Mr. Deputy Speaker: I told you that I would give a Ruling on a point of order by MP Mr. Abdul Jalil. Today I am giving the Ruling.

Mr. Abdul Jalil, Member-Elect from Noagaon-5 raised a point of order on 3-2-87 that Hon'ble Members Mr. Sarder Amjad Hossain, Member-Elect from Rajshahi-3, Mr. Shafiqul Islam, Member-Elect from Jamalpur-3, Mirza Sultan Raza, Member-Elect from Chuadanga-2, Mr. A.B.M. Shahjahan, Member-Elect from Bogra-3 and Mr. Khandoker Mohammad Khurram, Member-Elect from Sherpur-3, became Members of Parliament contesting from the united platform of the 15-Party Alliance.

They all voted in favour of the 7^th Amendment of the Constitution in the Parliament session held on November 10 disobeying the instruction of the 15-Party alliance and thereby their seats have become vacant under Article 70 of the Constitution. Therefore, he has requested to send the case to the Election Commission for a decision under Article 66(4) of the Constitution and Rule 178 of the Rules of Procedure.

Now the question is:

a) Whether the 15-Party Alliance as mentioned by Hon'ble Member Mr. Abdul Jalil is a political Party or not?

b) Whether the Hon'ble Members Sardar Amjad Hossain, Mr. Shafiqul Islam, Mirja Sultan Reza, Mr. A.B.M. Shahjahan and Khandakar Mohammad Khurram are 15-Party Alliance nominated Members or not and whether they have violated any instruction of the 15-Party Alliance by casting their votes in favour of the 7^th Amendment of the Constitution on November 10?

c) Whether their violation was within the purview of Article 70 of the Constitution and whether that has vacated their seats or not?

d) Whether such a matter should be sent to the Election Commission for a decision under Article 66(4) of the Constitution?

Basically the decisions on the above mentioned questions b) to d) are totally dependent on the decision on the question a) that is whether the 15-Party Alliance is a political Party or not? Because preconditions of the application of Article 70 of the Constitution are that a particular person has to be an elected Member nominated from a political Party and he has to cast his vote against the his Party or he has to resign from that Party. Otherwise Article 70 will not be applicable. It may be mentioned here that interpretation of Article 70 implies that remaining present in the Parliament but refraining from voting defying the Party instruction or to remain absent in the Parliament are treated as voting against the Party. The Article 70 of the Constitution is as follows "A person elected as a Member of Parliament at an election at which he was nominated as a candidate by a political Party shall vacate his seat if he resigns from that Party or votes in Parliament against that Party.

Explanation: If a Member of Parliament

(a) being present in Parliament abstains from voting, or

(b) absents himself from any sitting of Parliament,

ignoring the direction of the Party which nominated him at the election as a candidate not to do so, he shall be deemed to have voted against that Party."

If the 15-Party Alliance is not really a political Party, then the decision on the question 2 above will be totally irrelevant and unnecessary and the decisions on the questions 3 and 4 will naturally be negative. Let us see whether the 15-Party Alliance is a political Party or not.

Political Party means an association or an assembly of people which functions both in the Parliament as well as outside, having a name as an identity for preaching some political ideology or for conducting political activities different from other such association or assembly of people. But the 15-Party Alliance is a conglomeration of 15 different political Parties without having a particular ideology, thinking preference or name. The very name of it indicates that it is not a particular Party, only an alliance of 15 Parties. It is merely a temporarily formed alliance and association of 15 political Parties aiming to win the last election. The philosophy of each of them is different. There is no political Party in the Parliament in the name of 15-Party Alliance.

Therefore, 15-Party Alliance is not a political Party as per the Constitutional provision. Since the 15-Party Alliance is not a political Party, it is irrelevant and unnecessary as to whether the above mentioned five MPs have been elected as the nominees of the Alliance or used their election symbol or violated the instruction of the Alliance by casting their votes in favour of the 7^th Constitutional Amendment or whether their seats have been vacated under Article 70 of the Constitution.

Basically since the 15-Party Alliance is not a political Party as per the Constitutional definition the Article 70 of the Constitution is not applicable here. Therefore, the question does not arise here to send it to the Election Commission for a decision as per Article 66(4) of the Constitution or Rule 168 of the Rules of Procedure.

