Date : 02/11/2023

Relevance: GS Paper2- Polity - Parliamentary Privileges and Contempt of House

Keywords:Breach of privilege, Committee of Privileges, Ethics Committee, Criminal investigations

Context-

The recent proceedings of the Lok Sabha Ethics Committee against Member of Parliament (MP) Mahua Moitra from the All India Trinamool Congress (TMC) have sparked a significant public debate. These proceedings were initiated in response to a complaint lodged by Nishikant Dubey, a senior MP, alleging that Ms. Moitra had received money from a businessman in exchange for raising specific questions in Parliament to promote the businessman's interests. The Speaker of the Lok Sabha referred the complaint to the Ethics Committee for examination and a report.

Expulsion and Instances of Misconduct

• It is essential to clarify that if an MP receives money for raising questions in Parliament, it constitutes a breach of privilege and contempt of the House. Such complaints typically fall under the purview of the Committee of Privileges, which conducts an investigation and submits findings with recommendations for action against the MP in question. In severe cases, MPs have been expelled from the Lok Sabha.
• One of the earliest instances of this occurred in 1951 when H.G. Mudgal, an MP of the Provisional Parliament, was found guilty of promoting a business association's interests in exchange for financial benefits by raising questions and proposing amendments to a bill affecting that association.
• A special committee of the House determined that his conduct was derogatory to the House's dignity and inconsistent with the standards expected of its members. He chose to resign before being expelled, though the recommended action was his expulsion.
• In 2005, a sting operation by a private channel exposed 10 Lok Sabha MPs accepting money for raising questions. A special committee found them guilty of conduct unbecoming of a member and recommended their expulsion, which the House subsequently accepted. All 10 MPs were expelled.
• These examples illustrate that complaints of MPs accepting money for parliamentary work are typically referred to the privileges committee or special committees formed for such purposes.
• However, Mahua Moitra's case has been referred to the Ethics Committee, even though the allegation pertains to illegal gratification for performing parliamentary duties.

The Role of the Ethics Committee

1. The Ethics Committee of the Lok Sabha, established in 2000, is tasked with examining complaints related to the unethical conduct of MPs. It also formulates a code of conduct for MPs, but the term 'unethical conduct' is not explicitly defined. The committee, therefore, holds the authority to determine whether a specific act of conduct is unethical.
2. There have been cases in the past where the ethics committee addressed misconduct issues. For instance, one MP impersonated his close female companion as his wife during a parliamentary tour, leading the committee to find him guilty of unethical conduct. The recommended punishment was a 30-sitting suspension from the House, and he was barred from taking any companion or spouse on official tours for the remainder of that Lok Sabha's tenure.
3. While the Ethics Committee has dealt with various misconduct cases, it is essential to distinguish between different types of cases. Serious misconduct cases, especially those involving criminal offenses, are typically referred to the Committee of Privileges or special committees, not the Ethics Committee..

The Criminal Aspect

1. In cases where MPs are accused of accepting illegal gratification, as in Ms. Moitra's situation, it becomes a breach of privilege and falls under the purview of criminal law. Accepting a bribe is a criminal offense, typically investigated by government criminal investigative agencies.
2. Parliamentary committees are not involved in criminal investigations; their role is to determine whether an MP's conduct amounts to a breach of privilege or contempt of the House within the parliamentary framework.
3. If a breach of privilege is established, the House can take punitive action related to the MP's functioning within the House.
4. However, outside of parliamentary proceedings, MPs remain liable to face legal consequences for any criminal offenses, such as bribery, under the applicable laws. Notably, the 10 MPs expelled from the Lok Sabha in 2005 still faced trial under the Prevention of Corruption Act.

Parliamentary Probe vs. Judicial Probe

1. It is crucial to recognize that a parliamentary probe differs significantly from a judicial probe. While judicial bodies investigate matters according to specific statutes and rules, conducted by individuals with judicial training, parliamentary committees consist of MPs who are not experts in the judicial field.
2. Parliament holds investigative power as a means of scrutinizing the executive branch, which is accountable to it, and has the authority to discipline its own members to protect its honor and dignity.
3. Parliamentary investigations follow a distinct methodology outlined in the Rules of the House. Common procedures include examining written documents submitted by the complainant and witnesses, oral examination of relevant witnesses, deposition of experts if necessary, analyzing all evidence, and reaching conclusions based on the preponderance of probabilities.
4. Importantly, parliamentary committees are not bound by the rules of evidence under the Evidence Act. Decisions regarding the relevance of evidence are ultimately made by the Speaker, rather than being subject to the Evidence Act.

Online Submission of Questions

• The issue of MPs sharing their login details and passwords for the online submission of questions has gained attention recently.
• In practice, many MPs do not have the time to draft questions personally, and therefore, they may share this task with personal assistants. This arrangement can be considered a practical necessity given the heavy workload MPs handle.
• Furthermore, the Lok Sabha still needs to formulate specific rules to regulate the online submission of questions. MPs are free to engage individuals to assist them with parliamentary work, and they are not obligated to disclose the sources from which they obtain information for their work.
• Article 105 of the Constitution grants MPs the freedom to express themselves in the House, and this right extends to the acquisition of information for raising questions or drafting bills and resolutions for Parliament.
• Investigating the sources of information used by an MP may lack legal sanction. However, Parliament retains the authority to discipline its members for any breaches of privilege or contempt, particularly in the context of their parliamentary work.

Conclusion

The functioning of the Lok Sabha Ethics Committee, the distinction between parliamentary and criminal investigations, and the code of conduct for MPs are all critical aspects of ensuring ethical and transparent parliamentary conduct in India. The recent case involving Mahua Moitra highlights the importance of understanding the nuances of parliamentary procedures and ethics committees.

While parliamentary committees play a crucial role in addressing ethical misconduct within the confines of parliamentary rules and privileges, criminal offenses fall under the jurisdiction of law enforcement agencies. Balancing the need to protect the dignity and honor of the House with the legal processes required to address criminal conduct is a delicate and complex task. Ultimately, the integrity of India's parliamentary system relies on the careful consideration of these issues and the application of established rules and procedures.

Source - Indian Express