conduct of members

320 Practice and Procedure of Parliament

CHAPTER XII

Conduct of Members

In order to maintain the highest traditions in parliamentary life, members ofParliament are expected to observe a certain standard of conduct, both inside theHouse as well as outside it. Their behaviour should be such as to enhance the dignityof Parliament and its members in general. The conduct of members should not becontrary to the usage, or derogatory to the dignity of the House or in any wayinconsistent with the standards which Parliament is entitled to expect of its members1.

Apart from the Committee of Privileges which is there to inquire into cases ofbreaches of privilege of the House and its members, ad hoc committees of the Housemay also be appointed from time to time to consider and investigate the conduct ofa member of the House and to find out whether such conduct was derogatory to thedignity of the House and inconsistent with the standards expected of members2.

1. Some illustrations which bear on the conduct of members and the standard that Parliament expectsof them are given below

Information given to members in confidence, or by virtue of their being members of Committeesof Parliament, should not be divulged to anyone nor used by them directly or indirectly in theprofession in which they are engaged, such as in their capacity as editors or correspondents ofnewspapers or proprietors of business firms and so on.

A member should not try to secure business from Government for a firm, company ororganization with which he is directly or indirectly concerned.

A member should not give certificates which are not based on facts.A member should not make profit out of a Government residence allotted to him by sub-letting

the premises.A member should not unduly influence Government officials or Ministers in a case in which

he is interested financially, either directly or indirectly.A member should not receive hospitality of any kind for any work that he desires or proposes

to do from a person or organization on whose behalf the work is to be done by him.A member should not in his capacity as a lawyer or a legal adviser or a counsel or a solicitor

appear before a Minister or an executive officer exercising quasi-judicial powers.A member should not proceed to take action on behalf of his constituents on some insufficient

or baseless facts.A member should not permit himself to be used as a ready supporter of anybodys grievances

or complaints.A member should not endorse incorrect certificates on bills claiming amounts due to him.A member should not elicit information from Government in an unauthorized manner by

inducing an official to give information, which in the course of his normal functions the officialshould not do, nor encourage any such person to speak to him against his senior officials onmatters of public importance and policy.

A member should not write recommendatory letters or speak to Government officials foremployment or business contacts for any of his relations or other persons in whom he is directlyor indirectly interested. Bn.(II), 17-5-1952, para 57.

2. (i) For instance, a Committee on the Conduct of a Member (The Mudgal Case) was appointedin 1951 and two Committees on the Conduct of Certain Members during Presidents Address were

Conduct of Members 321

In 1951, when the question of appointment of a committee to inquire into theconduct of H.G. Mudgal, a member of the Provisional Parliament, was before theHouse, members expressed doubt as to the need for appointment of a special committeeto go into this question when there already was in existence a Committee of Privilegesof the House. Speaker Mavalankar then observed:

(Even though) there is a Committee of Privileges constituted under the rules, yet it iswithin the powers of the House to constitute other special committees if there are any specialcircumstances and inquiries to be made. There is nothing inconsistent in that. Moreover, it isa moot question to be considered whether any such conduct as alleged is really in a sense abreach of privilege of the House or something different. A member may behave in a mannerin which the House would not like him to behave and yet it may be argued that it is not abreach of privilege. In all such circumstances, the practice in the House of Commons has beento constitute a special committee and the procedure of making a motion is the procedure thatis usually adopted in the House of Commons even though there is a Committee of Privileges3.

The extent and amplitude of the words conduct of a member have not beendefined exhaustively, and it is within the powers of the House in each case to determinewhether a member has acted in an unbecoming manner or has acted in a mannerunworthy of a member of Parliament. Thus, even though the facts of a particular casedo not come within any of the recognized heads of breach of privilege or contemptof the House, the conduct of a member may be considered by the House as unbecomingand derogatory to the dignity of the House4.

The House has the right to punish its members for their misconduct. It exercisesits jurisdiction of scrutiny over its members for their conduct whether it takes placeinside or outside the House. It has also the power to punish its members for disorderlyconduct and other contempts, whether committed within the House or beyond its walls5.

In the case of misconduct or contempts committed by its members, the Housecan impose these punishments: admonition, reprimand, withdrawal from the House,suspension from the service of the House, imprisonment, and expulsion from theHouse6.

appointed in 1963 and 1971. (ii) On the report of a Committee to enquire into the allegations ofimproper conduct on the part of some members constituted on 12 December 2005, Lok Sabhapassed a resolution accepting the findings of the Committee that the conduct of ten members wasunethical and unbecoming of members of Parliament and expelled them from the membership ofLok Sabha on 23 December 2005. (iii) Smt. Jaya Bachchan, MP (RS) was disqualified from themembership of Rajya Sabha for holding office of profit vide order of the President dated 16 March2006. Similarly, Krishna Murari Moghe, MP (LS), was disqualified from the membership ofLok Sabha for holding office of profit by the President on 10 July 2007. (iv) Based on therecommendations made by the Committee to Inquire into Misconduct of Members of Lok Sabha(constituted on 16 May 2007), in their Third Report, Lok Sabha adopted a motion on 20 August2008 expelling a member (Babubhai K. Katara) from the membership of the House.

3. P. Deb., (II), 6-6-1951, cc. 10264-65.4. See Report of the Committee on the Conduct of Certain Members, op. cit., 1963, pp. 7-8.5. Ibid.6. In a judgment delivered on 29 August 1966, the Madhya Pradesh High Court upheld the expulsion

of Yeshwant Rao Meghawale and Pandhari Rao Kridutta from the membership of the MadhyaPradesh Legislative Assembly and observed that since the Legislative Assembly had the power andprivilege of expelling a member resulting in the vacation of his seat, the correctness, legality orpropriety of the two resolutions adopted by the Legislative Assembly on 17 March 1966, expellingthe aforesaid two members could not be challenged in courts of lawYeshwant Rao Meghawalev. Madhya Pradesh Legislative Assembly, A.I.R. 1967, Madhya Pradesh 95.


If at any stage, the Chair is of the opinion that the conduct of a member isgrossly disorderly, the member may be directed to withdraw immediately from theHouse7. A member, who disregards the authority of the Chair or abuses the rules ofthe House by persistent and wilful obstruction of the business before the House, maybe named by the Chair and later suspended from the service of the House on a motionmoved by a member and adopted by the House. Further, in the event of grave disorderoccasioned by a member coming into the well of the House or abusing the Rules ofthe House, persistently and wilfully obstructing its business by shouting slogans orotherwise, such member shall, on being named by the Speaker, stand automaticallysuspended from the service of the House for five consecutive sittings or the remainderof the session, whichever is less8. The purpose of expulsion is to rid the House ofpersons who are unfit for its membership.

The various aspects of Standards/Code of Conduct were gone into in detail bythe Committee of Privileges (Eleventh Lok Sabha) in their Report on Ethics, Standardsin Public Life, Privileges, Facilities to Members and Other Related Matters9.

Rules to be Observed by Members while Present in the House

While the House is sitting, members are expected to observe certain rules whichare technically known as the rules of parliamentary etiquette. These are based on theRules of Procedure and Conduct of Business in Lok Sabha and the rulings given bythe Speaker from time to time. The following are some of the important rules ofparliamentary etiquette which members have generally to observe in Lok Sabha whilethe House is sitting:

When the Speaker enters the Chamber, members are to stop allconversation, repair to their seats and rise in their places. Members who

However, in a judgment delivered on 18 April 1977, the Punjab and Haryana High Court, bya 3-2 majority, held that a State Legislature is not clothed with any power to expel duly electedmembers as a measure of punishment for contempt of the House. The judgment inter alia saidthat the punishment for contempt of the House was known and well-settled as being reprimand,suspension from the House for the duration of the session, fine and lastly, the keystone in thiscontext being the power to commit the contemptor to prisonHardwari Lal Case, HindustanTimes, 9-4-1977.

