The freedom of speech on the floor of parliament is an unquestioned privilege of an elected member, but this right can be exercised within certain parameters defined by the Rules of Business. It is the Speaker of parliament who decides whether a word or phrase uttered by a member is within those parameters, and if not he orders it to be expunged from the record of the proceedings.

The issue here is the word “selected” for Prime Minister Imran Khan used by the Opposition members and “banned” by the chair. A day earlier, this word was expunged by the Deputy Speaker, but Leader of Opposition Shahbaz Sharif repeated it on Thursday. The Speaker reacted rather sharply. Not only did he order a ban on its use within the house, he also warned media against its use. To this there are two aspects: one, whether or not the word “selected” fit in the definition of unparliamentary language and two, whether or not the Speaker can ban the use of words for all times to come, both in the house and by the media. According to the Oxford Advanced Dictionary of Current English, ‘selected’ means ‘being most suitable’ or ‘chosen’. And as to what unparliamentary language means; Abraham and Hawtrey’s Parliamentary Dictionary says: “Words or expressions which, because they make improper accusations or imputations against a member of either House (of the United Kingdom) or by reason of their abusive nature, ought not to be used in debate.” Apparently, by ordering the ban on the use of word “selected” for the prime minister, Speaker Asad Qaisar, is not on the safe side of both democratic practice and rules of business governing the debate on the floor of parliament. One should not forget that expunction of a word or expression from the proceedings is only a one-time event; it has no permanent implication. And as for its use by the media here too he is not correct. Not only the ambit of his powers is confined to the premises of parliament, the media can report that he expunged this word from the proceedings. And this is no breach of privilege of the House.

Naturally, the Speaker’s verdict on this has provoked serious concern – because his order runs counter to the spirit of the Constitution. According to Article 19, “there shall be freedom of press, subject to any reasonable restrictions imposed by law in the interest of the glory of Islam or the integrity, security or defence of Pakistan or any part thereof, friendly relations with foreign countries, or public order, decency or morality, or in relation to contempt of court, (commission) or incitement to an offence.” By calling Imran Khan a “selected” prime minister the opposition members commit no such offence. There is nothing wrong with the word “selected” for the prime minister; in fact, it is the innuendo the said expression entails that hurts the Speaker and the members on Treasury benches. The political opposition, in the elected house and outside, refuses to accept that the last election was fair and impartial. If our parliamentary history is any guide no opposition party, including PTI, ever gave a clean chit to the elected leadership. We believe the Speaker would have been well-advised to accept that what the Opposition Leader was saying was not a new normal. By choosing to ban the use of a word that is neither unparliamentary nor unconstitutional, he risks compromising his neutrality which is expected of him by the Constitution. According to his oath “that, in all circumstances, I [the Speaker] will do right to all manner of people (read Opposition), according to law, or without fear or favour, affection or ill-will.”