Article 101(4) of the Indian Constitution

 

Article 101(4) of the Constitution

Article 101(4) states that if a Member of Parliament (MP) remains absent from all meetings of either House for 60 consecutive days without permission, the House may declare their seat vacant. However, this period excludes times when Parliament is prorogued (adjourned sine die) or adjourned for more than four consecutive days. This means absences are counted only during active sittings.

Purpose: The provision ensures MPs actively participate in legislative proceedings and uphold their accountability to constituents.

Amritpal Singh’s Situation

Amritpal Singh, the Independent MP from Khadoor Sahib (Punjab), has been detained under the National Security Act (NSA) in Dibrugarh since April 2023. Despite winning the 2024 Lok Sabha election from prison, he has attended only 1 of 50+ sittings (his July 2024 swearing-in), missing nearly 49 sittings due to detention.

Why Amritpal Singh Need Not Worry

1. Permission Mechanism:
   • MPs can seek leave from the Committee on Absence of Members, which rarely rejects applications for uncontrollable reasons like imprisonment.
   • Precedents exist: Former MP Atul Rai was granted leave for 23 consecutive sittings while imprisoned in 2023.
2. Procedural Safeguards:
   • Even if an MP exceeds 60 absences, the House must formally vote to declare the seat vacant, preventing arbitrary disqualification.
   • Former Lok Sabha Secretary General P.D.T. Achary stated no MP has lost their seat under Article 101(4) in practice.
3. Judicial Intervention:
   • Singh petitioned the Punjab and Haryana High Court in February 2025 to attend Parliament sessions, demonstrating proactive engagement.
   • Courts historically protect MPs’ rights to participate unless dereliction is proven.
4. Equity Over Enforcement:
   • The Committee prioritizes fairness over strict adherence to rules, granting leave for imprisonment, illness, or emergencies.

Key Takeaways

• Article 101(4) aims to enforce accountability but includes safeguards to prevent unfair disqualification.
• Amritpal Singh’s case highlights the flexibility of parliamentary norms for incarcerated MPs, reinforced by judicial and procedural protections.
• Historically, no MP has lost their seat under this provision, underscoring the system’s leniency.

Conclusion: While Amritpal Singh’s prolonged absence raises questions about representation, constitutional mechanisms and precedents make it unlikely he will lose his seat. His legal efforts and the parliamentary committee’s equitable approach further mitigate risks.