With BJP MP Nishikant Dubey giving notice to move a substantive motion against Leader of the Opposition (LoP) Rahul Gandhi for misleading the House, all eyes are on what the crucial instrument of a substantive motion means.
“If I, as a responsible public representative – even with a small zone of influence and a humble background – also fail to bring this to your kind notice, I would not be doing justice to my constitutional duty of upholding the unity, integrity and sovereignty of our country. In view of this, I wish to bring to your kind notice the following four serious misdemeanours,” Dubey said in the notice.
“A substantive motion is a self-contained independent proposal submitted for the approval of the House and drafted in such a manner as to be capable of expressing a decision of the House,” say M N Kaul and S L Shakdher in their authoritative book Practice and Procedure of Parliament, which explains at length the various kinds of substantive motions.
“Motions for election of the Speaker and the Deputy Speaker, Motion of Thanks on the Address by the President, Motion for Adjournment on a matter of public importance, resolutions, motions for raising discussion on a matter of general public interest, motions of confidence/no-confidence in the Council of Ministers, resolution for removal of the Speaker/Deputy Speaker, motion declaring the seat of a member vacant and where leave of absence is not agreed to by the House, are examples of the substantive motions moved in Lok Sabha,” they write.
Substantive motions are put to a vote so that they express the decision of the House.
“The conduct of persons in high authority can only be discussed on a substantive motion drawn in proper terms,” say Kaul and Shakdher, adding, “The Constitution lays down specific procedure for impeachment of the President, and for the presentation of an address to the President by each House of Parliament for the removal of a Judge of the Supreme Court or of a High Court, the Comptroller and Auditor-General of India or the Chief Election Commissioner. Similarly, provision has been made in the Constitution for the removal of the Vice-President and the Deputy Chairman of the Rajya Sabha, the Speaker and the Deputy Speaker of the Lok Sabha by means of resolutions.”
What process is followed?
A substantive motion requires notice to be given and can be moved only by the member who has given the notice. There is an exception though: where a motion stands in the name of a Minister, it may be moved by another Minister, but the mover has to mention that he is moving it on behalf of the other Minister.
In this case, as Dubey is not a minister, he will be required to move it, when the Chair permits him. Importantly, except in the case of motions for election of the Speaker or the Deputy Speaker, and the Motion of Thanks on the Address by the President, there is no requirement for any substantive motion to be seconded.
It is also laid down that the mover of a motion has the right of reply – meaning that Dubey will have that right too.
Past instances
In 2005, 10 members of the Lok Sabha were expelled when the House adopted a motion for the same after an enquiry committee found them guilty in the cash-for-query allegations first made by a TV channel. After the sting operation that was played on TV, the Speaker instructed the members not to attend the House until further decision and constituted a five-member Committee headed by Pawan Kumar Bansal to inquire into the allegations.
The committee’s report was laid on the floor of the House on December 22, 2005. A day later, the then Leader of the House Pranab Mukherjee moved a motion that the House “accepts the findings of the committee that the conduct of the ten members of Lok Sabha, namely, Narendra Kumar Kushwaha, Annasaheb M K Patil, Manoj Kumar, Y G Mahajan, Pradeep Gandhi, Suresh Chandel, Ramsevak Singh, Lal Chandra Kol, Rajaram Pal and Chandra Pratap Singh was unethical and unbecoming of Members of Parliament and their continuance as members of Lok Sabha is untenable and resolves that they may be expelled from the membership of Lok Sabha.” The House adopted the motion.
In December 2005, another allegation – improper conduct of some members of the Lok Sabha in the implementation of Members of Parliament Local Area Development Scheme (MPLADS) – was made by a TV channel. The Speaker again asked the concerned members not to attend the House during the pendency of the report of a seven-member enquiry committee, again headed by Bansal. The panel’s report was laid tabled in the House on March 14, 2006.
On March 18, Mukherjee tabled notice of a substantive motion, which was admitted by the Speaker, “that this House having taken note of the report of the committee to inquire into allegations of improper conduct on the part of some members in the matter of implementation of MPLAD Scheme,… reprimands Alemao Churchill, Paras Nath Yadav, Faggan Singh Kulaste and Ram Swaroop Koli”, and determines them to be suspended from the House from the day of their period of absence to March 22, 2006. The House adopted the motion.
“In the wake of the arrest of a member, Babubhai K Katara, for trying to illegally take two persons (one woman and a boy) abroad on the passport of his wife and his son, the Lok Sabha Speaker , on 16 May 2007, constituted a committee to inquire into the misconduct of Members of Lok Sabha,” note Kaul and Shakdher. The panel tabled its report on October 20, 2008. Mukherjee as Leader of the House tabled a notice of a motion that “this House… accepts the findings of the committee that Babubhai K Katara has committed an act of grave misconduct… and resolves that he may be expelled from the membership of the Fourteenth Lok Sabha.” The motion was adopted on October 21, 2008.
Similarly, allegations against member Rajesh Kumar Manjhi for having misused official air journeys, which was again referred to an enquiry committee that submitted its report on August 23, 2007, led to the House adopting a motion to suspend the member for 30 sittings of the House and restrain him “from taking his spouse or companion on official tours till the conclusion of the Fourteenth Lok Sabha”.
Motions against judges
In 1991, on a notice of motion signed by Madhu Dandavate and 107 other Lok Sabha MPs for the impeachment of Supreme Court judge V Ramaswami, the Speaker constituted an enquiry committee of judges, which found him guilty of misconduct.
The Lok Sabha was dissolved before the report was tabled, but the Supreme Court ruled that the next Lok Sabha could consider the report. The report was submitted in the 10th Lok Sabha in 1992. The motion, however, was defeated as it did not meet the requirement for the removal of a judge – a simple majority of the House and a two-thirds majority of those present and voting.
Similarly, in 2009, 57 members of Rajya Sabha gave notice of a motion for removal of Justice Soumitra Sen of the Calcutta High Court for misappropriation of money as receiver appointed by the Calcutta High Court, and misrepresentation of the same before the court. An enquiry committee constituted to look into the charges found him guilty.
The motion for impeachment of Justice Sen was taken up by the Rajya Sabha on 17 August 2011. “After the mover of the motion had concluded his speech, Justice Sen addressed the Rajya Sabha,” recall Kaul and Shakdher. The Upper House adopted the motion for presentation to the President for his impeachment by a special majority, and this was then referred to the Lok Sabha. However, he resigned on September 2, 2011, before the Lok Sabha could take up the matter, and the Lower House therefore decided not to press the motion to impeach him.