Therefore, I have rejected the point of order raised by Hon'ble Member Mr. Abdul Jalil.

[Third session of the Third Parliament, February 15, 1987]

Mr. Speaker: Now with your permission I want to say something about one of my previous Rulings.

The Hon'ble Health and Family Planning Minister Mr. Salahuddin Quader Chowdhury asked for my Ruling on February 9 raising a point of order on the adverse comments of some Hon'ble Members about the election of the Hon'ble President and Members.

I promised to give a Ruling after examining the matter for few days.

Now the question is whether any Hon'ble Member in his statement in the Parliament under the cover of constitutional provision and the Rules of Procedure can raise any issue or criticize or give aspersion on the election of the Hon'ble President or any MP? If he can not then what action can be taken against him as per law?

In his address Hon'ble Minister for Health and Family Planning while raising the point of order did not make any categorical mention of any Member but the proceedings of the session on January 31 indicate that some of the Members made some criticism and aspersion on the election of the Hon’ble President and other Members which have been expunged from the proceedings on the request of the Hon'ble Prime Minister. But in spite of that similar criticism and aspersion were repeated in the subsequent sessions for which the question of Ruling has arisen on the point of order.

One Member in his objectionable statement not only criticized and gave aspersion on the election of the Hon'ble President and other Members, he also did not hesitate to mention the name of the Hon'ble President and it appeared that he did it with disregard and contempt. That is why that has been rejected. Since there are many new Members in the House and for that the matter needs to be examined from different angles. First we have to see whether there can be any aspersion or attack or criticism in the Parliament about the election of the Hon'ble President and other Members. The following discussions indicate that the answer must be in the negative.

Hon’ble President and Hon'ble Members have been elected through two different elections on the basis of universal adult franchise. The Article 125 (b) of the Constitution says, "Notwithstanding anything in this Constitution,

(a) the validity of any law relating to the delimitation of constituencies, or the allotment of seats to such constituencies, made or purporting to be made under Article 124, shall not be called in question in any Court;

(b) no election to the [Office of President] or to Parliament shall be called in question except by an election petition presented to such authority and in such manner as may be provided for by or under any law made by Parliament".

Therefore, it can certainly be said that legally no Member of the Parliament can raise any issue nor can he make any adverse or derogatory remarks about the election of the Hon'ble President and that of the Hon'ble Members. If it is done that will be not only against the Constitution and the Rules of Procedure, illegal and unreasonable, but also contrary to the parliamentary procedure.

Secondly Hon'ble President is also the Head of the State under Article 48 of the Constitution and his place is above everybody. Moreover, even though there is no mention in the Article 65 of the Constitution still under Articles 72 and 80 the Hon'ble President is the part and parcel of the Parliament as the Indian President and the Queen of Britain are inseparable parts of the Constitution. Parliament can be summoned, prorogated and dissolved only by him and no Bill of the Parliament can be law without his consent. No Finance Bill can be a law without his consent nor it can be placed in the Parliament. Only he can summon the Parliament.

Moreover, any aspersion to the Hon'ble President has been prohibited under Articles 53(Na), 133(5) and 165(5) of the Rules of Procedure and while making statement in the Parliament use of offensive, discourteous and undignified language has been prohibited under Rule 270.

The Parliament itself has framed the Rules of Procedure under Article 75 of the Constitution. Therefore, the violator of the Rules of Procedure will come under the discipline of the Parliament as Parliament is run under the special privilege and other provisions of Article 78 of the Constitution and the Rules of Procedure framed under Article 75 of the Constitution.

Therefore, making discourteous statement about the Hon'ble President and making disrespectful comment about the Parliament are the same. Making any disrespectful statement about the Parliament or anyone of its Members will curtail the special privilege of the Parliament or its Members and it will dishonour the Parliament and will be treated as offence.

Now I quote from Erskine May on analogous situations in the United Kingdom.

"It is obviously unbecoming to permit offensive expressions against the character and conduct of Parliament to be used without rebuke; for they are not only a contempt of that high Court, but are calculated to degrade the Legislature in the estimation of the people."