V. Kishore Chandra S. Deo was suspended from the service of the House for one day on amotion moved by the Minister of Parliamentary Affairs on 15 April 1987 and adopted by theHouse; Ajay Biswas was suspended from the service of the House for the remaining part of theEighth Session of Eighth Lok Sabha on a motion moved by the Minister of Parliamentary Affairson 29 July 1987 and adopted by the House. The suspension was revoked with immediate effecton 30 July 1987 on a motion moved by the Minister of Parliamentary Affairs and adopted by theHouse.

Dr. Datta Samant was directed to withdraw from the House on 11 May 1988, for persistentlyinterrupting the proceedings.

7. Rule 373.8. Rules 374 and 374A.9. The Report was presented to Speaker (11 LS) on 27 November 1997. On 4 December 1997, the

House was dissolved. Later, the Report was laid on the Table of the House by the Secretary-General on 28 March 1998, during the Twelfth Lok Sabha. See this Chapter under the sub-headingEthical Principles.


enter the House at that time are required to stand silently in the gangway, tillthe Speaker takes the Chair10.

A member is not to read in the House any book, newspaper or letter except inconnection with, or necessary for, the business of the House11.

A member is not to interrupt any member who is speaking, by disorderlyexpression, hissing, making running commentaries, or other interruptions or noises orin any other disorderly manner12. Occasional interruptions are allowed to clear a pointor seek information to follow the tenor of a speech or to challenge mildly a statement,but frequent interruptions have been deprecated by the Chair13. Continuous interruptionsmar the proceedings and dignity of the House as a whole14.

While the House is sitting, every member should enter and leave the Chamberwith decorum15.

A member is to bow to the Chair while entering or leaving the Chamber, andalso when taking or leaving his seat16. This respect is for the whole House, not foran individual occupying the Chair17.

A member is not to pass between the Chair and any member who is speaking.Breach of this rule has been strongly taken notice of by the Chair18.

Every member has to resume his seat as soon as the Speaker rises to speak, orcalls out order and addresses the House. Members are not to cross the floor, walk,stand, enter or leave the Chamber when the Speaker is on his feet19.

A member addressing the House has to resume his seat when any other memberhas interposed in the course of the debate to raise a point of order, or to offer apersonal explanation with the permission of the Chair.

A member is always to address the Chair20. The practice of exchanging argumentsby members between themselves has been deprecated by the Speaker.

A member is to keep to his place while addressing the House. When-ever amember, not occupying his usual seat, rises to ask a supplementary question or tomake a speech, the Speaker does not call him21. However, if a member speaking from

10. Handbook for Members. Fourteenth edition, Lok Sabha Sectt. 2004, para 43(1).11. Rule 349 (i); L.S. Deb., 12-2-1959, c. 667; 5-3-1963, cc. 2304-05.12. Rule 349 (ii) and (ix).13. L.S. Deb., 25-4-1956, cc. 6309-10; see also P. Deb.(II), 17-11-1950, cc. 250-51.14. H.P. Deb. (II), 22-7-1952, c. 4324.15. Handbook op. cit. para 43(27).16. Rule 349(iii).17. L.S. Deb. 27-8-1956, cc. 4546-47; 2-3-1961, cc. 2686-88.18. Rule 349 (iv). See also LS. Deb., 11-9-1957, c, 13321; 1-4-1958, c. 7768; 28-4-1958, c. 12020;

3-9-1965, c. 3591; 29-8-1968, cc. 2681-82. Handbook, op. cit. para 43(24).19. Rule 361 and Handbook, op. cit., para 43(31); see also P. Deb, (II), 17-11-1950, c.249; 19-3-1951,

cc. 4761-62; H.P. Deb. (I), 19-5-1952, c. 1.20. Rule 349 (vi) and Handbook, op. cit., para 43(29-xii).21. Rule 349 (vii); see P. Deb. (I), 21-3-1950, pp. 955-56; see also L.S. Deb., 26-9-1955, c 15234;

19-12-1960, c. 6334.


his place is inaudible to the reporters or the interpreters, he may be asked to speakfrom a seat near the microphone.

A member is to maintain silence when not speaking in the House. Membersshould not converse between themselves in the Chamber but, if it becomes absolutelynecessary, they may do so in a very low voice, so as not to disturb the proceedings.Members are also not to talk or crack jokes with each other22.

A member is not to applaud when a distinguished visitor enters any of theGalleries, or the Special Box23.

But, in appropriate cases, the Speaker might make references to the presence ofdistinguished foreign visitors in the Special Box of the House and on such occasions,members can cheer those visitors by thumping their desks24.

No member should speak to the gallery from inside the House nor should hemake any reference or appeal to it. However, in certain cases, where, for instance, aMinister while making a statement in the House appeals to the striking persons toresume duty or call off agitation, this is not regarded as speaking to the gallery ormaking any appeal to outsiders25.

References to the presence of strangers in the Visitors Gallery have been heldto be out of order26.

A member is not to resort to hunger-strike, dharna or any demonstration orperform any religious function in the precincts of the Parliament House and theParliament House Estate27.

A member can remain within the precincts of the House only for an hour afterthe House is adjourned for the day. After that he cannot remain in any part of theParliament House Estate unless specific permission of the Speaker has been obtained28.

A member is not to take shelter within the precincts of Parliament House if heknows that he is wanted by the police authorities in connection with some case againsthim. To do so, is against his dignity. Parliament House is not to be made a sanctuaryor place of protection29.

22. Rule 349 (viii); see also H.P. Deb., 4/(II)/19-5-1952, c. 116.23. Rule 349 (x).24. For instances, see L.S. Deb., 20-2-1969, c. 1; 26-2-1969, c.l; 16-11-1970, c. 203;

23-11-1970, cc. 1-2; 28-3-1972, c. 1; 16-8-1972, c. 1; 13-11-1972, c. 1; 4-12-1972, c. 1;29-3-1979, cc. 1-2; 6-8-1985, c. 1; 10-8-1986, cc. 1-2; 3-12-1987, cc. 2-3; 28-3-1988, cc. 2-3;16-8-1989, cc. 1-2; 2-1-1991, cc. 8-9; 7-1-1991, cc. 1-2; 21-2-1991, cc. 1-2; 30-11-1992,cc. 1-2; 1-12-1992, cc. 1-2; 25-12-1993, cc. 425-26; 22-4-1993, c. I; 10-5-1993; 28-2-1994,cc. 1-2.

25. Rule 349 (x). Handbook op. cit., para 43(36).26. Rule 352 (ix). L.A. Deb., 1-2-1922, p. 2095.27. L.S. Deb., 28-4-1965, cc. 1172-76; 12-5-1972, cc. 296-98; 31-7-1972, cc. 21-48.28. Ibid., 28-4-1960, cc. 11572-76.29. Ibid., 18-3-1964, cc. 6092-94.


Besides, in keeping with parliamentary conventions and etiquettes, members areforbidden:

to enter the Chamber with a coat hanging on the arm30.

to place their hats on the desk in the House31.

to carry walking sticks into the Chamber unless permitted by the Speaker undersuch exceptional circumstances as old age or physical infirmity32.

to smoke in the Chamber33.

to say Jai Hind or Vande Mataram or anything of the kind in the House34.

to raise slogans in the House35.

to display flags or emblems on their seats in the House36.

to bring a tape recorder into the House or play it there37.

to stand in the gangway and talk to other members38.

to produce exhibits during debate or make demonstrations in the House39.

to distribute within the precincts of the Parliament House, any literature,questionnaire or pamphlets, etc. not connected with the business of the House, unlesspermission has been obtained from the Speaker in writing in advance40.

to approach the Chair personally in the House41.

to leave the Chamber immediately after delivering their speeches42; and

30. Rule 349 (xix); Handbook, op. cit., para 43 (18); and see also L.S. Deb., 25-4-1960,cc. 13633-4.

31. Rule 349 (xix); Ibid, para 43 (18); and P. Deb., (II), 6-2-1950, p. 227.32. Rule 349 (xx); Ibid; para 43 (19).33. Rule 349 (xix); Ibid, para 43 (18).34. C.A. (Leg) Deb., 15-3-1948, p. 2118.

