While replying to the motion of thanks on the address made by the Governor in the Tamil Nadu legislative Assembly, Chief Minister C Joseph Vijay apparently made some gestures and also quoted from a film song. This had given rise to a wider debate as to whether the gestures made by him and quoting the film song would amount to violation of the house tradition and privilege.
The powers, privileges of the House of Parliament and of its members were set out under Article 105 of the Constitution. Similar privileges and powers were extended to the State legislatures and its members were set out under Article 194.
In Article 105(3), the Constituent Assembly stipulated that the house privileges will have to be framed by the Parliament and until so defined, shall be those of the House of Commons of the Parliament of the United Kingdom, and of its members and committees, and at the commencement of this Constitution. Similar stipulation was there in respect of the legislature under Article 194(3) also.
It was rather anomalous that in a new republican constitution, the privileges of its own legislative bodies will have to borrow from the UK House of Commons, our colonisers. Even after 25 years of the Constitution, this position remained until someone realised that it was an awkward situation.
Promptly, amendments were made to Articles 105(3) and 194(3) by which the references to the UK House of Commons were deleted from our Constitution. The native wisdom will be reflected in the 44th amendment made to the Constitution (1979) by which the references to the privileges of a foreign Parliament was removed and it was substituted as follows:-
“...shall be those of that House and of its members and Committees immediately before the coming into force of Section 26 of the Constitution (Forty-fourth Amendment) Act, 1978…” Instead of defining the privileges and powers of the members, the Parliament, by inserting the above clause, has only reiterated the status quo, which means we continue to rely on the powers and privileges of the House of Commons even today.
The Supreme Court commenting on the lack of definition observed: “So long as Parliament does not crystallise the legal position by its own legislation, the privileges, powers and immunities of a House of a State Legislature or Parliament or of its members are the same as those of the House of Commons. There is no absolute privilege attached to the publication of extracts from proceedings in the House of Commons. So far as a member of the House of Commons is concerned, he has an absolute privilege in respect of what he has spoken within the four walls of the House, but there is only a qualified privilege in his favour even in respect of what he has himself said in the House, if he causes the same to be published in the public Press.” (Jatish Chandra Ghosh, 1961)
In the absence of any such clear definition, what a member does, including a CM in the House is largely left to the previous precedents or the good judgment of the Speaker. After the speech made by the CM Vijay, Speaker JCD Prabakar did not delete any part of the speech nor did he take objection to the gestures he made during the speech.
It was widely commented that the CM has brought a film shooting in the House and degraded it by quoting a film song. These commentators never quoted any House privilege, which is widely documented in his book on parliamentary privileges by Erskine May. On the other hand, how some of the DMK and AIADMK members spoke in the House of States (Rajya Sabha) in the past will be worth referring to.
In 1969, Indira Gandhi wanted to capture the leadership of the Congress party, which had virtually split into two factions. To gain the support of the Left parties, she nationalised 14 private banks and also attempted to abolish privy purses to the old princes whose states were merged with the Indian union. This led to amendment of the Constitution in order to get over the court verdict.
The 24th and 25th amendments in 1972 became a subject matter of intensive discussion on property rights and also the need for a socialist charter.
The leader of the House in Rajya Sabha Thillai Villalan (1968-1976) was given an opportunity to speak supporting the motion, as the DMK was supporting Gandhi. Instead of speaking on the legal nuances of the issue, he began attacking the old Congress and resorted to his style for rhymes.
Villalan said that the Congress party had been made symbolless, later became faceless and soon, they would become nameless. When the Deputy Chairman of the House reminded him of the lack of seriousness, he narrated a story of a Tamilian going to a Kannada wedding. During the feast, when someone serving the food asked the Tamil guest whether he wanted more in Kannada – bekka and has he had enough – saaka – in true Tamilian spirit, he requested for ‘saakkula rendu, bekkula rendu’. After this, and unable to contain his speech further, the Deputy Chairman switched off the mike.
It was not the only issue of blabbering in the House. It may not be out of the place to quote Navaneetha Krishanan (2014-2022), who was the AIADMK party leader in Rajya Sabha, who was called upon to speak on the issue of special status to Jammu & Kashmir.
After holding on to the mike, he started singing a song from a MGR film which went on like this “Kashmir Beautiful Kashmir, Kashmir wonderful Kashmir” (Idhaya Veenai, 1972). He continued to sing the full song and on seeing the members amused, the Chairman of the House attempted to stop him.
However, he continued to explain how TN was producing beautiful children by the mothers taking the saffron flower during their pregnancy and thanked J&K state for their supply.
Ultimately, House privileges are not determined outside the House. And, no matter how anyone may attempt to denigrate any speech or gesture, are oblivious that the Houses (both Parliament and Legislatures) have never defined House privileges till date and still relying upon the privileges of a foreign parliament.
Today, whether Chief Minister Vijay was within his bounds, one has to look into the bound volume of May’s parliamentary privileges and not look for guidance from WhatsApp universities.
- The writer is a former judge of the Madras High Court