SC refuses to hear plea against Centre's memorandum on whip

Senior advocates say it not only affects the MPs but the entire functioning of the democracy

The Supreme Court today refused to entertain a plea challenging a central government memorandum empowering political parties to issue whip to their members for ensuring discipline in Parliament during debates and voting on legislative issues.

"You are a 'samiti' (petitioner), let a member approach us then we will deal with the issue. Do you want to say that the elected members are unaware of it," a bench headed by Chief Justice P Sathasivam asked.

Senior advocates K K Venugopal and Gopal Subramaniam submitted that MPs have been given "freedom of speech in Parliament" under Article 105 of the Constitution and this power has been taken away by the government memorandum which empowers political parties to issue whips to their members whenever an amendment is moved in the house.

Venugopal said it not only affects the MPs but the entire functioning of the democracy.

"The Constitutional power cannot be negated like this by a whip issuing authority," Subramaniam said and added that there should be a freedom of speech in Parliament also.

The bench said no MP but NGO 'Samta Andolan Samiti' was before it and hence, it was leaving the legal question "undecided" which would be answered at an "appropriate time in an appropriate matter".

Article 105 deals with the powers and privileges of MPs, the houses of Parliament and various committees of the both the houses.

"Subject to the provisions of this Constitution and the rules and standing orders regulating the procedure of Parliament, there shall be freedom of speech in Parliament.

"No member of Parliament shall be liable to any proceedings in any court in respect of anything said or any vote given by him in Parliament or any committee thereof, and no person shall be so liable in respect of the publication by or under the authority of either House of Parliament of any report, paper, votes or proceedings...," the Article reads.

Referring to the Article, the lawyer gave an illustration and said the action can be taken against an MP, who enjoys the freedom of speech in the house under the Constitution, for violating the party whip.