relinquish all ties with the party.
Political gift
UNFORTUNATELY, however, he subsequently plunged into politics during the presidential election in 1969. Some other Speakers also received the gift of a political office after retirement. For example, Hukum Singh became the Governor of Bihar and GS Dhillon was given a diplomatic assignment. This suggests that the British model has little value in India. Moreover, the opposition, both at the Centre and in the states, often allege that they are grossly deprived of justice and fairplay from the partisan Speakers. Which explains the occasional no-confidence motion against them. Mr Ittu of Kashmir was thrown out of office.
A uniform standard or model is yet to be formulated. Most particularly in Punjab, Tamil Nadu, West Bengal, Manipur, and Kashmir where Speakers have often betrayed their political leanings and have even overtly abused their powers for political gain or personal benefit. No wonder, legislators often undermine the supposedly exalted office through vociferous protests and walkouts.
The Speaker, whether of the Lok Sabha or assemblies, are hardly regarded as an impartial judge. It cannot, therefore, be expected that their authority will be beyond the scrutiny and control of the courts. The judiciary must have the right to determine whether or not the charges against the Speakers are justified.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
 |
|
|
