Rule 380 of the Lok Sabha

Rule 380 of the Rules of Procedure and Conduct of Business in the Lok Sabha grants the Speaker of the Lok Sabha the authority to expunge any words or expressions used during debate that are considered defamatory, indecent, unparliamentary, or undignified. This provision ensures that the proceedings of the House maintain the dignity and decorum expected in a legislative body and that the official records remain free of objectionable language.

Background

The Rules of Procedure and Conduct of Business in the Lok Sabha are framed under Article 118(2) of the Constitution of India. They regulate all aspects of the functioning of the House of the People, including debates, motions, voting procedures, and members’ conduct. Rule 380, situated within this framework, specifically deals with maintaining the decorum of parliamentary speech and ensuring that the record of proceedings reflects the dignity of the House.
Historically, the practice of expunging unparliamentary expressions stems from British parliamentary traditions, where the Speaker acts as the final authority on maintaining order and ensuring that members’ language and behaviour conform to the standards of the legislature. India’s Lok Sabha, modelled on the Westminster system, continues this tradition by empowering its Speaker to decide what constitutes unparliamentary language.

Text and Scope of Rule 380

Rule 380 reads in essence that if the Speaker is of the opinion that words have been used in debate which are defamatory, indecent, unparliamentary, or undignified, the Speaker may, at their discretion, order that such words be expunged from the proceedings of the House.
This provision thus confers discretionary power upon the Speaker. The Speaker’s decision in this regard is final and cannot be challenged within the House. The purpose is not to censor debate but to ensure that freedom of speech in Parliament operates within the limits of decency and respect.

Purpose and Significance

Rule 380 plays a vital role in maintaining the moral and procedural integrity of parliamentary debate. It ensures that:

• The record of proceedings reflects only those expressions that uphold the dignity of Parliament.
• Members do not use language that could damage the reputation or character of others, whether inside or outside the House.
• The freedom of speech enjoyed by members under Article 105 of the Constitution remains subject to parliamentary discipline and decorum.

This balance between free expression and responsible conduct is central to the functioning of a democratic legislature.

Procedure of Expunction

When the Speaker orders that words be expunged under Rule 380, the official record of debates is edited accordingly. The expunged portion is replaced by a series of asterisks, and a footnote is inserted stating: “Expunged as ordered by the Chair.” This method ensures that while the objectionable words are omitted from the record, the act of expunction itself remains visible to the public, thereby maintaining transparency.
The Lok Sabha Secretariat also maintains a list of expressions and words that have been held unparliamentary over time. However, the decision to expunge depends largely on the context in which the words were used rather than on the words themselves.

Types of Expressions Considered Unparliamentary

The words or expressions liable to expunction generally fall into one of the following categories:

• Defamatory expressions – statements damaging a person’s reputation without justification.
• Indecent expressions – language or remarks offensive to modesty or good taste.
• Unparliamentary expressions – phrases or accusations violating the conventions of respectful debate.
• Undignified expressions – words inconsistent with the dignity of Parliament or its members.

Thus, Rule 380 is not concerned merely with offensive vocabulary but with the broader tone and intent of speech in the House.

Relationship with Other Parliamentary Rules

Rule 381 of the Lok Sabha Rules complements Rule 380 by outlining the technical process of deleting expunged words from the official record and inserting the explanatory note. Together, these rules establish the framework through which the Speaker maintains order and ensures that the proceedings published in the Parliamentary Debates remain an accurate yet dignified record.

Advantages of Rule 380

• It upholds the decorum and dignity of parliamentary proceedings.
• It safeguards the official record from containing offensive or defamatory language.
• It provides a formal mechanism to address instances of verbal misconduct without interrupting legislative business.
• It reinforces the authority of the Speaker as the custodian of parliamentary propriety.

Criticism and Limitations

While Rule 380 serves an important disciplinary function, it is occasionally criticised for being subjective in application. The Speaker’s discretion is paramount, and what may be considered unparliamentary in one context might be tolerated in another. This subjectivity may lead to accusations of bias or inconsistency.
Moreover, overuse or politically motivated application of expunction orders could lead to concerns about transparency and freedom of expression within the House. Critics argue that excessive expunction may obscure the true nature of parliamentary debate from the public record. Nevertheless, the rule is designed not to curtail free speech but to ensure that it is exercised responsibly.

Practical and Contemporary Relevance

Rule 380 frequently features in current parliamentary proceedings, particularly during heated debates or discussions involving personal remarks or strong criticism of public figures. When such words are ordered expunged, the Speaker’s decision is final and is implemented immediately by the Secretariat.
In academic and competitive examinations, questions related to “expunction in Parliament” often refer to Rule 380 as the governing provision. Understanding its content and purpose is thus essential for students of Indian polity and public administration.