Are presiding officers of the two houses of India’s Parliament trying to shield the Narendra Modi government by raising a firewall against criticism?

Sections of the opposition raised this question last week after the secretariats of the Lok Sabha and the Rajya Sabha distributed to members a handbook with a list of ‘unparliamentary’ words which they should not utter in the house.

It is customary for legislative bodies around the world to frame rules to regulate debates to ensure that high standards are maintained.

The basic objective of the exercise is to maintain decorum in the house and to protect the dignity of the house and its members.

Contrary to the impression created by media reports about the new list of unparliamentary words, the secretariats of the houses did not declare any words unparliamentary. They do not have the power to do so anyway.

The power to decide whether a word or phrase used by a member while speaking in the house is allowable or not vests exclusively in the presiding officers. They can immediately proclaim the word or phrase unparliamentary and it will not go into the records. Alternatively, they can look into the records later and order a word or phrase to be expunged on the same ground.

Lok Sabha Speaker Om Birla clarified that the list distributed to members contains words and phrases which were removed from the records as the presiding officers considered them unparliamentary. Defending the distribution of the list of unparliamentary words, Birla said such lists were being distributed periodically since 1954.

The presiding officers act in their discretion while deciding whether what a member said was allowable or not. There are no hard and fast rules to guide them.

They may go into the appropriateness of a word or phrase used by a member on their own or at the request of a member of the house.

More often than not, the presiding officer rules a word or phrase unparliamentary when it contains an insinuation that is unacceptable.

There may be nothing intrinsically wrong in the word or phrase but the context in which it is used may render it unparliamentary.

For instance, “Ali Baba and the Forty Thieves” figures in the Indian Parliament’s list of unparliamentary words. What earned the title of a popular story into the list of unparliamentary words was its use by a member to castigate the government of the day. “Lie” and “liar” are words which Britain’s House of Commons proclaimed unparliamentary more than a century ago. When the person on the side of the aisle is also an “honourable member”, how can he be called a liar and what he said be characterised as a lie?

If these words are not allowed in Britain, how can they be allowed in India, which has accepted the Westminster model?

British ingenuity subsequently fashioned a parliamentary term “terminological inexactitude” to get around the word “lie”. But few Indian parliamentarians take the trouble to make such a long detour.

A quick comparison between the newly published list of unparliamentary words and the list of 2012, compiled in the time of the Manmohan Singh government, does not indicate any qualitative difference in decision making. Terms like “sexual harassment” and “downtrodden” figure in the lists. Since the context in which the words were ruled unparliamentary is not known, it is not possible to make a judgment on the ruling.

The Speaker pointed out that no word had been banned. Members were free to express their views, maintaining the decorum of Parliament.

While opposition MPs may have overreacted to distribution of the handbook of unparliamentary words, they are on solid ground in objecting to the Modi regime’s attempt to bar protests by MPs outside the chambers of the houses but in the vicinity of Parliament House.

Walkout by MPs is a well-recognised form of protest in many democracies.

The standard practice in most countries, including India, was to return to the house later and take part in the proceedings.

Lately, protesting MPs in India have been holding meetings beneath the Gandhi statue outside Parliament House before returning to the chamber. It will be unwise for the government to interfere with this extended form of protest which does not disturb the working of the houses or life outside.