Unquote. I am referring to House of Lords and Commons. Quote:

"If directed against the other House, and passed over without censure they would appear to implicate one House in discourtesy to the other, if against the House in which the words are spoken, it would be impossible to overlook the disrespect of one of its own Members. If, when called to order, the Member fails to retract or explain his words and make a satisfactory apology, he may be punished by a reprimand or commitment or under Standing Orders Nos. 23, 24 or 25." You can see on pages 438 to 441 in May's book which say, "It is most impotent that the use of such words should be immediately reproved in order to avoid complaints and dissension's between the two Houses".

This is the way how discipline is maintained between House of Commons and House of Lords in the United Kingdom. I have already quoted and now I again quote, (vide "Law, Privileges, Proceedings and Usage of Parliament", 19^th edition, page 426), in the same way, from Anson's "Law and Custom of the Constitution", Vol. I, Parliament, 5^th edition, page 170, where I want to quote the following:

"Speech and action in Parliament may thus be said to be unquestioned and free. But this freedom of external influence or interference does not involve any unrestrained license of speech within the walls of the House. The House controls the action of its own Members, and enforces this control by censure, by suspension from the service of the House, by commitment, by expulsion. Abuse of the forms of debate, irregular or disrespectful use of the King's name, the use of language which is offensive or insulting to either House (unquote, i.e., House of Lords and Commons run differently in the United Kingdom) or to individual Members of either House or to Parliament collectively, are the offences which may be thus dealt with." (Unquote).

About the mentioning of the name of the Hon'ble President in the statements of the Parliament Articles 53(Na), 135(5), 165(5) and 270(3) may be compared with the British parliamentary procedures. I quote:

"Disloyal or disrespectful references to Queen, (that is, the Head of the State) is treasonable or seditious language or a disrespectful use of Her Majesty's name would normally give offence outside the Parliament; and it is only consistent with decency, that a Member of the Legislative should not be permitted openly to use such language. In this place, in Parliament he cannot do this. Members have not only been called to order for such offences, but have been reprimanded, committed to the custody of the Sergeant or even sent to the Tower." (vide May's Parliamentary Practice). You can refer to pages 425 and 426. I quote:

"Even the use of the name of the Queen for influencing the decisions of the Parliament is in principle unconstitutional and not in conformity with the independence of the Parliament. It has been stated at page 332 of the book by Anson that the use of the name of the King or Queen for influencing the decision of the Parliament is against the parliamentary practices and procedures." (Unquote).

It is very clear from the above discussion that uttering the name of the Hon'ble President in a discourteous manner or without showing proper respect and to give aspersion to his election in the parliamentary discussion is against the parliamentary practices and procedures and tantamount to showing disrespect to the Parliament.

Giving aspersion to the election of the Hon'ble Members is also equally objectionable because this makes the entire Parliament disgraceful to the people which indirectly hampers the functioning as a Member of the Parliament.

Therefore, although such acts will not be within the jurisdiction of any Courts under Article 78(3) of the Constitution, I want to draw the attention of all the Hon'ble Members to the Rules 15 and 16 of the Rules of Procedure for taking appropriate action.

Hon'ble Members I am giving this Ruling accepting the point of order of Health and Family Planning Minister Mr. Salauddin Quader Chowdhury. This Ruling will be effective immediately.

Hon'ble Members you must have noticed that there is a provision for giving punishment for such violation of the Constitutional provision and the Rules of Procedure. But I hope no Hon'ble Member will in future violate any provision of the Rules of Procedure in their statements as their status and the status of the Parliament are the same. I request you all to maintain the dignity and status of yours in your statements in the Parliament and follow the Rules of Procedure in your actions and behaviour for enhancing the image of you all, the Parliament and the country in general.

[Third session of the Third Parliament, February 19, 1987]

Mr. Speaker: First of all I thank you for being able to restore a cordial and peaceful atmosphere which was lacking at the initial stage. The Leader of the House and the Leader of the Opposition have presented their statements in a somber atmosphere and I can tell you that I had to give the Ruling. Because the very existence of the Parliament will be meaningless if we don't accept the sovereignty of the Parliament, if we don't respect the Hon'ble President and if we don't show respect to the Speaker. We must give protection to the privileges of the Hon'ble President and the Parliament. Those were repeatedly dishonoured. At least derogatory remakes have been made causing bitterness. That is why Ruling has been given incorporating the Constitutional and other legal provisions. We all have assembled here today including the Leader of the House and let us set up good examples so that others can not speak ill of us. We must ensure the use of proper and Courteous language in our statements.

