A Member of Parliament (MP) recently petitioned the Punjab and Haryana High Court seeking permission to attend parliamentary sessions while in jail. The move aims to prevent disqualification under Article 101(4) of the Indian Constitution, which governs the conditions under which a member’s seat may be declared vacant due to prolonged absence. This case brings attention to the constitutional framework regulating parliamentary conduct and the delicate balance between judicial intervention and legislative autonomy.
Understanding Article 101(4)
Article 101(4) of the Indian Constitution lays down provisions regarding the vacation of a parliamentary seat due to absence without permission. It serves to ensure that elected representatives fulfill their legislative duties consistently.
Key Provisions of Article 101(4):
Absence for Sixty Days:
If a Member of Parliament is absent from all meetings of either House for 60 consecutive days without prior permission, the House may declare the seat vacant.
Exclusion of Certain Periods:
The 60-day period does not include:
When the House is prorogued (discontinued without dissolution).
Adjournments exceeding four consecutive days.
House’s Discretion:
It is not automatic—the House decides whether to declare the seat vacant after considering the circumstances.
Significance of Article 101(4)
Ensuring Accountability:
Prevents absenteeism and ensures MPs remain actively engaged in legislative duties.
Maintaining Representation:
Safeguards the interests of the electorate by ensuring their representatives participate in the democratic process.
Balancing Rights and Duties:
Protects the MP’s right to perform their functions while ensuring parliamentary efficiency is not compromised.
Legal Precedents & Judicial Interpretations
K. Anandan Nambiar Case (1968): The Supreme Court held that Article 101(4) ensures that no member can hold a seat indefinitely while neglecting parliamentary duties.
Arun Shourie Case (2000): Reaffirmed that the House's discretion in declaring a seat vacant is subject to judicial review under extraordinary circumstances.
Challenges & Concerns
Judicial Intervention:
Raises questions about the judiciary’s role in legislative processes when courts intervene to allow detained MPs to attend Parliament.
Misuse of Provisions:
There are concerns that this provision could be exploited to disrupt proceedings or avoid scrutiny.
Administrative Burden:
Ensuring an imprisoned MP’s participation in legislative work involves logistical and security challenges.
Way Forward
Clear Guidelines: Establish specific protocols for allowing MPs under judicial custody to attend sessions.
Judicial Restraint: Courts should intervene only in exceptional cases where legislative functions are at risk.
Parliamentary Reforms: Consider revising the 60-day rule to reflect modern legislative demands while preserving democratic accountability.
UPSC Prelims Question
Q: With reference to Article 101(4) of the Indian Constitution, consider the following statements:
If a Member of Parliament is absent for sixty consecutive days without permission, the seat automatically becomes vacant.
The period of absence does not include when the House is prorogued or adjourned for more than four consecutive days.
Only the President can declare a parliamentary seat vacant under Article 101(4).
Which of the statements given above is/are correct?
(a) 1 and 2 only
(b) 2 only
(c) 1 and 3 only
(d) 2 and 3 only
UPSC Mains Question
Q. Article 101(4) of the Indian Constitution seeks to ensure the accountability of elected representatives while protecting their right to perform legislative duties. Critically examine its implications for parliamentary democracy and judicial intervention. (GS Paper 2 – Indian Constitution & Polity)
Comentários