- SFG FRC 2027 | Program starts from 19th Dec. 2026 | Admissions open for Entrance Test Click Here to know more →
- Prelims Test Series (PTS) for Prelims 2027 starts 11th Oct. 2026 Click Here to know more →
- [Pre-order] Ethics Redbook 3rd Edition: Delivery starts from 10th October onwards Click Here to Read More →
- 21 Sept. | GS Advance Program (GSAP) for UPSC 2027 Mains starts from 11th Oct. Click Here to Read More →
Source: This post is created based on the article “Discipline and discussion – on discussions in Parliament”, published in Indian Express on 22nd Feb.
Syllabus Topic: GS Paper 2, Parliament and State legislatures—structure, functioning, conduct of business
Context: Rajya Sabha Chairman Jagdeep Dhankhar directed the Privileges Committee to investigate the disorderly conduct by 12 Opposition Members of Parliament. The disruption led to multiple adjournments during the first leg of the Budget session.
What are the other such examples of penalising over the discussions in Parliament?
Opposition’s slogans during Prime Minister’s 85-minute address, were blacked out.
An MP was suspended by the Chairmen for recording the proceedings on her mobile phone.
Chairman interrupted the speech of Leader of the Opposition during the Motion of Thanks to the President’s Address, several times. He repeatedly directed to “authenticate” remarks.
6 parts of speech were expunged from the Rajya Sabha records. Similarly, the speech of another Congress leader got 18 cuts.
What are the issues associated with this penalisation?
It will be the mockery of parliamentary democracy if Opposition is penalised for seeking accountability from the government.
Government has availability of all the information, over which queries are raised in Parliament. It is duty of the government to validate the authenticity of the information or the lack of it provided by an MP.
Parliamentary discipline must ensure that discussions take place, and the government provides the answers and not the opposite of it.