The National Anthem (Jana Gana Mana) and the National Song (Vande Mataram) are being playedin the House at the commencement of the session and before the adjournment of the House sinedie, respectively, since the Fifth Session of the Tenth Lok Sabha, i.e. 24 November 1992.L.S. Deb., 24-11-1992, c.1; 23-12-1992, c. 249 & minutes of the Leaders meeting dt. 24-11-1992.

35. Rule 349 (xi); Handbook. op. cit., para 43(10); and L.S. Deb., 13-11-1962, c. 1446.36. Rule 349 (xvi); L.A. Deb., 2-4-1937, p. 2553.37. Rule 349 (xxii); L.S. Deb., 12-3-1975, c. 249.38. Handbook, op. cit., para 43(23); L.S, Deb., 5-4-1958, c. 8473; 28-2-1963, c. 1425.39. Rule 349 (xvi); L.S. Deb., 5-4-1958, c. 8468; 4-3-1960, c. 4307; 24-4-1960, c. 7921; 16-3-1965,

cc. 460-64; 26-7-1966, c. 252; 14-5-1970, c. 36; 8-7-1971, cc. 153-55; and Handbook, op. cit.,para 43(15).

40. Rule 349 (xviii); H.P. Deb., (11), 14-11-1952, c. 512; and Handbook, op. cit., para 43(17).41. Rule 349 (xiii); H.P. Deb., (II), 5-4-1954, c. 4057; L.S. Deb., 21-3-1963, c. 5265; 31-3-1967,

c. 2238; 28-7-1980, c. 294. They may send chits, if necessary.42. Rule 349 (xvii); L.S. Deb., 23-3-1961, cc. 6831-32; and Handbook, op. cit., para 43(16).


to indulge during debate in any frivolity or in jokes with a barb or sarcasm inthem.

In the interest of decorum and dignity of the House, members are required notto indulge in any flippancy, including knitting by women members43.

Questions to be asked through the Chair

If a member desires to make an observation on a matter before the House orto ask a question from another member who is speaking, either to obtain clarificationor for the purpose of any explanation about a matter which is under consideration ofthe House, he has to address the question through the Chair44. When speaking, membersare to speak from their seats and rise while speaking. A member disabled by sicknessor infirmity is, however, permitted to speak while sitting.

A member must not address individual members of the House while speaking,but he is always to address the Chair and make all remarks to other members throughthe Chair. It has been ruled that members should address each other in third person45.Similarly, Ministers have to be referred to by their official designation and not byname46.

Irrelevance or Repetition

If the Speaker feels that a member while speaking is persistently irrelevant oris indulging in tedious repetition of his own arguments or those advanced by othermembers who had preceded him, he directs that member to discontinue his speech47.If a member continues to speak in defiance of the Speakers observation, his remarkswould not form part of record48. It has been ruled quite often that while speakingmembers should not repeat arguments49. Repetition of the arguments is to be avoided,except when it is absolutely necessary to give emphasis to a point.

Rules to be Observed While Speaking

In their speeches, members cannot refer to any matters which are sub judice50.Where a member insists on referring to a matter which is sub judice in spite of theChair asking him not to do so, the Chair may ask him to discontinue his speechforthwith. The Chair may also observe that the member should not have referred toa matter which was sub judice. Both statements are recorded and the Chair does notorder expunction of the words already spoken by the member51.

43. L.S. Deb., 9-11-1962, c. 265.44. Rule 355.45. H.P. Deb. (II), 22-5-1952, cc. 374-5; 23-5-1952, c. 485; L.S. Deb., 6-4-1961, c. 972; also see Rule

349 (vi).46. H.P. Deb. (II), 29-4-1954, c. 6107.47. Rule 356.48. L.S. Deb., 2-8-1972, cc. 26 and 165-72.49. L.A. Deb., 19-2-1923, p. 2541; P. Deb. (II), 29-2-1952, c. 1626.50. Rule 352 (i).51. L.S. Deb., 27-6-1967. cc. 7829-45, 28-6-1967, cc. 8116-19; 11-8-1971, cc. 281-86.


The rule of sub judice, however, does not apply to matters of privilege or wheredisciplinary jurisdiction of the House with respect to its own members is concerned.In such cases, the Chair and the House consider each case on its merits52.

Members are not allowed to make personal charges against other members53.

No member is expected to use offensive expressions about the conduct orproceedings of Parliament or any State Legislature. They are not expected to castreflections on any decision of the House except on a motion for rescinding suchdecision54.

Members are also not expected to make allegations against or cast aspersionson persons in high authority55. They are barred from bringing in the name of thePresident during a debate for the purpose of influencing it56. The language which themembers may use should be parliamentary. The words and expressions must not betreasonable, seditious or defamatory. Although there is no bar to criticism of theGovernment, yet the members are expected not to use this right for the purpose ofobstructing the business of the House57.

Members should not make use of expressions which are offensive, or attributemotives to the Chair58.

Members are not allowed to make allegations of a defamatory or incriminatorynature against any person unless previous intimation has been given to the Speakerand also the Minister concerned59.

If a member wants to level charges against another member, he should give itin writing to the Speaker in advance60.

If a member makes an allegation against a Minister by name without giving anynotice, name so mentioned may be expunged61.

52. In Import Licence Case, it was complained that a member had allegedly received bribe forfurthering the cause of some import licence applicants with the Government and had also allegedlyforged the signatures of some members of Parliament. The member concerned wrote to theSpeaker pleading that since the matter had become sub judice, it should not be discussed in theHouse. The Speaker giving his ruling inter alia observed that in the present case, the allegationsof bribery and forgery, which had been prima facie established against the member by the CBIenquiry, were very serious and unbecoming of a member of Parliament and the member might beheld guilty of lowering the dignity of the House. The House was, therefore, free to discuss anymotion relating to the conduct of the member and the rule of sub judice would not come in thewayL.S. Deb., 2-12-1974, cc. 228-29.

53. Rule 352 (ii), L.S. Deb., 26-3-1968, cc. 3349-51; 14-11-1968, cc. 254-55; 11-12-1968, cc. 147-48 and 197-98; 16-12-1968, cc. 259-60 and 23-12-1977, cc. 407-21.

54. Rule 352 (iii) and (iv). For expunction of unparliamentary expressions see Chapter XXXVII.55. Rule 352 (v).56. Rule 352 (vi).57. Rule 352 (viii).58. L.S. Deb., 14-11-1972, cc. 261-62; 8-8-1980, cc. 269-70; 17-12-1980, c. 277; 29-4-1981,

cc. 366-67.59. Rule 353. For details, see Chapter XXXIGeneral Rules of Procedure.60. L.S. Deb., 22-12-1972, cc. 252-57; 24-8-1981, cc. 474-75.61. Ibid., 24-11-1972, cc. 340-41; 15-10-1982, cc. 330-38.


Files or papers in the custody of a member cannot be demanded for inspection,unless the member concerned has quoted from them62.

If a Minister gives in his own words a summary or gist of a document or Statepaper, it is not necessary for him to lay relevant papers on the Table63. However, theSpeaker may, on demand in the House, require the Minister to produce the originaldocument or paper for his perusal, so that he may satisfy himself that the summaryor gist given was in fact fair and adequate.

