Parliament voted on the Demands for Grants for the Ministry of Home Affairs on May 02, 2012. During the debate, MPs expressed concern over the status of police forces in different States of the country. They emphasised the need to augment the capability of police forces. Though ‘Police’ and ‘Public Order’ are State subjects, the union government provides assistance to States for strengthening their forces. For instance, the Ministry of Home Affairs has been implementing a non-plan scheme for ‘Modernization of Police Forces’ since 1969-70. Under the scheme assistance is provided in the form of grants-in-aid towards construction of secure police stations, outposts, for purchase of vehicles, equipment etc. (To know more about the scheme, see an earlier blog post on the issue.) At the all India level, the sanctioned strength of State Police equals 20.6 lakh personnel. Though there exist wide variations across States, at an average this amounts to 174 police personnel per lakh population. However, the actual ratio is much lower because of high vacancies in the police forces. At the aggregate level, 24% positions are vacant. The table below provides data on the strength of state police forces as in Jan, 2011
| State | Sanctioned strength | Sanctioned policemen/ lakh of population | Vacancy |
| Andhra Pradesh | 1,31,099 | 155 | 31% |
| Arunachal Pradesh | 11,955 | 966 | 42% |
| Assam | 62,149 | 200 | 12% |
| Bihar | 85,939 | 88 | 27% |
| Chhattisgarh | 50,869 | 207 | 18% |
| Goa | 6,108 | 348 | 16% |
| Gujarat | 87,877 | 151 | 27% |
| Haryana | 61,307 | 248 | 28% |
| Himachal Pradesh | 17,187 | 256 | 22% |
| Jammu & Kashmir | 77,464 | 575 | 6% |
| Jharkhand | 73,005 | 235 | 30% |
| Karnataka | 91,256 | 155 | 10% |
| Kerala | 49,394 | 141 | 7% |
| Madhya Pradesh | 83,524 | 115 | 9% |
| Maharashtra | 1,53,148 | 139 | 10% |
| Manipur | 31,081 | 1,147 | 26% |
| Meghalaya | 12,268 | 469 | 17% |
| Mizoram | 11,246 | 1,112 | 6% |
| Nagaland | 24,226 | 1,073 | 0% |
| Orissa | 53,291 | 130 | 18% |
| Punjab | 79,565 | 291 | 14% |
| Rajasthan | 79,554 | 118 | 11% |
| Sikkim | 5,421 | 886 | 27% |
| Tamil Nadu | 1,20,441 | 178 | 15% |
| Tripura | 44,310 | 1,224 | 17% |
| Uttar Pradesh | 3,68,260 | 184 | 59% |
| Uttarakhand | 20,775 | 211 | 24% |
| West Bengal | 72,998 | 81 | 18% |
| A&N Islands | 4,417 | 1,018 | 22% |
| Chandigarh | 7,873 | 695 | 22% |
| D&N Haveli | 325 | 114 | 13% |
| Daman & Diu | 281 | 140 | 6% |
| Delhi | 81,467 | 441 | 1% |
| Lakshadweep | 349 | 478 | 36% |
| Puducherry | 3,941 | 352 | 25% |
| All India | 20,64,370 | 174 | 24% |
Source: Lok Sabha Unstarred Question No. 90, 13th March, 2012 and Lok Sabha Unstarred Question No. 1042, March 20, 2012
Indiscipline and disruptions in Parliament are much talked about issues. Not only are disruptions a waste of Parliament's valuable time, these significantly taint the image of this esteemed institution. Commotion in Rajya Sabha over the introduction of Women's Reservation Bill and the subsequent suspension of 7 MPs has brought this issue back to the forefront. We thought it might be useful to research and highlight instances in the past when the House had had to deal with similar situations. According to the Rules of Conduct and Parliamentary Etiquette of the Rajya Sabha, "The House has the right to punish its members for their misconduct whether in the House or outside it. In cases of misconduct or contempt committed by its members, the House can impose a punishment in the form of admonition, reprimand, withdrawal from the House, suspension from the service of the House, imprisonment and expulsion from the House." Mild offences are punished by admonition or reprimand (reprimand being the more serious of the two). Withdrawal from the House is demanded in the case of gross misconduct. 'Persistent and wilful obstructions' lead the Chairman to name and subsequently move a motion for suspension of the member. A member can be suspended, at the maximum, for the remainder of the session only. In an extreme case of misconduct, the House may expel a member from the House. According to a comment in the above rule book, "The purpose of expulsion is not so much disciplinary as remedial, not so much to punish members as to rid the House of persons who are unfit for membership." There have been several instances in the past when the Parliament has exercised its right to punish members. We pulled together a few instances: Rajya Sabha
| Unruly behaviour – Some instances | |
| 3-Sep-62 | Shri Godey Murahari was suspended for the remainder of the session on 3 Septemebr 1962. He was removed by the Marshal of the House |
| 25-Jul-66 | Shri Raj Narain and Shri Godey Murahari were suspended for one week by two separate motions moved on 25 July 1966, by the Leader of the House (Shri M.C. Chagla) and adopted by the House. After they refused to withdraw, they were removed by the Marshal of the House. Next day, the Chairman expressed his distress and leaders of parties expressed their regret at the incident |
| 12-Aug-71 | The Minister of Parliamentary Affairs (Shri Om Mehta) moved a motion on 12 August 1971, for the suspension of Shri Raj Narain for the remainder of the session. The motion was adopted. Shri Raj Narain, on refusing to withdraw, was removed by the Marshal of the House |
Source: Rajya Sabha, Rules of Conduct and Parliamentary Etiquette
| Expulsion – All instances (three in total) | |
| 15-Nov-76 | Shri Subramanian Swamy was expelled on 15 November 1976 on the basis of the Report of the Committee appointed to investigate his conduct and activities. The Committee found his conduct derogatory to the dignity of the House and its members and inconsistent with the standards which the House expects from its members |
| 23-Dec-05 | Dr. Chhattrapal Singh Lodha was expelled on 23 December 2005, for his conduct being derogatory to the dignity of the House and inconsistent with the Code of Conduct, consequent on the adoption of a motion by the House agreeing with the recommendation contained in the Seventh Report of the Committee on Ethics |
| 21-Mar-06 | Dr. Swami Sakshi Ji Maharaj was expelled on 21 March 2006, for his gross misconduct which brought the House and its members into disrepute and contravened the Code of Conduct for members of Rajya Sabha, consequent on the adoption of a motion by the House agreeing with the recommendation of the Committee on Ethics contained in its Eighth Report |
Source: Rajya Sabha, Rules of Conduct and Parliamentary Etiquette
Lok Sabha
| Unruly behaviour – Some instances | |
| 15-Mar-89 | Commotion in the House over the Thakkar Commission report (Report of Justice Thakkar Commission of Inquiry on the Assassination of the Late Prime Minister Smt. Indira Gandhi; revelations published in Indian Express before report tabled in Parliament) led to 63 MPs being suspended for a week. An opposition member belonging to the Janata Group (Syed Shahabuddin) who had not been suspended, submitted that he also be treated as suspended and walked out of the House. Three other members (GM Banatwalla, MS Gill and Shaminder Singh) also walked out in protest. |
| 20-Jul-89 | Demand for resignation of Govt. because of the adverse remarks made against it by the CAG in his report on Defence Services for the year 1988-89 saw commotion in the House. Satyagopal Misra dislodged microphone placed before the Chair and threw it in the pit of the House. (Sheila Dikshit was the Minister of State for Parliamentary Affairs). No member was suspended. |
Source: Subhash Kashyap, Parliamentary Procedure (Second Edition)
