Context: 

The expunction of portions of the speeches made by some Opposition politicians in Parliament recently is an issue that has sparked off a debate on an action taken by the Speaker and the Chairman of the Rajya Sabha.

About Motion of Thanks:

• Motion of thanks is the motion of parliament after the first session after each general election and the first session of every fiscal year is addressed by the President. 
• In this address, the President outlines the government’s policies and programmes for the previous and following years.
• This is customary practice  adopted from the British Parliament.
•  Although the Constitution does not provide for any such motion, except directly that each House shall discuss the matters contained in the address. 

• Siginificance:

• • It must be passed in the House. Otherwise, it amounts to the defeat of the government. 
  • It is one of the ways through which the Lok Sabha can also express a lack of confidence in the government.

Rules of the Houses:

• Article 105 of the Constitution confers on members, freedom of speech in the House and immunity from interference by the court for anything said in the House.
• Rule 380 of the Rules of procedure of the Lok Sabha and Rule 261 of the Rules of the Rajya Sabha give the power to the presiding officers of these Houses to expunge any words used in the debate which are defamatory, unparliamentary, undignified or indecent.
• Once expunged they do not remain on record and if anyone publishes them thereafter, they will be liable for breach of privilege of the House.
• Rule 353 of the Lok Sabha regulates the procedure by which MPs can make allegations against a fellow MP or an outsider. 
  • Under this Rule, the MP is required to give “adequate advance notice” to the Speaker as well as the Minister concerned.
• The Rule does not prohibit the making of any allegation. The only requirement is advance notice, on receipt of which the Minister concerned will conduct an inquiry into the allegation and come up with the fact.

Allegations and Speaker Rulings: 

• A Member of Parliament needs to follow a certain procedure while making an allegation against a Minister. 
  • Such a procedure has been laid down by Speakers in the past. 
• Making an allegation against a Minister or the Prime Minister is considered to be a serious matter.
• Therefore, the presiding officers have carefully laid down a stipulation that the MP who makes an imputation against a Minister of the government should be sure about the factual basis of the allegation, and that he must take responsibility for it. 
• If the MP complies with this stipulation, then the allegation will be allowed to remain on record.
• Speaker Sardar Hukam Singh in 1965 said that mere report in a newspaper about anything does not give an MP the privilege to raise it in the House. It is necessary to probe it further and satisfy oneself about it. Even if the allegation is proved wrong, it will after all, affect the reputation of the person.

Issue of Defamation: 

• A careful reading of the Rules of the House would reveal that the expunction can be wielded only when the allegations mentioned therein are of defamatory or incriminatory character. 
• Under Section 499 of the Indian Penal Code (Second exception), any statement respecting the conduct of a public servant in the discharge of his public function or his character (so far as his character appears in that conduct) is not defamation. 
• If such a statement is made in the House against a Minister who is a public servant, it does not come within the ‘mischief’ of Rule 353 or Rule 380.

Conclusion:

• Before the weapon of expunction is wielded, it needs to be ascertained whether the speech contains defamatory or incriminatory statements or only critical comments (which a Member of Parliament has the right to make). 
• It also needs to be ensured that the freedom of speech enjoyed by the Members in the House is not needlessly curtailed

News Source: The Hindu