A member can point out any mistake or inaccuracy in a statement made by aMinister or any other member after seeking Speakers permission and make a statementin reply thereto64.

Before referring to the matter in the House, the member should write to theSpeaker pointing out the particulars of the mistake or inaccuracy. He should alsoplace before the Speaker such evidence as he might be having in his possession insupport of his allegation. The Speaker may, if he thinks fit, bring the matter to thenotice of the Minister or the member concerned for the purpose of ascertaining thefactual position in regard thereto. The Speaker may then, if he thinks it necessary,permit the member who made the allegation to raise the matter in the House.

In granting permission to a member to raise the matter in the House, a distinctionis made between: (i) statements which are prima facie inaccurate in the light of theevidence produced by the member; and (ii) statements which according to membersown interpretation or argument are incorrect. In the latter case, permission to raise thematter is not accorded. The item regarding statement to be made by the member andthe statement to be made by the Minister in reply thereto, is not put down in the listof business unless copies thereof have been submitted in writing to the Speakersufficiently in advance and the Speaker has approved them. Words, phrases andexpressions which are not in the statements, as approved by the Speaker, if spoken,do not form part of proceedings of the House. After the two statements have beenmade on the floor of the House, the matter is normally treated as closed. However,if the member wants to pursue the matter further, he may table notice of a motion fordiscussion of the matter. Members are not allowed to raise matters pertaining toLok Sabha Secretariat and the functions of the Speaker on the floor of the House65.

A member should not read the speech of another member66.

A member is not allowed to raise in the House subject matter of a notice or acommunication sent by him to the Speaker or Lok Sabha Secretariat, unless he isspecifically permitted by the Speaker. He should not read a written speech thoughnotes may be referred to67.

62. Ibid., 30-5-1972, cc. 332-40.63. Rule 368, Proviso 2.64. Dir. 115. Also see Chapter XVIIIArrangement of Business and List of Business.65. See, Subhash C. Kashyap: Parliament of India - Myths and Realities, National New Delhi, 1988,

p. 80.66. Ibid.67. Handbook, op. cit., para 43(30).


Procedure when Speaker Rises

Whenever the Speaker rises to address the House, members are enjoined to hearhim in silence and any member who is then speaking or offering to speak is requiredto sit down68. Members are also not to leave their seats when the Speaker is addressingthe House69.

It is a well-recognized parliamentary convention that every member shouldresume his seat as soon as the Speaker enters the Chamber to preside or rises to speakor calls out order70. Members should not rise on a point of order when the Speakeris addressing the House71.

Code of Conduct

While there is no definitive code of conduct for members of Lok Sabha, thereare various provisions in the Rules of Procedure and Conduct of Business inLok Sabha for ensuring decorous and dignified conduct of members. Over the years,certain norms established in respect of Code of Conduct for Legislators.

The issue of maintenance of discipline and decorum has, however, been comingup, now and then, for discussion at the Annual Conference of Presiding Officers ofLegislative Bodies in India. The Presiding Officers Conference, held at Gandhinagarin Gujarat in May 1992, suggested the convening of an All-India Conference whereall those concerned with the business of the House should be invited to deliberate onthe issue of discipline and decorum in the Legislatures.

As a sequel to this, a two-day All-India Conference of Presiding Officers,Leaders of Parties, Ministers of Parliamentary Affairs, Whips, Parliamentarians,Legislators and senior officers of Parliament and State Legislatures was held in theCentral Hall of Parliament House on 23 and 24 September 1992. During theConference, the delegates deliberated on many related aspects of the functioning ofparliamentary institutions.

Based on the well established norms and the provisions in the Rules, a Codeof Conduct was drafted and included in a paper entitled Discipline and Decorum inParliament and State Legislatures which was brought out by the Lok Sabha Secretariatfor reference and use of delegates at this special Conference.

After detailed deliberations, the Conference adopted unanimously a Resolutioninter alia reiterating the responsibilities and duties of Legislators and suggesting thatthe political parties should evolve a Code of Conduct for their Legislators and ensureits observance by them.

The matter also came up for deliberation during the Golden JubileeCommemorative Session of Lok Sabha held from 26 August 1997 to 1 September

68. Rule 361(1).69. Rule 361(2).70. Handbook, op. cit., para 43(31); P. Deb. (II), 17-11-1950, c. 249; H.P. Deb., 3-6-1952, c. 1048;

L.S. Deb., 11-8-1959, c. 1721.71. P. Deb., 19-3-1951, cc. 4761-62; H.P. Deb. (I), 19-5-1952, c. 1; L.S. Deb., 13-5-1957, c. 66.


1997. During the Session, the House unanimously adopted a Resolution which interalia provided:

That the prestige of the Parliament be preserved and enhanced, alsoby conscious and dignified conformity to the entire regime of Rules ofProcedure and Conduct of Business of the House and Directions of thePresiding Officers relating to orderly conduct of business, more especially by

maintaining the inviolability of the Question Hour, refraining from transgressing into the official areas of the House, or from

shouting of any slogans, and

invariably desisting from any efforts at interruptions or interference withthe Address of the President of the Republic.

The Report of the Committee of Privileges (Eleventh Lok Sabha) on Ethics,Standards in Public Life, Privileges, Facilities to Members and Other Related Mattersdwelt in detail upon the various aspects of parliamentary privileges, obligation ofmembers to the electorate and need for laying down Code of Conduct and standardsfor members. Broadly speaking, this Report contained recommendations regardingdisclosure of interest by members, Code of Conduct for members72, Anti-DefectionLaw, Criminalisation of Politics and broad parameters of procedure for dealing withthese complaints.

During the Sixty-Fourth Conference of Presiding officers of Legislative Bodiesin India held in Chandigarh in June 2001, it was unanimously decided to convene ahigh level Conference of Presiding Officers, Chief Ministers, Ministers of ParliamentaryAffairs, Leaders of the Opposition, other Leaders and Whips of Parties to discussmeasures to effectively ensure discipline and decorum in the Legislatures. Accordingly,an All India Conference of Presiding Officers, Chief Ministers, Ministers ofParliamentary Affairs, Leaders and Whips of Parties on Discipline and Decorum inParliament and Legislatures of States and Union Territories was convened on25 November 2001 in the Central Hall of the Parliament House.

The Conference unanimously resolved that a Code of Conduct be adopted forLegislators, necessary changes be incorporated in the Rules of Procedure of all theLegislatures for its implementation and punishment be provided for its violations orbreaches. It also called for constitution of Ethics Committees in all the Legislaturesfor enforcing the Code of Conduct. The Resolution urged that immediate steps betaken to ensure a minimum of 110 days of sittings of the Parliament and 90 and 50days of sittings of the Legislatures for the big and small States, respectively. It alsoresolved that earnest endeavours be made by all the political parties to lay downparameters with emphasis on proven standards in public life for selection of thecandidates for elections; a more responsible and effective role in maintaining decorumin the House be played by the Leader of the House, the Leader of the Opposition andLeaders of political and legislature parties by ensuring disciplined behaviour on thepart of their members; the Treasury and the Opposition benches in the House should

72. Report of CPR (11 LS) on Ethics, Standards in Public Life, Privileges, Facilities to Members andOther Related Matters, pp. 66-67.


be more tolerant, accommodative and understanding towards each other; and PresidingOfficers and leadership of political and legislature parties should ensure that themembers, especially the new members are given proper training and orientation inparliamentary procedure, processes, discipline and decorum.

