Leader of Opposition in the Lok Sabha, Rahul Gandhi, while participating in the motion of thanks on the President’s Address a day ago, tried to quote from Sushant Singh’s article, published in The Caravan, covering former’s Army chief General M.M. Naravane’s unpublished memoirs dealing with, among others things, the menacing advance of Chinese tanks towards Indian territory in the Ladakh region in August 2020. The memoir spoke of the dithering attitude of Prime Minister Narendra Modi and defence minister Rajnath Singh when it came to giving unambiguous orders to deal with a grave threat to India. Naravane’s words – that he was “handed over a hot potato” by the political leadership – have been quoted in the article.Scope of discussion on Motion of Thanks is wideGandhi discussing the piece is well within the rules and practices governing the discussion on the Motion of Thanks on the President’s Address. The book Practice and Procedure of Parliament by M.N. Kaul and S.L. Shakdher and published by the Lok Sabha Secretariat is considered as the Bible when it comes to conducting the business of the House and its proceedings. In its chapter 10, dealing with the ‘President’s Address, Messages and Communications to the House’ it is unequivocally stated: “The scope of discussion on the Address is very wide and the entire administration is thrown open for discussion. Even matters which are not specifically mentioned in the Address are brought into discussion through amendments to the Motion of Thanks. The only limitations are that members cannot refer to matters which are not the direct responsibility of the Government of India, and that the name of the President cannot be brought in during the debate since the Government and not the President is responsible for the contents of the Address.”So what the Leader of the Opposition was trying to quote from the Caravan article falls within what M.N. Kaul and S.L. Shakdher wrote in the aforementioned book.Kaul and Shakdher’s book is often referred to by Speakers of Lok Sabha including the incumbent Om Birla whenever clarifications are sought on rules and procedure.Limitations on discussionThe only limitation imposed on Members of Lok Sabha participating in the Motion of Thanks on the President’s Address is that “members cannot refer to matters which are not the direct responsibility of the Government of India, and that the name of the President cannot be brought in during the debate since the Government and not the President is responsible for the contents of the Address.”The matter Gandhi was trying to raise fell within the direct responsibility of the government of India and he did not bring in the name of the president of India.Om Birla’s rulingLok Sabha Speaker Om Birla invoking Rule 349 of the Rules of Procedure of the Lok Sabha to prevent Gandhi from quoting from the Caravan article is not in harmony with what has been stated in Kaul and Shakdher’s book on parliamentary practice. Rule 349 (i) provides that whilst the House is sitting, “A member shall not read any book, newspaper or letter except in connection with the business of the House.” The business of the House in which Gandhi participated was the discussion on Motion of Thanks on President’s Address. And as per long-established parliamentary practice in India and as documented in the Kaul and Shakdher’s book, the scope of discussion on the Address is indeed very wide and the entire administration is thrown open for discussion.So Birla not allowing Gandhi to raise the matter under Rule 349 is not in tune within parliamentary practice which has evolved since the time the House started functioning after the Constitution came into force on January 26, 1950. Union home minister Amit Shah and defence minister Rajnath Singh also did not act in tune with what has been stated in the book, when they objected to Gandhi quoting from the Caravan article.Rajya Sabha rulingSome of the rulings of the Chair given in the Rajya Sabha when objections were raised by treasury benches after an opposition leader read out from a text are also relevant.On March 21, 1967 in the course of his speech on the Motion of Thanks on the President’s Address, Rajnarain started reading from what he alleged was a private letter. I. K. Gujral rising on a point of order, asked whether it was within rules to read highly defamatory things from a private letter and claim parliamentary privileges for it. He said that if the member wanted to quote something he should authenticate it.The then deputy chairman observed: “I do not think anyone should read from any document or letter. Unless it is authenticated, it cannot be laid on the Table. But you may say what you want to say without reading”. The spirit of that 1967 ruling of the chair of Rajya Sabha assumes significance in the context of what Gandhi said in the Lok Sabha while participating in the motion of thanks on the President’s address. He stated that what he was saying from the Caravan article was authentic and yet he was barred from saying it. He was not allowed to speak even on the essence of what was written in that article. Such an act to prevent a Leader of the Opposition from speaking constitutes a violation of parliamentary procedure.The Speaker as repository of the dignity and power of the House must act in tune with the parliamentary practice so assiduously established by his distinguished predecessors.S.N. Sahu served as Officer on Special Duty to President of India K R Narayanan and had a tenure as Joint Secretary, Rajya Sabha Secretariat.