Lok Sabha Member of Parliament Amritpal Singh is apprehensive of losing his parliamentary seat. The Independent MP from Punjab is also in charge of Waris Punjab De, a pro-Khalistan group. He faces charges under the National Security Act and has been in jail since 2023. Recently, Amritpal approached the Punjab and Haryana High Court, stating that he would lose his seat under Article 101(4) of the Constitution if he could not attend the Budget Session.
The Article specifies that if an MP is absent from Parliament (without permission) for 60 days, their seat can be declared vacant. Amritpal has attended Parliament only once — to take oath — since the beginning of the 18th Lok Sabha in 2024. The court has now asked the government whether the Lok Sabha has constituted a committee that sanctions the leave application of MPs.
Story continues below this ad
The 60-day absence provision was part of the Government of India Act, 1935. It then found its way into the Constitution. In 1950, the provisional Parliament declared three seats as vacant under this provision. Then, in 1956, the first Lok Sabha took action against an Odisha MP, who had stayed away from the House due to domestic troubles and ill health. The provision came to national attention in 1976. This time, a first-time Rajya Sabha MP was on the brink of losing his seat under Article 101(4). His name, Subramanian Swamy.
But before diving into the events of 1976, let us see how Parliament documents the presence of our public representatives. The Lok Sabha and the Rajya Sabha maintain a record of an MP’s participation in House proceedings. So, if a member speaks in the House or casts a vote, it shows they were present. MPs can also mark their presence by signing an attendance register maintained by both Houses of Parliament. The Secretariat uses these registers to calculate the allowances to MPs.
If MPs cannot attend Parliament, they can request leave from the two Houses. In the Lok Sabha, the leave applications go to a committee, while the Rajya Sabha decides these requests on the House floor.
Story continues below this ad
Leave requests are rarely denied. And being in jail while proceedings are ongoing is grounds for asking for leave. For example, during the last Lok Sabha (2019-24), Atul Rai, the Bahujan Samaj Party (BSP) MP from Uttar Pradesh, was in prison for most of his five-year term and the committee approved his leave.
In April 1974, Uttar Pradesh MLAs elected Swamy to the Rajya Sabha on a Jan Sangh ticket. As a first-time parliamentarian, 34-year-old Swamy hit the ground running. He actively participated in every aspect of Rajya Sabha proceedings, asking questions, and discussing Budgets and legislative proposals. He also drew the House’s attention to various national and international issues.
However, the participation of Opposition MPs in legislative proceedings suffered a setback when, in June 1975, the government imposed the Emergency. Several Opposition leaders were jailed under the Maintenance of Internal Security Act (MISA).
From July 1975, when Parliament reconvened for its monsoon session, Opposition MPs like L K Advani, Raj Narain and Chandra Shekhar had to apply for leave from the Rajya Sabha because of their incarceration. All of them followed a similar pattern. For example, Advani’s application stated, “I am physically restrained from attending the next session of (the) Rajya Sabha … I do not know how long this detention is going to last, I therefore seek leave of absence from the House.” Rajya Sabha MPs would approve all such leave applications.
In Swamy’s case, the government issued a MISA detention order but was unable to arrest him. He travelled abroad and applied for leave to remain absent from the Budget session in January 1976. Rajya Sabha MPs agreed to his request.
Swamy was critical of the Emergency and discussed it extensively on public forums during his travels abroad. The government’s reaction was swift. It cancelled his passport in March. In the same month, the Rajya Sabha denied his next application to remain absent from the House.
Denial of leave meant that the government could push for removing Swamy from the Rajya Sabha under Article 101(4). He returned to India to record his presence in the next parliamentary session.
In her book, Evolving with Subramanian Swamy: A Roller Coaster Ride, his wife Roxna Swamy describes how he booked a ticket to Bangkok on a flight that stopped to refuel in Delhi. Though his name was not on the passenger manifest for India, he exited the plane and left the airport.
With careful planning, Swamy reached Parliament House on August 10, 1976. He walked to the Rajya Sabha lobby and signed his name in the attendance register. Then, he then entered the House at 11 am, when the Rajya Sabha Chairperson was reading the obituaries of deceased MPs. Swamy stood up and raised a point of order. The House records don’t show what his point of order was.
According to Roxna, addressing the chair, Swamy had said, “You have made a notable omission in your obituary references: You have left out Democracy from your list of the deceased.” After that, Swamy walked out of the House and left the Parliament building.
most read
He insulated himself from Article 101(4) by registering his presence in the attendance register and House proceedings. But a day later, the Metropolitan Magistrate declared him a proclaimed offender and, a week later, ordered the attachment of his property. With no success in apprehending Swamy, the government set up a Rajya Sabha committee to investigate his conduct in India and abroad. In three months, this committee declared that his conduct was “unbecoming of a parliamentarian” and the Rajya Sabha expelled him from its membership.
For Swamy, this was the start of his long parliamentary career. Less than six months later, in March 1977, he returned to Parliament after winning his first Lok Sabha election.
The writer looks at issues through a legislative lens and works at PRS Legislative Research
