|
POLITICAL DIARY
Breach Of Privilege
IT’S ONE BIG TAMASHA
By Poonam I Kaushish
New Delhi, March 11, 2008
Question: Who said the following: (a) “The House is
becoming a place of tamasha. You are working overtime to
finish democracy. It is a farce.” (b) “Is not disruption of
proceedings during the Question Hour a breach of privilege of
individual members who await answers to admitted starred
questions, and supplementary questions?”
Answer: No guesses, it’s the Lok Sabha Speaker Somnath
Chatterjee and his counterpart in the Rajya Sabha Vice
President and Chairman Hamid Ansari. Both clearly exasperated
over the conduct of our Right Honourables in the two Houses of
Parliament.
But unlike the past when these reprimands were dismissed out
of hand, this time round it has set our MPs to give serious
thought, deliberate and debate on the issue and come out with
their recommendations on how to end the fast deteriorating
situation. More so against the backdrop of Ansari taking the
unprecedented step of referring a complaint by a group of
seven MPs belonging to the UPA to the Committee of Privileges
on Thursday last. Their grouse was that they could not “speak
and ask supplementaries” during Question Hour allegedly
because some Opposition MPs did not allow the House to
function. Pertinently, he raised the question whether those
disrupting the House breach the privilege of those MPs
scheduled to ask questions during that period.
Under Rule 203 of the Rules and Procedure and Conduct of
Business in the Council of States, the Chairman has the power
to “refer any question of privilege to the Committee of
Privileges for examination, investigation and report.” Which
then would have to examine, investigate and then submit a
report on the matter. It is another matter that the cornered
MPs apologized and all was forgiven.
However, Ansari’s well-intended extraordinary action may not
have any salutary immediate effect given that MPs have still
to codify their privileges. True, technically speaking,
adjournment, disturbances, hungama, raising pandemonium and
rushing into the well of the House constitutes breach of
privilege. However, the question can be argued both ways. Some
parliamentary experts assert that nothing technically stops
the Chair from taking disciplinary action, yet not much
happens in terms of handing out punishment. Primarily because
the rules are not enforced by the Presiding Officers.
Invariably, both the Lok Sabha Speaker and the Rajya Sabha
Chairman neither name nor ask an MP or MPs disrupting the
proceedings to withdraw from the House. And when the
recalcitrant MP refuses to do so seldom are Marshals summoned.
The last time was on 22 July 1998 when the Rashtriya Janata
Party MP Anand Mohan disrupted the proceedings in the Lok
Sabha, refusing to heed the Speaker's call for silence and was
then ordered to be evicted from the House.
On the obverse not a few feel that the Chair should also not
lose sight of the fact that members act to highlight issues of
great national importance on their leaders' instructions or to
raise matters dear to the aam aadmi in their constituency.
Also, if there is a large majority of members, which stood up
and disrupted the House, would it be a matter for the
privileges committee? More important, isn’t preserving the
sanctity of Parliament as the highest democratic forum
everyone’s responsibility?
However, Ansari is not being guided by any whims. Nor is he
cracking the whip during the time the Vice-President normally
presides ever the Rajya Sabha, in his dual role as Chairman.
He is doing so simply because the Question Hour is the crucial
hyphen that links the Government to Parliament. It provides
for daily and continuing accountability of the Executive to
the Legislature. Wherein the Government through its Ministers
is duty-bound to answer questions.
Any member in either House can put a question to the Prime
Minister or any other Minister and demand an honest answer.
Making question time the most powerful weapon available to the
MPs, and more especially the Opposition, to keep the
Government on a tight leash. It is based on the fundamental
right to information enshrined in the Constitution, via
questions.
Mercifully, the rules of the House ensure that the Government
is well and truly in the dock and cannot, therefore, avoid
questions and conveniently escape. Perhaps, this Hour more
than any other time of the House serves as a barometer of
Governmental efficiency and performance at the macro level and
that of a Minister at the micro level. When they are required
to answer queries relating to matters of public importance and
if the administrative responsibility reposed in them.
Sadly over the years, with confrontationalist politics and
politically motivated bashing becoming the raging cult, our
Right Honourables are showing less and less interest in what
they should be doing ---- law making. Bringing things to such
a pass that the pursuit of power, pelf and patronage is
replacing all else.
The gradual decline in the number of sittings underscores it
all. The Rajya Sabha, which had an annual average of 90.5
sittings in 1952-61, came down to 71.3 in 1992-2001 — a
decline of 20 per cent. The comparative figures for the Lok
Sabha are 124.2 and 81.0 — a decline of 34 per cent. The State
Assemblies are worse off, with the average now being in the
range of 3 to 20 sittings every year.
More. The annual average of the Bills passed by Parliament has
come down from 68 in 1952-61 to 49.9 in 1992-2001. Nearly 23
per cent of MPs elected in 2004 had criminal cases registered
against them and over half of these are these that could lead
to imprisonment for five years or more. The situation is worse
in the case of MLAs.
Shockingly, both the Houses lost over 130 hours of time (cost
of each minute being Rs 26,000) due to repeated uproar and
pandemonium which has cost the tax payer over Rs 20 crore last
year. Up till now the 14th Lok Sabha, has lost 21 per cent of
the time due to adjournments.
Recall in 2001 an all-India conference on Discipline and
Decorum in Parliament and State Legislatures was convened by
the then Lok Sabha Speaker Balyogi. The 350-strong jamboree
included the Rajya Sabha Chairman, the Prime Minister, Leader
of Opposition, Chief Ministers, Parliamentary Affairs
Ministers, Party leaders and Chief Whips who agreed to evolve
a code of conduct and make each other answerable.
Alas, all the suggestions mooted therein were still-born. Only
adding to the piling trivia heard before. Recall, a similar
conference held in 1992 too did not yield any result.
Understandably, in today’s media is the massage age where
everything is factored. If governance is all about ‘feeling
good’ then politics is all about ‘sounding good.’ Asserted an
MP, “In a country where ethics and politics are two ends of a
spectrum, one fails to comprehend how a Presiding Officer’s
anguish or sending a matter to the Privileges Committee can
stem the growing ‘rot of moral decay’ in our polity.
“Bluntly, it means that Parliament in its collective wisdom
has tacitly decided to throw ethics to the dogs”, stated a
senior old-timer. “Can a code of conduct or rules, for
instance, tame our politicians who increasingly call the
shots.” Parliament and the State Assemblies have been
vandalized as never before. Pandemonium, dharnas and
adjournments have become their hallmark: Reducing these
buildings, which house the aspirations of the people, to
perspiration and one-upmanship. Turning them into market
places where leaders are bought and sold like prize bulls with
the winner taking it all.
In sum, even as one applauds the initiatives of the two
Presiding Officers, much still remains to be done. It is high
time our Right Honourables give serious thought to rectifying
all the scandalous distortions that have seeped in and
urgently work for a change. Ansari and Chatterjee have shown
the way. Will our jan sevaks cooperate with them to make
Parliament truly India’s high temple of democracy? --- INFA
(Copyright India News & Feature Alliance)
E-Mail :
newseditor@sarkaritel.com |
