Ever since Speaker Om Birla expunged portions of Rahul Gandhi’s maiden speech in the Lok Sabha as Leader of Opposition, it has been widely debated if such a move is relevant in the digital age where parliamentary proceedings are telecast live via Sansad TV, the official public broadcaster.
On July 1, Gandhi criticised the ruling party, the RSS, Prime Minister Narendra Modi, made reference to Hindutva and violence, Agnipath scheme, NEET and Manipur among others.
In all, Speaker Om Birla directed 14 cuts to Gandhi’s speech.
However, the expunction notice was circulated post-midnight by when the speech was already seen live by millions, was reported by newspapers, debated upon and still is available online for all to read and see in the form of recordings, live tweets, reportage on news channels and digital media.
“In the digital age, expunction has become somewhat anachronistic, when millions have seen and heard the speech,” Devender Singh Aswal, former additional secretary Lok Sabha told BOOM.
Case in point, three days later, the uncensored version of Gandhi’s almost 100-minutes-long speech is still available on Sansad TV's official Youtube channel where it has garnered more than 800k views, while the written version of the speech, which forms the official record of the proceedings, can be seen on the Lok Sabha’s official website with the cuts ordered by the Speaker.
Reacting to the expunction order, Gandhi said he spoke the truth and it would prevail. The Congress leader has appealed for the restoration of his speech, however, the final decision lies with the Speaker.
Locking the stable after the horse has bolted
“Censorship is pointless in the age of social media and the internet. To expunge remarks heard by a huge number of people, shared and discussed threadbare makes zero sense. It’s a bit like closing the stable door after the horse has bolted,” Vidya Subrahmaniam, former associate editor, The Hindu said.
“That said it’s anybody’s guess how long the YouTube tube content will remain in its original form. Public memory being short future researchers may find it difficult to understand precisely what happened on July 1 and 2 of 2024 in the two Houses of Parliament,” Subrahmaniam added.
According to Rule 380 of the Rules of Procedure and Conduct of Business in Lok Sabha, the Speaker has the discretion to expunge any words or expressions used by an MP/MLA in a debate that they may consider to be defamatory, indecent, unparliamentary, or undignified. The expunged portions of the speech will not reflect in the official records of the Parliament.
Ex-Secretary General PDT Acharya clarified that it doesn’t matter whether we are in the digital age or not, once a speaker has expunged a speech or a portion of it, one cannot show, share, or disseminate it anywhere.
Ex-bureaucrat Devender Singh Aswal said, “Anyone who publishes expunged portion can be hauled up for breach of privilege by the House. The rule is based on the powers and privileges of the British House of Commons and recognised by the Indian Constitution.”
“Printing and circulation of expunged portion remains liable to breach of privilege,” Aswal cautioned. However, senior journalist Arvind Kumar Singh said in this internet age, everyone with a phone has access to the proceedings. “Har aadmi dekh raha hai, sun raha hai (everyone is seeing it, listening to it) so what difference does it make?” He told BOOM.
“The Speaker’s decision to censor Rahul Gandhi may be a hollow victory and a short gain. Gandhi’s speech was seen live and is already in the public domain, Singh said. “Only the official records will reflect the censored version of his speech,” he added.
“That is why I say such expunctions are anachronistic. The role of the Speaker becomes a butt of private ridicule. A Speaker must be seen independent and impartial. He is first and foremost a custodian of the rights and privileges of the members,” Aswal told BOOM.
Immunity for MP/MLAs during proceedings; elevated right to free speech
Experts suggest that the right to free speech accorded to a lawmaker “stands on a different footing” than the fundamental right to free speech enjoyed by citizens of this country. “It is their privilege. MPs/MLAs speak for the people they represent,” senior journalist Arvind Kumar Singh said.
The Indian Constitution protects parliamentarians for what they say on the floor of the house or while conducting house business. However, this is tempered by the aforementioned Rule 380 which gives the Speaker power to censor speeches or language he deems to be unparliamentary or undignified.
For example, an MP/MLA cannot be prosecuted for what they say during parliamentary proceedings. Courts are also barred from inquiring into what the lawmaker says in Parliament. But their speeches are subject to the Speaker’s sensitivity.
This, experts said, give MP/MLAs an “elevated” right to free speech.
However, it is pertinent to point out that parliamentarians enjoy this immunity only in the house. They do not have immunity if they speak outside Lok Sabha or Rajya Sabha. Outside the house, they would be liable to defamation or any other penal laws.
In January 2023, the Supreme Court Constitution Bench held that one cannot impose additional restrictions on a lawmaker's right to free speech. However, considering the impact they have on the masses, public functionaries and celebrities must be circumspect in what they say in public, the court added.
Censorship unusual, rare but increasingly becoming common: Experts
Bureaucrats and former journalists rue that expunging significant portions of a lawmaker’s speech was unusual and rare. Some said expunging the PM’s speech and that of the Leader of Opposition was “unheard of”.
“Expunction in this manner was the rarest of the occasion. But now it is routine,” Arvind Kumar Singh said. “In future, those who study the debates of today will not get the references (of a speech that has been expunged in parts), but because we are in the new age of communication, contemporary society will know because everything now is online,” he added.
“There is a dictionary of unparliamentary words that lists out phrases, expressions and words that are deemed unparliamentary,” senior journalist Anand Sahay told BOOM. Outright use of abusive words, in any language would lead to automatic expunction, he explained. “in such cases, the politician would be warned as well against using unparliamentary language,” he added.
“Misleading information is also removed by the Chair,” Sahay said. The senior journalist further explained that if information was considered doubtful or incorrect, the politicians were asked to clear doubts or rectify the same. “The tradition was that when stating facts that may not be common knowledge, an MP will authenticate with supporting material. Every effort was made to not present distortions while speaking in the House,” he said.
Sahay recalled that in all the years he covered Parliamentary proceedings, “instances of expunctions” used to be considered “not common”. “Earlier, MPs themselves were mindful of their language even when they spoke in an impassioned way, and willingly rectified errors as these were typically not made knowingly – a situation so very different from what we see now, Sahay said. “The PM himself constantly makes innuendos and is in need of constant fact-checking,” he added.
“In the past, the PM's word on facts was deemed to be factual unless there was a slip of the tongue. Not these days. Alas the PM's example is enthusiastically taken up by the rest of the flock,” Sahay said.
