The procedural mandates under Articles 118 and 208
An in-depth exploration of Indian legislatures

Y Devendro Singh *

Assembly building at Chingmeirong, Imphal in February 2013 :: Pix - Bullu Raj

The Indian Constitution, a comprehensive document that outlines the structure and functioning of the nation’s democratic framework, includes enabling articles that empower legislative bodies to regulate their internal procedures.

Among these, Articles 118 and 208 stand out, providing the foundation for the procedural rules of Parliament and State Legislatures, respectively. Article 118 allows each House of Parliament to establish its own rules for managing its affairs, while Article 208 grants similar autonomy to the State Legislatures.

Violations of these articles typically arise when established procedures and rules are disregarded during legislative activities. Although specific instances of violations might not be exhaustively documented as such, controversies and disputes often emerge concerning the procedures, rules, and conduct within legislative bodies.

The rules outlined by Parliament and State Legislatures are authoritative directives, guiding the conduct of business within these institutions. Compliance with these rules is expected from all members and authorities involved.

The enforcement of procedural rules primarily falls within the purview of the Speaker of the Lok Sabha and State Assemblies or the Chairman of the Rajya Sabha and State Legislative Councils. These officials bear the crucial responsibility of ensuring adherence to rules during legislative processes.

When a member or authority violates these procedures, rules, or conducts, various consequences may ensue, including admonitions, reprimands, removal from sessions, fines, expulsion of a member, or imprisonment - whose term is at the pleasure of the House but cannot extend beyond prorogation or dissolution - or any other punishment deemed appropriate by the House, in accordance with the provisions of Article 105 for Parliament and Article 194 for State Legislatures, respectively, as determined by the concerned presiding officer.

Procedural matters within the legislature typically enjoy parliamentary privilege, which exempts them from judicial review. This privilege helps preserve the separation of powers by preventing judicial interference in the internal workings of the legislature. Breaches or disputes concerning procedural rule violations are often addressed internally through mechanisms like points of order, censure motions, or internal investigations.

While it is theoretically possible for procedural rules under Articles 118 and 208 to be violated, legislative bodies are equipped with mechanisms and authorities to prevent, address, and manage such violations. These efforts uphold the integrity and functionality of the legislative process within a parliamentary democracy.

In a democratic society like India, individuals have the general right to publicly express their opinions, a right protected under Article 19(1)(a) of the Constitution. Consequently, Members of Parliament or Legislatures can express views about the constitutional consistency of certain rules. However, this freedom is subject to reasonable restrictions, including those related to defamation, contempt of court, and maintaining public order.

Members are expected to respect the privileges and rules of their respective Houses. Criticizing the procedures or rules outside formal settings, such as press conferences, may bypass internal mechanisms designed to address these issues.

Ideally, if a member believes a rule is inconsistent with the Constitution, they should first utilize internal mechanisms available within the House. This may involve raising questions, participating in debates, or proposing amendments in accordance with House rules.

Should a rule enacted under Articles 118 or 208 be perceived as unconstitutional, it may be challenged through the judicial system. The judiciary holds the authority to evaluate and potentially invalidate such rules if they conflict with constitutional provisions, thereby ensuring constitutional compliance.

In summary, while democratic rights allow public expression of concerns, it is often more effective and respectful of parliamentary processes to use established internal avenues and legal mechanisms to address perceived inconsistencies or wrongs.

The debate over rules framed under Articles 118 and 208 has been a focal point of academic analysis and commentary by several authors. Although specific instances of authors directly addressing press conferences challenging rules may be limited, broader discussions of parliamentary privileges, freedom of speech, and the rule of law provide valuable insights.

Dr Subhash C Kashyap emphasized that such procedural rules, being internal matters, are generally immune from external interference, including public criticism that could be regarded as contempt of the House. DD Basu discussed the importance of respecting the separation of powers and parliamentary autonomy.

He advocated that grievances should be addressed through institutional mechanisms rather than public platforms, which might undermine parliamentary authority. He acknowledged that while freedom of speech is constitutionally guaranteed, it is subject to reasonable restrictions, especially regarding the functioning of state institutions.

Granville Austin highlighted the evolving nature of the Indian Constitution and the necessity for transparency and accountability within parliamentary practices. He pointed out that internal legislative matters are traditionally managed within the constitutional framework, suggesting procedural remedies such as debates and reviews to address grievances.

BL Shankar and Valerian Rodrigues explored the balance between parliamentary privileges and public accountability. They argued that public challenges to parliamentary rules should respect statutory provisions and recourse within the legislative framework, emphasizing institutional frameworks like parliamentary committees for challenging or modifying existing rules to ensure consistency with constitutional principles.

MN Kaul and SL Shakdhar emphasized the significance of parliamentary privilege, which shields legislative proceedings from external scrutiny or interference. They noted that structured procedures within the Houses exist to address grievances and inconsistencies internally.

While these authors may not specifically address individual press conferences on rules made under Articles 118 and 208, their works collectively underscore the importance of resolving such matters through appropriate legal and procedural channels rather than external platforms, thus preserving the dignity and autonomy of legislative bodies.

In conclusion, it is pertinent to note that many renowned scholars in this field have asserted that while parliamentary proceedings enjoy protection under privilege, the rules established under Articles 118 and 208 are not exempted from judicial review.

If these rules are alleged to conflict with constitutional provisions, it is essential to pursue challenges either by adhering to the internal mechanisms available within the House or through proper legal channels, rather than relying exclusively on public forums, thereby ensuring adherence to constitutional mandates.