Automatic Suspension of Members who come to the wellof the House and Create Disorder

To ensure orderly conduct in the House, Rule 374A was incorporated in theRules of Procedure and Conduct of Business in Lok Sabha with effect from 5 December2001. The rule provides that in the event of grave disorder occasioned by a membercoming into the well of the House or abusing the Rules of the House persistently andwilfully obstructing its business by shouting slogans or otherwise, such member shall,on being named by the Speaker, stand automatically suspended from the service ofthe House for five consecutive sittings or the remainder of the Session, whichever isless. The House may, however, at any time, on a motion being made, resolve that suchsuspension be terminated. On the Speaker announcing the suspension under this rule,the member shall forthwith withdraw from the precincts of the House.

This rule primarily aims at doing away with the requirement of moving amotion and its adoption for securing suspension of a member from the service of theHouse. Under this rule merely the naming of the member by the Speaker is enoughto secure his suspension for five consecutive sittings or remainder of the session,whichever is less.

Constitution of Ethics Committee in Lok Sabha

During Thirteenth Lok Sabha, on 16 May 2000, the Speaker constituted a15 member Committee on Ethics in Lok Sabha.

The functions of the Committee were to (a) oversee the moral and ethicalconduct of members; (b) examine every complaint relating to unethical conduct of amember or connected with his parliamentary conduct referred to it and make suchrecommendations as it may deem fit; and (c) frame rules specifying acts which constituteunethical conduct. The Committee could also suo motu take up for consideration andinvestigation matters relating to ethics, including matters relating to unethical conductby members wherever felt necessary and make such recommendations as deemed fit.

The Committee, in their First Report presented to the Speaker, on 31 August2001, laid on the Table of the House on 22 November 2001 and adopted by theHouse on 16 May 2002, inter alia noted that the norms of ethical behaviour formembers have been adequately provided for in the Rules of Procedure and Conductof Business in Lok Sabha, Directions by the Speaker and in the conventions whichhave evolved over the years on the basis of recommendations made by variousCommittees in their reports. The Committee recommended inter alia that membersshould abide by the following general ethical principles, which are not based on anyprovisions in Rules/Directions/Conventions

Members must utilize their position to advance general well-being of thepeople.


In case of conflict between their personal interest and public interest, theymust resolve the conflict so that personal interests are subordinate to theduty of their public office.

Conflict between private financial/family interest should be resolved in amanner that the public interest is not jeopardized.

Members holding public offices should use public resources in such amanner as may lead to public good.

Members should keep uppermost in their mind the fundamental dutieslisted in Part-IV A of the Constitution.

Members should maintain high standards of morality, dignity, decency andvalues in public life.

The Committee recommended that it may be made mandatory for each memberof Lok Sabha to disclose his/her income, assets and liabilities. For this purpose,members may be required to file a financial disclosure statement immediately aftertheir election to the Lok Sabha. A Register of Members Interests may be maintainedin the Lok Sabha Secretariat on the basis of information furnished by members. TheRegister should be made available to any complainant only with the permission of theSpeaker, Lok Sabha.

In their Second Report presented to Lok Sabha on 20 November 2002, theCommittee felt that there was no necessity for any further action on therecommendations made by them in their First Report with regard to financial disclosuresand declaration of interests by members as that requirement had been fully met withthe promulgation of the Representation of the People (Amendment) Ordinance, 200273.

The Committee recommended that the Code of Conduct for Legislators whichwas unanimously adopted by the All India Conference of Presiding Officers, ChiefMinisters, Leaders etc. on 25 November 2001 at New Delhi may be suitablyincorporated in the Rules of Procedure and Conduct of Business in Lok Sabha.

The Committee also recommended that appropriate rules may be incorporatedin the Rules of Procedure, laying down the procedure for making complaints relatingto unethical conduct of a member.

The Committee to inquire into Misconduct of Members of Lok Sabha, in theirSecond Report, recommended a broad framework of a code of conduct. The Committee,however, recommended that before adopting the Code, opinion of leaders of politicaland legislature parties and also others, if considered necessary, might be obtained.

The subject of indiscipline, including disregard of Presiding Officers,disturbances, disruptions and other serious acts of misconduct in Legislatures andfuture strategies to improve the situation was again discussed in the 72nd PresidingOfficers Conference held at Thiruvananthapuram from 25 to 26 May 2007. Thedelegates were of the view that the tendency to show disrespect to the Chair and toviolate the rules and conventions, indulging in undignified behaviour, forcing

73. Later enacted as the Representation of the People (Third amendment) Act, 2002.


adjournments of the House and not permitting the Question Hour and debates anddiscussions, were matters of serious concern warranting deep introspection. It wasalso emphasized that orderly and dignified conduct of the Legislators, both inside andoutside the Chambers is a pre-requisite for the smooth and effective functioning ofparliamentary system. The Conference adopted a Resolution expressing its deep anguishand grave concern over the disturbing trend of disorderly conduct by Legislators,which is systematically undermining the credibility of the Legislative Bodies.

Members having Personal, Pecuniary or Direct Interest inMatters before the House or a Committee

A member having a personal, pecuniary or direct interest in a matter before theHouse is required while taking part in the proceedings on that matter to declare thenature of that interest74. It is expected of him, as a matter of propriety, to decide forhimself whether by casting his vote in a division in the House on that matter, hisjudgement is likely to be deflected from the straight line of public policy by thatinterest75. The vote of such a member can be challenged immediately after the divisionis over and before the result is announced by the Speaker, and when it is so challenged,the Speaker may, if he considers it necessary, call upon the member making thechallenge to state precisely the grounds of his objection and the member whose votehas been challenged to state his case. Thereafter, the Speaker decides whether thevote of the member should be disallowed or not, and his decision is final76.

Objection can also be taken to the inclusion of a member in a ParliamentaryCommittee on the ground that the member has a personal, pecuniary or direct interestof such an intimate character that it may prejudicially affect the consideration of anymatters to be considered by the Committee77.

When the objection is so taken, the member taking objection precisely states theground of his objection and the nature of the alleged interest. The member againstwhom objection has been taken is given by the Speaker an opportunity to state hisposition. In case there is dispute on facts, the Speaker asks both of them to producedocumentary or other evidence in support of their respective cases. Having consideredthe evidence produced before him, the Speaker gives his decision, which is final78.

During the pendency of the dispute, the member against whose appointment onthe Committee objection has been taken continues to be a member thereof, if electedor nominated. He can take part in discussion at the sittings of the Committee but isnot entitled to vote79.

74. Handbook op. cit., para 43(40); LA. Deb., 2-6-1924, pp. 2469-85.75. L.A. Deb., 26-1-1925, pp. 250-51.76. Rule 371. For the purposes of this Rule the interest of the member should be direct, personal or

pecuniary and separately belong to the person whose vote is questioned and not in common withthe public in general or with any class or section thereof or on a matter of State Policy.

77. Rule 255.78. Ibid.79. Rule 255(e).


If the Speaker holds that the member in question has a personal, pecuniary ordirect interest in the matter before the Committee, he ceases to be a member thereofforthwith, provided the proceedings of the sitting of the Committee at which suchmember was present are not in any way affected by the decision of the Speaker80.

Hence, where a member of a Committee has a personal, pecuniary or directinterest in any matter which is to be considered by the Committee, it is required ofhim to state his interest therein to the Speaker through the Chairman of the Committee.Having considered the matter, the Speaker gives his decision, which is binding81.

Besides the present stipulation in the Rules, the Committee of Privileges(Eleventh Lok Sabha) in their Report on Ethics related matters made certainrecommendations82 on financial disclosures and declaration of interests bymembers.

The Committee to Inquire into Misconduct of Members of Lok Sabha in theirSecond Report on Various Facets of Misconduct and Basic Attributes of Standardsof Conduct/Behaviour Expected of Members while recommending code of conductfor members of Lok Sabha also dwelt upon the issue of Registrable interest, conflictof interest and private interest of members.

