Dress code, debating etiquette and the Speaker's authority in Parliamentary democracy
- Preserving decorum -

Y Devendro *

Assembly Building in March 2017 :: Pix - DIPR Manipur

In a Parliamentary democracy, maintaining decorum through appropriate dress and structured debates is vital and indispensable. The dress code for members during sessions, is typically formal and professional, reflecting respect for the legislative body. While specific requirements can vary from country to country and Parliamentary traditions, general guidelines are usually followed.

Members are generally expected to wear formal business attire, such as suits and ties for men, and equivalent formal wears like suits, dresses, or skirts and blouses for women. Some Parliaments allow traditional or cultural attire, provided that it adheres to the formality of the occasion.

Building on observation from the past numerous sessions of legislative bodies in a Parliamentary system of democracy, the daily casual attires - such as Jeans, T-shirts, and Sneakers, are normally to be avoided by the members while attending the sittings of the august House. In the context of the Indian Parliament, there are no specific rules provided for the dress code of members.

However, in the context of Lok Sabha and State Legislative Assembly of Manipur, it is pertinent to note that there are certain rules that need to be observed by the members while the House is in sitting; and while a member is speaking and answering questions in the House. These are provided under Rule Nos. 349 & 352 and 323 & 326(2) of the Rules of Procedure and Conduct of Business respectively.

Moreover, it is also important to note that while the House is in sitting, members are not permitted to wear or display badges of any kind in the House, except for the National Flag in the form of a lapel pin or badge, as per Rule No. 349(xiv) of the Rules of Procedure and Conduct of Business in Lok Sabha.

Similarly, Rule No. 323(xvii) of the Rules of Procedure and Conduct of Business in the Manipur Legislative Assembly states that a member shall not wear or display badges of any kind in the House. Additionally, officials involved in security forces or holding ceremonial roles might wear official uniforms during specific events.

The Speaker, or presiding officer of the House, holds the authority to enforce dress codes during sessions. If a member's attire is deemed inappropriate, the Speaker can request for adherence to the decorum and discipline expected by the House, according to established guidelines and Constitutional ethics, before participating in debates.

And also, members reserve the right to express their observations within the House, subject to prior approval from the Speaker, for any inappropriate attire seen during the debate of the House.Many parliaments provide written guidelines on dress codes, allowing for adjustments based on weather conditions.

For instance, ties may not be required during hot periods, and members may wear specific pins or ribbons for particular causes, as long as they adhere to standards of decorum. The Speaker is the guardian and custodian of the House, including matters related to its operations and maintaining its dignity through dress codes and by its ways of conducting debate.

His authority in Parliamentary democracy is central to the effective functioning of the legislative process. He is not only responsible for ensuring order during debates but also for upholding the rules and traditions that guide the parliamentary procedure. This includes the enforcement of the dress code and the management of debates, as well as the maintenance of the dignity and decorum in the House.

The authority of the Speaker is derived from both the constitution and parliamentary traditions, symbolising impartiality and integrity at the heart of parliamentary proceedings. As such, the Speaker's decisions, whether pertaining to dress code or conduct of debate, are expected to be respected by all members thereby ensuring the conduct of Parliamentary processes.

In a Parliamentary democracy, the "debate of a House" involves formal discussions among members on various issues, policies, Bills, and motions. Debates are fundamental to the legislative process, allowing members to express views, scrutinise government actions, and hold the Government accountable. They help discuss proposed laws, review policies, address national or constituency issues, permitting members to voice support or opposition and suggest amendments.

However, debates are governed by certain rules and procedures so as to ensure orderly discussion, including time limits for speeches and order of speaking. Members prepare by researching topics and collaborating with colleagues. Topics may vary from routine budgetary issues to emergency sessions, and the record of debates conducted are considered the property of the House.

The Speaker officiates and oversees debates, ensuring fairness and adherence to established rules. As the custodian of the House's procedures, the Speaker maintains order and impartiality, facilitating dialogue between Government and Opposition. The Speaker decides who may speak by recognising members, managing requests, and ensuring balanced participation.

The power to enforce rules, manage time allocations, and disciplining disruptive members resides with the Speaker. Members need the Speaker's permission to participate in debates, with speaking time typically allocated based on size of party representation and relevance to the topic concerned. Members can raise points of order if they believe rules are being violated, though these should be addressed promptly and respectfully.

