Major issues relating to functioning of Parliament are involved
By T N Ashok
NEW DELHI: India’s Parliament faces a constitutional and political confrontation after BJP MP Nishikant Dubey signalled his intent to seek the expulsion of Rahul Gandhi, Leader of the Opposition, over alleged associations with the Open Society Foundations and questions about his international travel.
The controversy centers on a fundamental question: Can an elected Member of Parliament be expelled for association with foreign organizations or overseas travel in the absence of proven illegality?
Dubey’s proposed motion, not yet formally introduced or detailed in writing, alleges that Gandhi has been in “collusion” with the Open Society Foundations, founded by philanthropist George Soros, and suggests his travels to East Asia are politically compromising. Gandhi has not been charged with any offense, nor has concrete evidence of wrongdoing been presented publicly.
The Open Society Foundations has funded civil society initiatives globally and faced scrutiny from governments across the ideological spectrum. In India, it has occasionally drawn attention from the Ministry of Home Affairs under foreign funding regulations. However, engagement with international organizations is not illegal for Members of Parliament.
Gandhi has travelled internationally in his capacity as opposition leader, addressing diaspora audiences and academic gatherings—activities common among parliamentarians in democratic nations worldwide.
The Indian Constitution does permit expulsion of MPs under Articles 105 and 118, which grant Parliament powers, privileges, and immunities, and authorize each House to regulate its procedures. Historically, Parliament has asserted authority to expel members in cases involving bribery, corruption, or conduct deemed “unbecoming” of a legislator.
However, constitutional scholars emphasize the threshold is exceptionally high. “Expulsion is an extraordinary power,” said a former Secretary-General of the Lok Sabha. “It is not meant for political disagreement or reputational allegations. It is typically invoked when there is demonstrable misconduct, criminal conviction, or actions that directly undermine the functioning of the House.”
The Supreme Court upheld Parliament’s expulsion power in the 2007 “cash-for-query” case but emphasized such powers are subject to judicial review if exercised arbitrarily or disproportionately.
If Dubey formally moves a resolution, it would likely be referred to a privileges or ethics committee before any vote. Speaker Om Birla must first determine whether the motion is admissible. Legal experts note that mere association with a foreign foundation, absent evidence of unlawful funding or influence, does not automatically constitute a violation of parliamentary conduct rules.
“Indian MPs routinely travel abroad, speak at forums, and engage with foreign institutions,” said a constitutional law professor at Delhi University. “Unless there is proof of financial impropriety, violation of the Foreign Contribution Regulation Act, or actions prejudicial to national security, it is difficult to see how association alone could justify expulsion.”
Historical precedent supports this view. Parliamentary expulsions in India have been rare and almost exclusively tied to corruption, bribery, criminal conviction, or anti-defection violations—not political rhetoric or international engagement.
In 2005, multiple MPs were expelled following “Operation Duryodhana,” when sting operations captured legislators accepting money for raising parliamentary questions. MPs including Lal Chandra Kol of BSP in UP and Chhatrapal Singh Lodha of BJP in Orissa were expelled after ethics committees found evidence of bribery—a clear violation of parliamentary integrity.
Disqualifications under anti-defection laws have occurred when MPs switched parties, as with Lalduhoma in 1988. Criminal convictions triggering automatic disqualification under the Representation of the People Act have affected figures including Lalu Prasad Yadav in the fodder scam and Gandhi himself in 2023 following a defamation conviction, though his membership was restored when the Supreme Court stayed the conviction.
Critically, no MP has been expelled purely for “unpatriotic views,” foreign travel, or association with international institutions. TMC member Mahua Moitra was expelled over allegations she tabled parliamentary questions at the behest of a Mumbai builder, but she subsequently won reelection and returned to the Lok Sabha, demonstrating that expulsion does not necessarily end a political career.
Expulsion is considered the parliamentary equivalent of capital punishment because it overturns the mandate of voters who elected the member. Courts have historically treated it as a measure of last resort.
“The danger lies in politicizing expulsion,” warned a former High Court judge. “If mere ideological disagreement or association becomes sufficient, it sets a precedent that could destabilize parliamentary norms.”
Any decision to expel Gandhi would almost certainly face judicial challenge. While courts traditionally show deference to parliamentary privilege, they have intervened when actions appeared arbitrary or exceeded constitutional limits.
The timing is significant. Relations between the ruling BJP-led NDA coalition and the Congress Party have deteriorated sharply in recent months, with Gandhi vocally criticizing the government on economic policy, foreign affairs, and other issues. Opposition parties have accused Speaker Birla of partisanship, even attempting procedural manoeuvres to challenge his conduct.
BJP supporters argue national security concerns justify examination. “If there is even a perception of undue foreign influence, it must be examined,” said a BJP strategist who declined to be named.
Congress leaders have dismissed the move as political theatre designed to silence opposition. “This is an attempt to silence the Leader of the Opposition through theatrics,” a party spokesperson said. “Travelling abroad and speaking at international forums is not a crime.”
In an indication of the animosity generated, prominent Congress MP KC Venugopal, who sits beside Gandhi, told the ruling BJP: “You can hang us if you want,” referencing both the no-confidence motion and expulsion motion.
Dubey is within his parliamentary rights to raise concerns about potential foreign influence. Article 105 protects freedom of speech within Parliament, and MPs are immune from legal action for statements made on the floor of the House.
“In a democracy, allegations—even sharp ones—are not prohibited,” said a senior Supreme Court advocate. “The issue is whether they are substantiated and whether the remedy sought is proportionate.”
The question of journalistic and public commentary on such controversies has also emerged. Under parliamentary rules, MPs can move privilege motions if they believe their rights have been obstructed. However, balanced reporting analyzing constitutional issues and presenting multiple perspectives generally falls under protected journalistic expression.
“Critical or analytical writing is not contempt of Parliament,” said a media law expert. “Unless a report is demonstrably false and malicious, it does not ordinarily constitute a breach of privilege.”
If Dubey formally introduces his motion, the Speaker must decide on admissibility. A committee inquiry could follow, allowing Gandhi an opportunity to respond—a process that could take weeks or months.
Politically, the episode may serve both sides: the ruling party reinforces its narrative of vigilance against foreign interference, while the opposition frames itself as victim of governmental overreach.
Constitutionally, however, the case appears less straightforward than the rhetoric suggests. Expulsion requires more than suspicion or political disagreement. It requires evidence of conduct that fundamentally undermines parliamentary integrity—corruption, criminal wrongdoing, or serious ethical breaches clearly established through due process.
Until the full details of the motion are made public, the controversy rests largely in the realm of allegation and counter-allegation. The question is not only whether Gandhi’s associations cross a legal line, but whether invoking the ultimate parliamentary sanction risks crossing a constitutional one.
For now, India’s Parliament stands at a crossroads between political confrontation and constitutional principle, with implications extending far beyond one MP’s fate to the norms that govern democratic accountability itself. (IPA Service)
