Date : 7/12/2023

Relevance: GS Paper2- Polity- Parliament

Keywords: Standing Committees and Ad Hoc Committees, 'unethical conduct' and 'breach of privileges', Central Bureau of Investigation (CBI), Representation of the People Act, 1951, Fast-Track Courts

Context-

• The parliamentary system plays an important role in upholding ethical conduct and democratic values among its members. One such mechanism is the Ethics Committee, tasked with overseeing the moral conduct of parliamentarians.
• In recent developments, Trinamool Congress Member of Parliament (MP) Mahua Moitra is facing a serious inquiry by the Lok Sabha's Ethics Committee, raising questions about the nature of the allegations and the constitutional grounds for potential expulsion.

The Ethics Committee's Mandate

• Established in 2000, the Ethics Committee of the Lok Sabha serves as a vital body responsible for examining cases of 'unethical conduct' and 'breach of privileges' among its members.
• The committee, composed of parliamentary members, meticulously reviews complaints filed by other members, outsiders through a member, or those referred by the Speaker.
• The term 'unethical' is not explicitly defined, leaving it to the committee's discretion to determine what actions qualify as such.
• In the current scenario involving Mahua Moitra, the committee is believed to have recommended her expulsion for alleged unethical conduct, including accusations of using her position to target a business house on behalf of a businessman in exchange for cash.
• Additionally, she faces charges of sharing her login credentials with the said businessman.

Privileges Committees: A Closer Look

• While the Ethics Committee handles cases of unethical conduct, the Privileges Committee, or Special Inquiry Committee, deals with more severe accusations against a member.
• These committees have historical precedence, with a special committee in 1951 finding a member guilty of promoting a business interest through questions in return for financial benefits.
• Notably, the 'cash for query' scandal in 2005 saw ten Lok Sabha MPs recommended for expulsion by a special committee.
• During their investigations, the privileges committees contribute to maintaining the integrity of parliamentary proceedings and ensuring that members uphold the standards of ethical conduct expected of them.

Constitutional Considerations

• The Constitution, under Article 101, outlines the grounds for the vacation of a seat by an MP. While expulsion is not explicitly mentioned, conflicting judgments from the Supreme Court have added complexity to this matter.
• In the case of Raja Ram Pal versus Hon’ble Speaker (2007), the court upheld Parliament's power to expel members for a breach of privilege.
• However, in Amarinder Singh versus Special Committee, Punjab Vidhan Sabha (2010), the court deemed expulsion by a State Assembly as unconstitutional, highlighting potential conflicts with the principles of parliamentary democracy.
• The current situation with Mahua Moitra brings forth constitutional questions regarding the appropriateness of expulsion and its potential implications.
• The balance between preserving the dignity and privilege of the House and ensuring democratic representation is not discriminatory for political reasons becomes a critical consideration.

Challenges and Questions Surrounding Expulsion

• The allegations against Mahua Moitra are undeniably serious, especially in the context of 'cash for query.'
• However, the question arises whether expulsion is a proportionate punishment for such actions. Furthermore, the citizens of her constituency would be left without representation until the next elections or a bye-election is conducted.
• The privileges of the House, rooted in medieval British practices, were designed to protect the House of Commons from authoritarian influence.
• In the contemporary context of modern democracy, it is essential to strike a balance between upholding these privileges and ensuring that democratic representation remains unprejudiced for political reasons.

Legal Inquiry and the Need for Fast-Track Courts

• Parliamentary Committee proceedings, while essential, lack the detailed nature of judicial cases conducted under the Evidence Act.
• In Mahua Moitra's case, the Ethics Committee is believed to have recommended a legal inquiry, with the Central Bureau of Investigation (CBI) already registering a preliminary inquiry.
• To address the challenges and expedite the resolution of such cases, the establishment of fast-track courts could be a pragmatic solution.
• These courts, operating within a defined timeframe, could conduct trials in a time-bound manner, potentially within 60 days.
• If a member is convicted in such a trial, it would result in their disqualification under the Representation of the People Act, 1951.
• However, if found not guilty, they would continue to serve as a member of the House.

Conclusion

Woodrow Wilson once said, "Congress in session is Congress on public exhibition, whilst Congress in Committee rooms is Congress at work." This sentiment holds true not only for the U.S. but also for the Indian Parliament. With the immense types of issues and operations at play, parliamentary committees play a pivotal role in addressing sector-specific concerns and ensuring the functionality and dynamism of the highest platform of multilateral dialogue in India.
The inquiry into Mahua Moitra's alleged unethical conduct and breach of privileges provides serious insights into the intricate dynamics between parliamentary committees, constitutional provisions, and the need for a fair and expeditious legal process. Striking a balance between upholding the dignity of the House and ensuring democratic representation is a delicate task, requiring careful consideration of constitutional principles and the evolving nature of democratic norms.
As the situation unfolds, the outcome will undoubtedly shape the discourse on parliamentary ethics and the accountability of elected representatives in the Indian democratic framework.

Source- The Hindu