My Ruling will not curtail your rights and privileges as whatever I have incorporated have been taken from the Constitution and the Rules of Procedure. I had to remind you because for the last few weeks we have been challenging the Presidential and other elections. The statement of the Leader of the Opposition has pleased me as the tone of his statement had the touch of our survival and the Leader of the House has also properly responded to that.

As the Speaker I have given the Ruling not to curtail your privileges but to enhance the status of the Parliament. Therefore, it has not been possible to change this Ruling.

Thank you all.

[Third session of the Third Parliament, February 25, 1987]

Mr. Speaker: Hon'ble Member Mr. Suranjit Sen Gupta raised a point of order on the basis of which a fruitful discussion was held based on the Constitution and the Rules of Procedure. Mr. Suranjit has explained the Constitutional provisions from Article 7 to 13 and also 47 and the Deputy Prime Minister Mr.. Maudud Ahmed has replied to that. What I could understand that Mr. Suranjit's point of order was that the Bill which has come to the Parliament for Constitution is against the fundamental principles of the consideration and as such it should not come to the Parliament and should be sent back.

I have heard both the sides with rapt attention. Mr. Suranjit Sen Gupta has quoted sub clause (2) of Article 7 saying that the portion of the law which is not in conformity with the Constitutional provision must be omitted. But since it has not yet been decided as to whether this is not in conformity, therefore sub-clause (2) of Article 7 will not be applicable here. Mr. Suranjit has mentioned about the fundamental principles of Article 7 where he explained socialism as have also been done by Mr. Tofail Ahmed, Mr. Mujibur Rahman, Mr. Mirza Sultan Raza and Mr. Ayenuddin. Here I noticed one thing that the explanation of socialism as provided in the 1972 Constitution has been changed and a different explanation has been given. I thought there would be no more attack on the fundamental principles. Preservation of several laws are there in Article 47. The Hon'ble Deputy Prime Minister has mentioned that it has been done through an Amendment. The final word was told by the Leader of the Opposition that 61% share belonged to the Government and as such the Industrial Bank would remain as a Government Bank. But the Leader of the Opposition expressed her doubt that although at present the bank would remain in the Government sector, but no body was sure as to what would happen in future. Here my view is clear that since 51% of the shares belong to the Government, it would remain in the Government sector and the future would be decided in the course of time. Therefore this Bill is neither contrary to the Constitution nor to the Rules of Procedure. So the Bill can be accepted and considered.

[Third session of the Third Parliament, March 3, 1987]

Mr. Speaker: I shall not allow anybody else to speak. Let me give the Ruling. Please sit down. If you are not satisfied, then you tell me. After the statement of the Leader of the House, there cannot be any more debate. It is not the privilege, it is tradition that when the Leader of the House addresses …

Please sit down. Will you not be seated after hearing the Speakers Ruling? That's all. Let me give the Ruling then I will let you speak.

You will see nobody will be dissatisfied. The Leader always moves the closure motion.

My first Ruling is that the attacking languages of both the sides are expunged and the disrespectful remarks will be dropped from the proceedings. Earlier it was told that Mr. Joynal Abedin Hazari was convicted and jailed during the Awami League period. Now it is told that he was in jail but never convicted. Therefore, all those remarks have been expunged because we have no proof. He is an honest man till he is punished. That is the law.

The matter which is still under trial in the Court should not have been discussed. I shall expunge the relevant adverse comments and the proceedings will be corrected on the basis of the Ruling. The unparliamentary words that came up during the discussion will also be expunged.

Above all, we have to ensure democratic procedures. We all have to follow a principle that we will follow the just path. We have to learn many things. The Parliament is new and many of us are also new and many things are not known to us. Let us not act on a heated moment, rather do everything peacefully and calmly.

[Fourth session of the Third Parliament, July 05, 1987]