Prof. K. K. Tiwari’s Admonition: A Parliamentary First
P A Rama Rao
Parliament has witnessed many extraordinary moments, but some events stand apart not merely for their political or constitutional significance, but also for their rarity. Having covered Parliament and critical political developments in New Delhi for nearly a decade as a Special Correspondent of Deccan Chronicle, I had the privilege of witnessing several such occasions. Among them were the admonition of Prof. K. K. Tiwari by the Rajya Sabha and the impeachment proceedings against Justice V. Ramaswami—events that remain etched in my memory.
The admonition of Prof. K. K. Tiwari was particularly remarkable. It was a rare parliamentary proceeding and, to the best of my recollection, the first of its kind. Unfortunately, I cannot now recall the exact date of the incident or whether Prof. Tiwari was a sitting member of the Rajya Sabha at the time.
The action followed allegations that certain remarks made by Prof. Tiwari had undermined the dignity of the Upper House and its members. After following the prescribed procedure, including consideration of the report of the Committee of Privileges, the House decided that he should be admonished.
The manner in which the decision was implemented made the occasion especially unusual.
On the appointed day, a temporary enclosure resembling a small cabin was erected inside the House. It was here that Prof. Tiwari was required to stand while the Chairman formally conveyed the House’s decision.
At the scheduled time, the Chairman took up the matter listed on the agenda and directed the security personnel to produce Prof. Tiwari before the House. The officers escorted him inside and led him into the enclosure.
With Prof. Tiwari standing in the designated space, the Chairman addressed him and communicated the decision of the House. He stated that the House had decided to punish him by way of admonition for making intemperate statements that had lowered the prestige of the House and its members. He formally admonished Prof. Tiwari for his conduct and warned him against repeating such behaviour.
Having delivered the admonition, the Chairman directed him to leave. Prof. Tiwari was then escorted out by the security personnel.
What followed was equally striking in its simplicity. The Chairman proceeded to the next item on the agenda, and the House resumed its regular business. An extraordinary parliamentary episode had concluded, and the institution moved on with its work.
Another momentous occasion I witnessed was the impeachment proceedings against Justice V. Ramaswami in the Lok Sabha. The proceedings on the impeachment motion against the judge were remarkable, bringing legal arguments and constitutional questions to the forefront of parliamentary debate. Eminent legal minds participated in the proceedings, which attracted considerable public and political attention.
The motion was ultimately defeated in the Lok Sabha. The episode remains a significant chapter in India’s constitutional history, illustrating the complexities involved in the parliamentary process for the removal of a judge of the higher judiciary.
Parliament also hosted special sittings and joint sessions to commemorate milestones in the nation’s history. Among those I witnessed were the 1992 commemoration of the 50th anniversary of the Quit India Movement, the 1996 observance marking 50 years of the Constituent Assembly, and the midnight sitting in 1997 celebrating 50 years of Indian Independence.
Each occasion had its own historical significance. Together, they offered a ringside view of Parliament not merely as a forum for political contestation, but also as an institution entrusted with preserving constitutional traditions and commemorating the nation’s collective journey.
For a parliamentary correspondent, such moments are more than assignments. They are encounters with history as it unfolds. The passage of time may blur dates and incidental details, but the memory of witnessing proceedings that few journalists have the opportunity to observe remains a professional privilege. (The author is a former Special Correspondent of Deccan Chronicle in New Delhi, where he covered critical political developments and Parliament sessions for nearly a decade.)