More importantly, the Speaker's unbiased decision on the deliberation underscores the integrity and proper functioning of Parliamentary debates. Challenges to the Speaker's authority often spark significant debate, and such challenges can lead to broader discussions about the balance of power within the Parliamentary system.

When members question or challenge the Speaker's decisions, it may be perceived as undermining the institution's stability and authority. This is because the Speaker acts as an impartial arbiter whose role is to ensure that Parliamentary procedures are conducted fairly and without bias.

For instance, when the Speaker's decision regarding dress code or debate participation is challenged, it can lead to a broader questioning of Speaker's authority. This not only disrupts the immediate proceedings but can also set an undesirable precedent that may affect future interactions between members and the Speaker.

In essence, while debate is a healthy part of the democratic process, questioning the Speaker's authority can, if not handled delicately within the rules, threaten the overall functioning of the Parliamentary system. It is worthwhile to state that the entire proceeding of a completed debate is considered the property of the House, underlining the Speaker's role as both its guardian and its custodian.

A significant historical antecedent of note was when the Third Report of the Committee of Privileges was considered for adoption by the House on 12 December 1978, the then Speaker of the Lok Sabha clarified, "A motion only when moved becomes the property of the House." Therefore, a proceeding of a debate of the House which was completed shall be the property of the House.

In fact, criticising or questioning a member's attire once approved by the Speaker challenges the Speaker's authority and the dignity of the House. In Indian Parliamentary democracy, the Speaker's prestige and authority are well-recognised. The Speaker symbolises the House's dignity and liberty, reflecting the Nation's democratic and cultural values.

Jawaharlal Nehru highlighted that the Speaker represents the House and embodies dignity and freedom, making it vital that this position is to be held by individuals of exceptional ability and sound judgement. Erskine May also in his book, "Treatise on The Law, Privileges, Proceedings and Usage of Parliament" asserted that "The chief characteristics attaching to the office of Speaker in the House of Commons are authority and impartiality. ... Reflections upon the character or actions of the Speaker may be punished as breaches of privilege. ... Confidence in the impartiality of the Speaker is an indispensable condition of the successful working of procedure..." (p. 58, 25th Edition).

Similarly, MN Kaul and SL Shakdher, in "Practice and Procedure of Parliament," state, "Office of the Speaker, Lok Sabha, is a Constitutional office and enjoys exalted status in our democratic setup. ... Hence, reflections on the character or impartiality of the Speaker in discharge of his duties as the Speaker of the House had been held to constitute a breach of privilege and contempt of the House." (p. 306, 7th Edition).

In 2005, a notable incident exemplified important principle when Dr Subhash C Kashyap was admonished for questioning the Speaker's decision, illustrating the seriousness of undermining his authority. The motion, which pertained to the Third Report of the Committee of Privileges, was moved by the then Defence Minister, Shri Pranab Mukherjee, who later became the President of India.

He observed: " ... This is an unfortunate Motion because a person holding a very responsible position could reflect on the highest Office of the Speaker. This has never happened. It is unprecedented. Therefore, we have no option but to discharge this painful duty." The resolution moved by Shri Pranab Muldierjee, adopted by the House, which admonished Dr Kashyap for criticising the Speaker's impartiality.

This action reinforced the Speaker's essential role and authority by recognising Dr Kashyap's comments as a breach of privilege and contempt of the House. Such challenges also illuminate the delicate balance between free expression and procedural integrity within a Parliamentary democracy. While members have the right to express dissent and engage in robust debate, they are also bound by the rules and conventions that define the parliamentary system.

The Speaker's role in adjudicating between these sometimes-competing interests is critical. A failure to uphold the Speaker's authority can lead to disorder and may even result in breach of privilege, thereby impacting the House's ability to perform its Parliamentary functions effectively.

Therefore, while it is important for parliamentary systems to accommodate diverse viewpoints, respect for the Speaker's authority remains essential to maintaining order and the integrity of parliamentary democracy. In conclusion, in a parliamentary system of democracy, adherence to dress codes and structured debates is vital for maintaining the decorum and discipline of the House.

The Speaker's role as the guardian and custodian of the House ensures that these elements reinforce the democracy's sustenance and functions. According to Parliamentary norms and traditions, questioning or challenging the attires, procedures, or proceedings of the debate -once permitted or validated by the Speaker or Presiding Officer - undermines the institution's authority and should be avoided to maintain the dignity and sanctity of the House. Such actions might be treated as a breach of privilege and contempt of the House, either individually or collectively.