Involvement in Cases of Corruption

Conduct of members involving corruption in the execution of their office asmembers is treated by the House as a breach of privilege. Thus, the acceptance byany member of a bribe to influence him in his conduct as such member or of any fee,compensation or reward in connection with the promotion of, or opposition to anyBill, resolution, matter or thing submitted or intended to be submitted to the Houseor any Committee thereof is a breach of privilege. It would also be a breach ofprivilege or misconduct on the part of a member to enter into an agreement with

80. Rule 255(0).81. Dir. 52A.

In 1978, a member of the Committee on Public Undertakings wrote to the Speaker that he wasthe Chairman and Managing Director of a private company that had dealings from time to timewith some public undertakings that were under examination by the Committee. Speaker directedthat the member should be asked to keep out of the deliberations of the Committee at all stagesof examination of those public undertakings. He also directed that papers and material relating tothose undertakings should not be circulated to the member.

During the Seventh Lok Sabha, a question of privilege regarding alleged assault on a memberwas referred to the Committee of Privileges of which he himself was a member. When this factwas pointed out at a sitting of the Committee, Speaker directed that the member should be keptout of the deliberations of the Committee at all stages of the examination of the matter and thatpapers and material relating to the matter should not be circulated to him.

82. The Committee took a view that transparency in respect of members assets, private holdings,interests and acceptance of gift and hospitality by members could go a long way in enhancingmembers dignity and dispelling false public perceptions, and hence the imperativeness of financialdisclosures by members. For achieving this objective, the Committee made several recommendations,the most important among them being a mandatory requirement for each member of Lok Sabhato disclose his/her income, assets and liabilities.


another person, for a sum of money, to advocate and prosecute in the House theclaims of such person83.

An ad hoc Committee of the House was appointed by the ProvisionalParliament in 1951, to investigate the conduct and activities of a member,H.G. Mudgal, in connection with some of his dealings with a businessassociation which included canvassing support and making propaganda inParliament on certain problems on behalf of that association in return foralleged financial and other business advantages. The Committee was directedby the House to consider whether the conduct of the member concerned wasderogatory to the dignity of the House and inconsistent with the standardswhich Parliament is entitled to expect from members84.

A motion for the appointment of the Committee was adopted85 in theHouse on 8 June 1951. The motion was moved by the Prime Minister (Leaderof the House). It was drawn up in comprehensive terms and provided for thewhole apparatus of the working of the Committee. The residuary powerswere delegated to the Speaker so that the work of the Committee might notbe delayed for any technical, nevertheless, important requirements.

The Committee consisted of five members86. The quorum of theCommittee was fixed at three. The Committee was empowered to hear and/or to receive evidence, oral or documentary, connected with the mattersreferred to it, or relevant to the subject-matter of the inquiry. The Committeewas further empowered to hear or receive evidence in Bombay or any otherplace in India as the Speaker might decide. The Committee was given thediscretion to treat any evidence tendered before it as secret or confidential.The member concerned was given leave to be heard before the Committeeby himself or by counsel, if he thought fit, and the Committee could hear acounsel to such extent as thought fit, on behalf of any other person.

The Speaker was authorised to issue, from time to time, such directions to theChairman of the Committee, as he thought necessary, for regulating the procedure andorganisation of the work of the Committee. (Several directives were issued by theSpeaker to the Chairman in this connection.)

All these matters were provided for in the motion itself.

The case before the Committee was opened by the Attorney-General. Hesummarised the material which had already been presented to the Committee. TheAttorney-General gave an impartial picture of the whole case. He formulated finallythe question to which the Committee might address itself.

83. Report of Committee on the Conduct of a Member (The Mudgal Case, 1951). 84.84. P. Deb. (11), 8-6-1951, cc. 10464-65.85. Ibid.86. The names of the Chairman and members of the Committee were mentioned in the motion itself.

The members, known for their judicial temperament and possessing legal or parliamentaryexperience, were drawn from all sections of opinion in the House.


After the evidence was completed, a draft report of the Committee was preparedby the Secretariat of the Committee on the basis of the evidence and the decisionsarrived at. After approval by the Chairman, the draft report was considered andadopted by the Committee. The report was then submitted to the Speaker by theChairman and thereafter presented to the House on the scheduled date mentioned inthe motion appointing the Committee. The Committee found the member guilty ofreceiving monetary benefits for putting of Question in Parliament, moving amendmentsto the Forward Contracts (Regulation) Bill and arranging interviews with Ministers,etc87. In its report, the Committee held that the conduct of H.G. Mudgal was derogatoryto the dignity of the House and inconsistent with the standards which Parliament wasentitled to expect of its members.

The report was then considered by the House on a motion moved by thePrime Minister on 24 September 1951. The Committee had recommended the expulsionof the member from the House. The member, after participating in the debate, submittedhis resignation from the membership of the House. In a resolution, the House acceptedthe findings of the Committee and deprecated the attempt of the member to circumventthe effects of the motion expelling him from the House, by his resignation, whichconstituted contempt of the House and aggravated his offence88.

In another case, a question was raised in the House about the alleged sale, bysome members, of cars allotted to them from the Union Government quota incontravention of the statutory orders governing such allotment, with a demand that acommittee of inquiry be set up to investigate the matter. The Prime Minister made astatement in the House to the effect that one member had pleaded guilty before thecourt which imposed a fine on him. The member did not file any appeal against hisconviction and also apologised to the House for his departure from standards ofrectitude expected of him as a member of Parliament. He was exonerated by theHouse. As the matter in the other cases was pending decision in the court, the Housedecided to await the verdict of the Court89.

In this case, since the member had admitted his guilt, no need was felt to gointo the matter further. In the Mudgal Case, the member had pleaded not guilty to thealleged charge and a Committee of the House was appointed to investigate the matter.

The acceptance by a member of a fee, compensation, gift or reward for drafting,advising upon any Bill, petition or other document submitted or intended to be submittedto the House or any Committee thereof would also be a breach of privilege.

The acceptance of payment by members for the disclosure of confidentialinformation relating to proceedings of private party meetings, while not held to be abreach of privilege or contempt, has been held to be a dishonourable conduct deservingto be severely punished, as tending to lower the dignity of the House in the estimationof the people.

87. See Subhash C. Kashyap: The Ministers and the Legislators, Metropolitan, New Delhi, 1982,pp. 46-47.

88. P. Deb., 24-9-1951, c. 3202; 25-9-1951, c. 3298.89. L.S. Deb., 25-3-1968, cc. 3027-29.


Any undesirable, undignified and unbecoming conduct on the part of the member,and neglect or breaches of duty by members in the execution of their office asmembers, and cognate offences may also be treated by the House as misconduct.

On 18 February 1963, five members of Parliament created disorder atthe time of the Presidents Address to both Houses of Parliament assembledtogether under article 87. The same day, when Lok Sabha met separately, itwas decided to appoint an ad hoc Committee to investigate the conduct ofthese five members in connection with the disorder created by them andto consider and report whether such conduct of the said members wascontrary to the usage or derogatory to the dignity of the occasion orinconsistent with the standards which Parliament is entitled to expect fromits members and to make such recommendations as the Committee maydeem fit. The Committee was appointed by the Speaker in terms of anannouncement made by him in the House on 19 February 196390.

The Committee consisted of 15 members nominated by the Speaker.The Deputy Speaker, who was a member of the Committee, was appointedthe Chairman of the Committee. The Committee was required to make areport to the House by a fixed date91. In other respects, the Rules of Procedureof the House relating to Parliamentary Committees were made applicable tothe Committee with such variations and modifications as the Speaker mightmake.

The Committee desired that the correspondence between the membersinvolved in the incident and the President and the Prime Minister be madeavailable for its perusal. Copies of the relevant correspondence wereaccordingly furnished by the Presidents Secretariat and the Prime MinistersSecretariat and perused by the Committee.

