The role of special inquiry committees of Parliament (GS Paper 2, Polity and Constitution)
Why in news?
- The ethics committee of the Lok Sabha is believed to have recommended the expulsion of Trinamool Congress Member of Parliament (MP) Mahua Moitra from the Lok Sabha for her “unethical conduct” and “breach of privileges”.
- This follows the ethics committee examining the complaints which accused her of asking questions to target a business house at the behest of a businessman in exchange for cash.
- She was also accused of sharing her log-in credentials with the businessman.
What is the role of ethics committee?
- The ethics committee was constituted in 2000, to oversee the moral and ethical conduct of members and examine cases of ‘unethical conduct’ referred to it.
- The Committee examines complaints filed against members of the House by other members; outsiders through a member; or referred by the Speaker.
- The Committee makes a prima facie inquiry before deciding to examine a complaint and presents its report to the Speaker, who places it before the House for consideration.
- The term ‘unethical’ is not defined. It is left to the Committee to decide whether any act is unethical or not.
- In 2007, an MP accompanying his close female companion, impersonating her as his wife was considered ‘unethical’ by the Committee. It recommended suspension of the MP from 30 sittings of the House.
What are privileges committees?
- The privileges committee or special inquiry committee examines the more serious accusations against a member.
- In 1951, a special committee found a member guilty of promoting a business interest by putting questions in return for financial benefits.
- It was again a special committee that inquired into the ‘cash for query’ scam of 2005 where 10 MPs of Lok Sabha were recommended for expulsion.
Is an expulsion constitutional?
- The Constitution under Article 101 lists down the grounds for vacation of a seat by an MP. It includes voluntary resignation, disqualification and continuous absence from the House for 60 sittings. Expulsion is not mentioned explicitly in the Constitution.
- However, the Supreme Court has provided conflicting judgments in this regard. In Raja Ram Pal versus Hon’ble Speaker (2007), it upheld the power of Parliament to expel its members for breach of privilege by interpreting Article 101 to include expulsion as a ground.
- But in Amarinder Singh versus Special committee, Punjab Vidhan Sabha (2010), the Supreme Court held expulsion by the State Assembly as unconstitutional. It held that such scenarios would frustrate the objectives of Parliamentary democracy.
How to reconcile privileges of the House and democratic representation?
- The allegations of ‘cash for query’ against Mahua Moitra are serious in nature. However, can expulsion for such action be viewed as disproportionate punishment? Further, the citizens of the constituency would be left without a representative till next elections or a bye-election.
- The privileges of the House developed in medieval Britain to protect the House of Commons from an authoritarian King. It is important to preserve the dignity and privilege of the House.
- It is equally imperative, if not more in a modern democracy, to ensure that democratic representation is not prejudiced for political reasons.
- Parliamentary Committee proceedings are not as detailed as a judicial case that is conducted as per the Evidence Act. Even in this case, the ethics committee is believed to have recommended legal inquiry and the CBI has already registered a preliminary inquiry.
- It would be prudent to set up fast track courts to conduct trials for such cases in a time bound manner of say 60 days. If they are convicted in such a trial, it would result in their disqualification under the Representation of the People Act, 1951. Otherwise, they should continue to be a member of the House.
