Two issues of free speech and censorship have arisen in the recent special session of Parliament. The first issue is the Sansad TV overlaying a Hindi translation whenever an MP speaks in English; and the second is the censorship of speeches made by opposition MPs on the floor of the House. Let’s examine the two issues in some detail.
On 1st July, NCP MP Supriya Sule posted on X her observation that Sansad TV, the dedicated television channel that broadcasts Parliament proceedings, had been muting original audio and replacing it with a Hindi voiceover whenever an MP spoke in English. She said the practice was deeply problematic, as it suppressed the MPs’ voice and denied them the right to be heard in their chosen language.
It has been observed that Sansad TV is now translating the Speech of MP’s in English, into Hindi while muting the original audio. This new practice is deeply problematic, as it suppresses the MP’s voice, denies elected members the right to be heard in their chosen language, and…
— Supriya Sule (@supriya_sule) July 1, 2024
A few days later, two more opposition MPs have sounded alarm over the practice. Sasikanth Senthil, DMK MP from Tamil Nadu, told a news website: “[Sansad TV] might not even be translating the right stuff. I am sure they must be taking a lot of sting out of what the MP is saying […].” N.K. Premachandran, RSP MP from Kerala, said the practice amounts to discrimination against non-Hindi speaking people.
The Rules of Procedure and Conduct of Business in the Lok Sabha (16th edition) places Hindi and English on an equal footing. In the case of petitions submitted in the House, Rule 161(3) says: “Every petition shall be either in Hindi or in English. If any petition in any other Indian language is made, it shall be accompanied by a translation either in Hindi or in English, and signed by the petitioner.” And in the case of complaints to the Ethics committee, Rule 233(A)(6) states the same, which is that the complaint should be either in Hindi or in English. There appears to be no other rule specifying the language to be used when speaking.
One may therefore conclude, first, that the existing rules of procedure place Hindi and English on par with each other, and Sansad TV is simply wrong to mute English speech and overlay it with a Hindi voiceover. Second, members of Parliament enjoy a greater degree of freedom of speech as they speak not on their personal behalf but represent a constituency in the Parliament, and to replace their words with a voiceover amounts to censorship.
The second issue is the Speaker’s decision to “expunge” important parts of the speeches made by opposition leaders in the House. In the context of Parliament, to expunge is to remove parts or whole of a speech from the record of proceedings. According to the dictionary, to censor a speech means to examine it officially and suppress or remove unacceptable parts of it. In other words, to expunge is to censor. Lok Sabha Speaker Om Birla and Rajya Sabha Chairman Jagdeep Dhankar have both done this.
The Speaker or the Chairman can censor a speech only as per Rule 380 of the Rules of Procedure. The said Rule states: “380. If the Speaker is of opinion that words have been used in debate which are defamatory or indecent or unparliamentary or undignified, the Speaker may, while exercising discretion, order that such words be expunged from the proceedings of the House.” So, the Speaker or the Chairman can censor the part of an MP’s speech that is defamatory, indecent, unparliamentary or undignified.
Although the Speaker of the Lok Sabha reportedly expunged 13 parts of Rahul Gandhi’s speech, only the following problematic remarks are available in the public domain.
“Lord Shiva says, ‘Don’t be afraid and don’t make others afraid’. He shows the fearless posture, talks about non-violence… and those who call themselves Hindu, they talk about violence, hatred and falsehood round the clock.”
“BJP ko, aapko… nahi, nahi, Narendra Modiji pura Hindu samaj nahi hain. BJP pura Hindu samaj nahi hai (I’m referring to the BJP and you… no, no, Narendra Modi doesn’t make up the whole of Hindu society, nor does the BJP). The RSS-BJP did not have a thekedari (monopoly) over Hinduism.”
“Aap Hindu ho hi nahi (You are not Hindu). In the Hindu religion, it’s written, ‘Stand with the truth, don’t step back from the truth, don’t fear the truth’. Non-violence is our creed.”
Among the four criteria in Rule 380, the closest these remarks can be possibly seen is as being defamatory, meaning damaging the reputation of someone.
To be realistic, however, the remarks may be vituperative (bitter and abusive), rather than defamatory. And vituperation is very much a constant element in the Parliamentary discourse. For evidence of it, one needs to look no further than the Prime Minister’s reply in the same session. To sum up, as The Hindu editorial noted, Parliament needs to have a higher threshold for censoring speeches.
* * *