Article 101(4)/अनुच्छेद 101(4)

Why in News? Amritpal Singh’s detention has raised concerns over his parliamentary position, as Article 101(4) states that an MP’s seat can be vacated after 60 consecutive absences without permission. He has missed 46 sittings so far.

Key Points and Detailed Discussion on Article 101(4):

1. Constitutional Provision under Article 101(4):

   • Article 101(4) of the Indian Constitution states:
     “If for a period of sixty days a member of either House of Parliament is without permission of the House absent from all meetings thereof, the House may declare his seat vacant.”
   • This provision is aimed at ensuring the active participation of Members of Parliament (MPs) in legislative proceedings. However, the 60-day period does not include any time during which:
     • The House is prorogued.
     • The House is adjourned for more than four consecutive days.

2. Interpretation of the Clause:

   • The critical term is “without permission of the House.”
     MPs have the right to seek permission for their absence through a formal application to the ‘Committee on Absence of Members from the Sittings of the House.’
   • If the leave application is approved, their absence does not attract the provisions of Article 101(4).

3. Mechanism and Practice:

   • An MP must submit a written request explaining the reason for their absence.
   • The Committee on Absence evaluates the application and makes recommendations to the House.
   • Historically, such applications have rarely been rejected, even when the reason for absence includes imprisonment.

4. Application in Amritpal Singh’s Case:

   • Imprisonment as a Ground for Leave:
     Precedents, like the case of Atul Rai (Ghosi MP, 2023), indicate that MPs in jail have successfully sought leave for prolonged absences.
   • Practical Safeguards:
     • Even after the 60-day threshold, the House must formally declare the seat vacant through a resolution. This step involves a vote, making it unlikely that Amritpal Singh would lose his seat without due consideration.

5. Rare Invocation of Article 101(4):

   • According to constitutional experts like P. D. T. Achary, there is no recorded instance where an MP has lost their seat solely due to the operation of Article 101(4). This highlights the reluctance of the House to penalize members in this manner unless circumstances are extraordinary.

6. Relevance of Parliamentary Sittings:

   • The calculation of the 60-day period is based solely on the actual number of sittings of the House. This excludes periods when the Parliament is prorogued or adjourned for more than four days.

Relevant Case Laws and Precedents:

1. Kihoto Hollohan v. Zachillhu and Others (1992):

   • Key Point: This case dealt with the Tenth Schedule of the Constitution (anti-defection laws) but emphasized the discretionary power of the Speaker/Chairman in parliamentary matters.
   • Relevance: Similarly, under Article 101(4), the process involves parliamentary committees and the final declaration by the House, making it a matter largely governed by the internal proceedings of the Parliament.

2. Raja Ram Pal v. Hon’ble Speaker, Lok Sabha (2007):

   • Key Point: The Supreme Court held that while Parliament has exclusive jurisdiction over its internal matters, judicial review is available in cases of violation of constitutional provisions or arbitrary actions.
   • Relevance: If Article 101(4) were invoked improperly, judicial review could potentially challenge the decision on grounds of procedural irregularity or violation of constitutional principles.

3. Jaya Bachchan v. Union of India (2006):

   • Key Point: The case dealt with disqualification of a Rajya Sabha MP under Article 102(1)(a) for holding an office of profit. The Court highlighted the procedural requirements for disqualifying an MP.
   • Relevance: Similar procedural safeguards would apply under Article 101(4), emphasizing the need for due process before declaring a seat vacant.

4. Amarinder Singh v. Punjab Vidhan Sabha (2010):

   • Key Point: The Punjab and Haryana High Court ruled that expulsion of a member from the Vidhan Sabha must follow established rules and cannot be arbitrary.
   • Relevance: This principle extends to Article 101(4), requiring the House to provide sufficient opportunity for the MP to explain their absence and seek permission.