The Committee provided an opportunity to the members involved inthe incident to appear before it to explain their position. Written statementswere also submitted by three of the members involved. A verbatim record ofthe evidence taken before the Committee was kept and appended to thereport of the Committee.

A memorandum setting out the facts of the case, the constitutionalposition and the practice and precedents, including those relating to theHouse of Commons, U.K., was prepared and circulated to the members ofthe Committee for consideration.

After the evidence was completed and the Committee had arrived attheir conclusions, a draft report of the Committee was prepared by theSecretariat of the Committee and considered and adopted by the Committee.

90. Ibid., 18-2-1963, cc. 2-10; 19-2-1963, cc. 173-74.See in this connection Chapter XPresidents Address, Messages and Communications to theHouse.

91. The time for the presentation of the report was extended by the Speaker on a request made by theCommittee.L.S. Deb., 2-3-1963.


The report was considered by the House on a motion moved by theChairman of the Committee for agreeing with the recommendations of theCommittee in regard to the action to be taken against the members involvedin the incident. The motion was adopted by the House after the membersinvolved in the incident had made statements before the House in theirdefence. The Speaker then reprimanded three of the members involved in theincident, as recommended by the Committee92.

During the Fourteenth Lok Sabha in the wake of some incidents of misconductby members, even though Committee on Ethics was in existence, the Speaker constitutedseparate ad hoc Inquiry Committees to inquire into the matters and submit theirReports to the Speaker within a stipulated time frame.

On 12 December 2005, a private television channel in its news bulletin carriedvideo footage showing some members of Parliament allegedly accepting money fortabling questions and raising other matters in the House.

On the same day, the Speaker made an observation requesting the memberswhose names had appeared in the video footage not to attend the session of the Houseuntil the matter was looked into and a decision was taken and appointed a fivemember Inquiry Committee with the direction to give its report by 21 December2005. The Committee was authorized to follow its own procedure.

After taking the evidence of all the ten members and considering their writtenstatements and also viewing the video footage, the Committee in their Report93recommended that the House might consider expulsion of all ten members from themembership of the Fourteenth Lok Sabha. A motion moved by the Leader of theHouse was adopted by the House on 23 December 2005 expelling the ten membersfrom the membership of Lok Sabha.

On 19 December 2005 another private channel, in a programme showed somemembers of Lok Sabha allegedly indulging in improper conduct in the matter ofimplementation of Members of Parliament Local Area Development Scheme. On

92. L.S. Deb., 19-3-1964, cc. 4701-90. The Committee had taken a lenient view about the action ofthe other two members and had only expressed disapproval of their conduct.

On 28 February 1968, two members were reprimanded by the Speaker for having createdobstruction and shown disrespect to the President at the time of his address to both the Housesof Parliament assembled together under article 87 on 12 February 1968 L.S. Deb., 28-2-1968,cc. 482-88.

On 2 April 1971, the House decided to constitute a Committee to go into the matter of allegedcreation of obstruction and showing disrespect to the President by a member of the House, on theoccasion of the Presidents Address to both the Houses of Parliament assembled together underarticle 87L.S. Deb., 2-4-1971, cc. 188-233, 239-46 and 271-72. The Committee constituted bythe Speaker on 5 April 1971, in pursuance of the aforesaid decision, presented its first report tothe House on 15 November 1971.

On 14 April 1972, the Committee presented its second report on the guidelines for maintenanceof order, dignity and decorum on the occasion of the Presidents Address to members of Parliamentunder articles 86 and 87 of the Constitution.

93. Report of Committee to Inquire into Allegations of Improper Conduct on the Part of SomeMembers of Lok Sabha.


20 December 2005 when the House met, the Speaker made an observation in theHouse requesting the members who were alleged to be involved in the matter not toattend the sittings of the House until the matter was looked into and a decision taken.On the same day, the Speaker made another observation in the House constituting anInquiry Committee to probe the matter. A seven member Committee was accordinglyconstituted by the Speaker. The Committee was required to give its report by31 January 2006.

After taking the evidence of all the five concerned members and consideringtheir written statements and also viewing the video footage, the Committee in theirReport94 observed that improper conduct, on the part of four members (one of the fivemembers already having been expelled from the House) did not strictly speakingrelate to their parliamentary duties and none of them was actually shown as acceptingmoney. The Committee recommended that the members be reprimanded and that theperiod of abstention from the sittings of the House and the Committees by all the fourmembers from 20 December 2005 till 22 March 2006 may be deemed to be theirsuspension from the membership of the House. The Report was adopted by the Houseon a motion moved by the leader of the House on 20 March 2006.

In a matter pertaining to a complaint against a member for unethical behaviourinvolving misuse of Car Parking Label issued to him, the Committee on Ethics intheir Second Report which was laid on the Table of the House, on 25 August 2006,recommended that in view of the fact that there was no mala-fide intent on the partof the member and considering the clarification given by him and apology tenderedby him, the matter may be treated as closed.

In yet another instance in the wake of arrest of a member (Babubhai K. Katara)for trying to illegally take two persons (one woman and a boy) abroad on the passportof his wife and his son, Speaker Lok Sabha on 16 May 2007 constituted a Committeeto inquire into misconduct of members of Lok Sabha. The Committee had a broadremit to look into all aspects of the misconduct of the members.

On 21 May 2007, the Speaker, Lok Sabha, while referring the matter of theCommittee to inquire into Misconduct of Members of Lok Sabha, passed the followingorder

The matter arising out of the arrest of Shri Babubhai K. Katara, MP foralleged offences under the provisions of the Indian Penal Code and thePassport Act is referred to the Committee, subject to the result of the pendinginvestigation and proceedings, if any, arising thereon in any competent Courtof Law and the decision given by such Court. The Committee is requestedto please take note of the fact that the Lok Sabha cannot interfere with thepending investigations and proceedings and may not take a decision whichwill impinge on the pending investigation and proceedings, if any. Further,it may be taken note of that the concerned MP is now in custody andobviously cannot take part in any proceedings before the Committee. In viewof the above, the Committee may please take such decision as it may think

94. Report of Committee to Inquire into Allegations of Improper Conduct on the Part of SomeMembers in the Matter of Implementation of MPLAD Scheme.


fit and proper, subject to the observations made in the House on 16 May2007 regarding the procedure to be adopted.

The Inquiry Committee accordingly decided to take up the matter and if andwhen the member is released on bail.

In the meantime, a case relating to allegations against another member (RajeshKumar Manjhi) was referred to the Inquiry Committee on 18 May 2007. The Committeein their First Report95, which was presented to the House on 23 August 2007, foundthat a member had taken another woman on official tour by personating her as hiswife. The Committee recommended that the member may be reprimanded by theHouse and also be suspended for thirty sittings of the House. The Committee alsorecommended that the said member might be restrained from taking his spouse orcompanion on official tours till the conclusion of Fourteenth Lok Sabha. The Reportof the Committee was adopted by the House on 30 August 2007.

The Inquiry Committee took up the matter regarding Babubhai K. Katara afterhis release on bail in May 2008. The Committee after due consideration in their ThirdReport, which was presented to the Speaker on 10 September 2008 and Laid on theTable of the House on 20 October 2008, held that Babubhai K. Katara had committeda grave act of misconduct as well as contempt of the Committee and of the Housewhich had threatened to erode the creditability of Parliament as an institution. TheCommittee accordingly recommended that he be expelled from the membership of theHouse. On 21 October 2008, the House adopted a motion expelling the member.

