I refer to an article which appeared in L’Express of the 15 April 2021 relating to “Expunging the Hansard”. With due respect to my friend Vinod Boolell, former Judge, the article, in my humble opinion, needs some clarifications. My view on the matter is that there is a clear distinction between a “Journal” and “Hansard”. 

A “Journal” of the House contains the recording of notes and records kept by the Clerk and other Officers at the table in the course of a sitting. The “Journals” record all that is done by the House. They are compiled from the minute books of the clerks at the table by the Journal Office. The ‘‘Journals’’ are prepared by the House Staff under the authority of the Clerk. Materials or events recorded in the ‘‘Journals’’ are subject to be expunged. Examples of expunging materials recorded in the ‘‘Journals’’ are given in the said article but they all concern the “ Journals” as distinct from the “Hansard”. Speaker John Bercow ordered that “ the judgment of the Supreme Court of UK of the 24 September 2019 be entered in the “Journal” of the House and instructed the Clerk to correct the “Journal”……. Speaker John Bercow refers to the Journal and not the Hansard. 

All the other examples of “expunging” cited in the article concern the “Journals” of the House as distinct from the “Hansard”.

Unlike the ‘‘Journals’’, the “Hansard” contains the full deliberations of the House; speeches and statements of Members as well as other comments and interventions made in the Chamber. It is the report in extenso of the debates which take place in the House and which is reported as nearly as possible verbatim. It contains written answers to questions and ministerial statements. However, editorial changes are made, repetitions are omitted, grammatical mistakes are corrected provided they do not alter substantially the meaning of anything that was said in the House. 

According to Erskine May, the Keeping of the “Journals” in the House of Commons started in 1547. As for the Official reports of the Debates or Hansard, they were gradually developed in the 19th century by a person by the name of T.C.Hansard. He was the printer and publisher of the Parliamentary Debates. In 1909 the publications of the Debates were officially taken over by the staff of the House of Commons and the title “Hansard” was restored to the Debates in 1943.

As regards Standing Order 77 referred to in the article, I must point out that it is exactly the same as Standing Order 114 of our Standing Orders of 1969. In 1969, in a booklet prepared by Sir Robert Stanley K.B.E; C.M.G called “Notes on the Standing Orders and Rules of the Legislative Assembly” it is stated that and I quote “The notes have been prepared for the Information of Members…..They are intended to furnish explanatory comments on the Standing Orders and provide illustrations of certain rules and procedures which the orders prescribe. They are based on the practice of the House of Commons, as expounded by the treatise of Sir T.Erskine May. It is in the light of that practice ,that according to Standing Order 1, the Standing Orders of Mauritius are to be interpreted”. 

As our Standing Orders are silent on the issue of “Expunging the Hansard”, Standing Order 77 should therefore be read in conjunction with Standing Order 1 and interpreted in the light of the practice of the House of Commons and not arbitrarily as has been done by the Speaker. Erskine May gives examples of expunging the “Journals” of the House of Commons and not the “Hansard”. “Expunging the Hansard” is not a practice of the House of Commons and the same practice should therefore apply to us.

In India the Speaker could not expunge the Hansard except in special circumstances when the remedies available were inadequate and that also with the consent of the House on a motion made until such time as the Speaker was formally vested with the power to do so by Rule 380 of the Standing Orders of the Indian Parliament. 

In my view, being given that our Standing Orders are silent on the issue of expunction, they should be interpreted in the light of the practice of the House of Commons and the said practice shall be followed as clearly stated in our Standing Order 1 (2) which states as follows: “In any matter for which these Orders do not provide the said practice( i.e the practice of the House of Commons) shall be followed” .