Ethics Committee of Lok Sabha
Context:
- The panel’s recommendation for Mahua Moitra’s disqualification.
Introduction:
- The swiftness with which the Lok Sabha Ethics Committee moved to suggest Mahua Moitra, a Member of Parliament (MP) for the Trinamool Congress, be removed from the lower House is undoubtedly not an indication of justice or loyalty to ethics. The suggestion is an overtly politicised attempt to intimidate a government critic.
Committee on Ethics, Lok Sabha:
- The concept of ethics committees for the two Houses was initially presented during the Presiding Officers’ Conference in Delhi in 1996.
- The Ethics Committee of the Upper House was established on March 4, 1997, by then Vice President (and Chairman of the Rajya Sabha) K R Narayanan. It was formally launched that May with the aim of supervising members’ moral and ethical behaviour and looking into misbehaviour cases that were reported to it. The ethics panel is subject to the same rules that govern the Committee of Privileges.
- In the case of Lok Sabha, a study group of the House Committee of Privileges recommended the establishment of an Ethics Committee but it was not adopted by Lok Sabha after visiting Australia, the UK, and the US in 1997 to investigate practises pertaining to the conduct and ethics of legislators.
- The Speaker appoints the members of the Ethics Committee for a one-year term.
- The Speaker refers any complaints of unethical behaviour by Lok Sabha members to the 15-member Committee, which has the authority to investigate them all and offer recommendations based on its judgement.
Issues:
- Additionally, it’s a warning shot designed to deter MPs from carrying out their duty of holding the administration responsible. There is no discernible principle underlying the committee’s procedure or conclusions.
- With the assistance of the Ministry of Electronics and Information Technology, the committee discovered that the MP’s credentials were used 47 times to access the Parliament portal online from Dubai.
- Foreigners filed questions to the parliament. As members of the opposition on the committee have noted, MPs’ assistants frequently draught and submit questions.
- Additionally, Members of Parliament pose queries in response to statements made by different citizens. It is an assault on parliamentary democracy itself to dismiss an elected member of parliament after concluding without proof that any question is being asked in return for pecuniary advantages.
- The committee is challenging the notion of natural justice by requesting that the government look into the “quid pro quo” accusation made by one of its members against Ms. Moitra after finding her guilty.
- If MPs are prohibited from disclosing their login information to outside parties, then everyone must be subject to the same rules. The committee should look into how other MPs write and submit parliamentary questions, especially after taking the drastic step of demanding the removal of an elected member from the House and depriving the electorate of her constituency representation.
- It is evident that the selective inquiry of one MP is intimidation because it is based on suppositions and insinuations. It also stands in sharp contrast to the Lok Sabha Committee of Privileges’ belated response to a serious allegation against MP Ramesh Bidhuri of the Bharatiya Janata Party for using disparaging communal insults against a fellow Lok Sabha member.
Way Forward:
- Having said that, Ms. Moitra’s decision to delegate official tasks to an individual who is not her employee shows a lack of discernment and discretion. This should serve as a reminder to keep oneself above reproach for everyone who wants to hold the government responsible.