Subsequently in yet another incident on 22 July 2008 during the debate on theMotion of Confidence in the Council of Ministers, three members (Ashok Argal,Faggan Singh Kulaste and Mahavir Bhagora) came to the well of the House with twobags. The members took out wads of currency notes from the bags with them andstarted placing the same on the Table of the House. Amidst pandemonium, the DeputySpeaker, who was in the Chair, adjourned the House. In a meeting of Leaders ofPolitical Parties held immediately thereafter in the Speakers Chamber, the Speakerdirected the three members to give a written statement, so that, appropriate actioncould be initiated. Thereafter, when the House met at 18:00 hours, Speaker made thefollowing observation:

Hon. Members.. some time back, when my distinguished colleague,hon. Deputy Speaker was presiding over the proceedings of the House, certainincidents have taken place, which according to me, are most unfortunate. Itis a very sad day in the history of Parliament that such a situation hashappened. Thereafter, I called a meeting of the hon. Leaders. I am gratefulto the hon. Leader of Opposition. He was very kindly present also.

We have heard the three hon. Members of the House. They had somecomplaints to make. I had requested them to put their complaints in writingto me. I assured them, I assured the leader and I assure the House that allpossible steps that are required in that connection will be taken by me as acustodian of this House. It is my duty to do that and I seek the cooperationof all section of the House.

Please allow me to apply my judgment, look into the matter, and I canassure you, nobody will be spared if found guilty.

95. First Report of Committee to Inquire into Misconduct of Members of Lok Sabha.


On 25 July 2008, the above members gave their joint written complaint in thematter. On 26 July 2008, the Speaker, Lok Sabha appointed an Inquiry Committee toinquire into the matter. Accordingly, on 26 July 2008, the Speaker constituted a sevenmember Inquiry Committee viz. the Committee to inquire into the complaint made bysome members regarding alleged offer of money to them in connection with voting onthe Motion of Confidence. The Committee presented their report to the Speaker on 12November 2008. The report of the Committee was laid on the Table of the House on 15December 2008. The Committee in their report after taking into account their findingsand conclusions, particularly the roles of three witnesses, recommended96 that the mattermay be probed further by an appropriate investigating agency. The Committee furtherrecommended that the procedure for requiring appearance of member of one Housebefore other House or Committee thereof, as recommended by the Committee ofPrivileges (Second Lok Sabha) in their Sixth Report in 1958, needs to be reviewed tobring at par with the position as is obtaining now in Parliament of United Kingdom.

Other instances of this type of misconduct are: (i) giving of evidence by amember in a court of law in relation to any debates or proceedings in the House orany Committee thereof, without the leave of the House of which he is a member97;and (ii) attending as a witness before the other House or any Committee thereofwithout the leave of the House of which he is a member98.

Complaints made by a person against members of Parliament in regard to theirconduct as private individuals or complaints which allege professional misconduct arelooked into and disposed of by the Speaker99.

Procedure for Inquiry into Conduct of a Member

Anyone who has a reasonable belief that a member has acted in a mannerwhich, in his opinion, is inconsistent with the dignity of the House or the standard

96. On 16 December 2008, Speaker, Lok Sabha, made an observation in the House referring thematter to the Minister of Home Affairs for initiating appropriate action in the light ofrecommendation made by the Committee. He inter alia observed the currency notes which werebrought to and displayed in the House by the three members are presently kept in the custody ofthe Secretary-General. As this money may be required for the purpose of investigation, if any,as suggested by the Committee, it will be retained by the Secretary-General for one month, afterwhich if no request is received for the purpose of investigation, it will be deposited with theGovernment as unclaimed money. (L.S. Deb., 16.12.2008.). On 17 December 2008, D.O. letterfrom Secretary-General, Lok Sabha was sent to Secretary, Ministry of Home Affairs with a requestthat the matter may be placed before the Minister of Home Affairs for such action as might beappropriate in the matter. A copy each of draft report and relevant extracts from Lok SabhaDebates dated 16 December 2008, comprising observations made by the Speaker were enclosedwith the DO Letter. Subsequently, a communication dated 20 January 2009 addressed to Secretary-General by the Home Secretary, Ministry of Home Affairs was received wherein it was intimatedthat it had been decided with the approval of Minister of Home Affairs that the matter may beentrusted to Delhi Police for further probe. As regards the currency notes, a request had been madethat the same may be retained for some more time and the Commissioner of Police, Delhi wouldget in touch with Lok Sabha Secretariat in this regard. Eventually the currency notes and relevantmaterial were handed over to concerned ACP/Inter State Cell, Crime Branch, Delhi Police on29 January 2009.

97. L.S. Deb., 13-9-1957, cc. 13760-63.98. 3R (CPR-2LS); L.S. Deb., 25-4-1958, cc. 11497-98; 6R (CPR-2LS); L.S. Deb.,17-12-1958,

cc. 5696-5700; and Case of Liladhar Kotoki, L.S. Deb., 19-12-1958, c. 6394.99. Dir. 95. The Speaker disposes of such complaints by either discussing the matter with the member

concerned or by requiring him to finish facts in regard to the complaints.


expected of a member of Parliament, may inform the Speaker or the Leader of theHouse about it. The person making such an allegation is required first to make sureof his facts and base them on such authentic evidence, documentary or circumstantial,as he may have. He has to be careful in sifting and arranging facts because, if theallegations are proved to be frivolous, worthless or based on personal jealousy oranimosity, directly or indirectly, he will himself be liable to a charge of breach ofprivilege of the House. Therefore, it is of the utmost importance that allegations arebased on solid, tested and checked facts.

When information regarding the alleged misconduct on the part of a member isreceived, the usual practice is that the Prime Minister examines the statement ofcharges and such further information as the Prime Minister may call for and if he issatisfied that the matter should be proceeded with, he gives a full and fair opportunityto the member to state his own version of the case to disprove the allegations againsthim and to place before the Prime Minister such information as may assist him tocome to a conclusion. After the members explanation, oral or written, is received bythe Prime Minister, he sifts the evidence critically. If the member has given adequateexplanation and it is found that there is nothing improper in his conduct and he hascleared all the doubts, the matter may be dropped and the member exonerated. If thePrime Minister considers that a statement to that effect should be made in the House,he may do so. If, however, on the basis of the explanation given by the member andthe evidence, it is proposed by the Prime Minister and held by the Speaker that thereis a prima facie case for further investigation, the matter is brought before the Houseon a motion for the appointment of a Parliamentary Committee to investigate thespecific matter and to report to the House by the specified date.

However, if in the course of preliminary investigation it is found that the personmaking the allegations has supplied incorrect facts or tried to bring discredit to thename of the member willfully or through carelessness, he is deemed to be guilty ofa breach of privilege of the House100.

Ethical PrinciplesThe Committee of Privileges (Eleventh Lok Sabha), in their Report on ethics

related matters, took a considered view101 that ethical principles are well applicableto elections to Legislatures which are pivotal in any democracy.

The Committee, in their Report, also made various recommendations on matterspertaining to members involvement in the Members of Parliament Local AreaDevelopment Scheme and other welfare schemes and official dealings between themembers and the administration and the guidelines issued in this respect.100. Speakers Ruling, L.S. Deb., 31-5-1967.

For the Prime Ministers statements on Arjun Aroras allegations against two Ministers, seeL.S. Deb., 30-5-1967 and 20-6-1967.

101. The Committee were of the view that as stakes are high at all elections to Legislatures, thedetermination or rather the desperation of the candidates as well as the political parties sponsoringtheir candidature, has, of late, led to electoral malpractices, as for instance, misuse of moneypower during elections and criminalisation of politics. Such a state of affairs tends to negate thevery credibility of democratic institutions which hinges by and large upon free and fair electionsto the Legislatures. The Committee, therefore, accordingly touched upon these aspects and cameup with certain recommendations on electoral expenses, criminalisation of politics and the Anti-Defection Law.

conduct of members

Documents