What's New

Ethics, parliamentary conduct and the Indian MP

Relevance

• GS Paper 2 Parliament and State legislatures—structure, functioning, conduct of business, powers & privileges and issues arising out of these.
• GS Paper 4 Codes of conduct.
• Tags: #Parliamentaryconduct #Ethics #conductofbusiness #parliament #IndianMP #GS2 #GS4 #UPSC

Why in the news?

The proceedings initiated by the Lok Sabha Ethics Committee against Mahua Moitra, a Member of Parliament (MP) from the All India Trinamool Congress in West Bengal, have sparked significant public discussion.

The  complaint filed by Nishikant Dubey, a senior MP from the Bharatiya Janata Party, who alleged that Ms. Moitra had accepted funds from a businessman in exchange for raising parliamentary questions aimed at advancing the individual’s business concerns. Subsequently, the Speaker directed the complaint to the Ethics Committee for investigation and the subsequent preparation of a report.

Historic Cases

• In 1951, H.G. Mudgal, an MP in the Provisional Parliament, was found guilty of favoring a business association in exchange for financial benefits related to parliamentary activities.
  • A special committee of the House recommended his expulsion, but he resigned before facing expulsion.
• In 2005, a sting operation revealed that 10 Lok Sabha Members accepted money for raising parliamentary questions.
  • A special committee found them guilty of unbecoming conduct and recommended their expulsion, which was subsequently approved by the House, leading to their expulsion.
• Distinction in Ms. Moitra’s Case:
  • Notably, the case of Ms. Moitra differs from typical instances, as it has been referred to the Ethics Committee rather than the Committee of Privileges.
  • The allegation against her pertains to illegal gratification for performing parliamentary work.

Breach of Privilege and Contempt of the House

• Accepting money for posing questions in Parliament constitutes a breach of privilege and contempt of the House. Such complaints are typically directed to the Committee of Privileges for investigation.
  • After a thorough examination, the committee presents its findings and recommendations for action against the implicated MP.
  • Expulsion from the House can be a potential consequence if the case is substantiated.
• Role of the Ethics Committee of the Lok Sabha:
  • It was established in 2000.
  • Its primary responsibility is to investigate complaints related to the unethical conduct of MPs and provide recommendations for action.
  • The committee is also tasked with formulating a code of conduct for Members of Parliament.
  • The Ethics Committee lacks a precise definition of “unethical conduct,” granting the committee discretion to assess individual acts and determine their ethical nature.
  • More severe misconduct cases are typically dealt with by the Committee of Privileges or special committees, rather than the Ethics Committee.

Cases Establishing Unethical Conduct

• An MP falsely presenting a close female companion as his wife during a parliamentary tour.
  • In this case, the committee recommended a 30-sitting suspension and restricted the MP from taking companions on official tours during that Lok Sabha’s tenure.
• An MP misusing a Parliament-issued car parking label.
  • In such instances, the committee can choose to close the case if the MP acknowledges their mistake and apologizes.

Nature of Ms. Moitra’s Case

• In Ms. Moitra’s situation, if the complaint is centered on accepting illegal gratification, it falls under the category of breach of privilege rather than unethical conduct.
• Investigations into public servants accepting bribes are typically managed by government criminal investigative agencies and not parliamentary committees.

Distinction Between Parliamentary and Judicial Probes

Parliamentary Investigative Process

• An investigation carried out within the parliamentary context regarding a Member of Parliament differs from a judicial inquiry.
• Parliament conducts investigations through its committees according to its House Rules.
• The process includes reviewing written documents provided by complainants and witnesses, oral examination of relevant witnesses, expert testimony if necessary, and analyzing all evidence.
• The committee’s findings are based on the preponderance of probabilities, not the formal rules of evidence under the Evidence Act.
• Decisions about the relevance of evidence are made by the Speaker, rather than adhering to the Evidence Act’s standards.

Online submission of questions

1. Password Sharing Issue: MPs often lack the time to personally draft questions, leading to the sharing of passwords with personal assistants, which is seen as a practical necessity.
2. Lack of Regulating Rules: The Lok Sabha appears to lack specific rules governing the online submission of questions. MPs are free to enlist the assistance of individuals for their parliamentary work without formal regulations.
3. Freedom to Engage Help: MPs have the liberty to engage individuals to assist with their parliamentary duties. There is no obligation for MPs to disclose the sources from which they gather information for their parliamentary work.
4. Constitutional Freedom to Speak: Article 105 of the Constitution grants MPs the freedom to express themselves in the House. This constitutional right should extend to accessing various sources for information to formulate questions, draft bills, or propose resolutions in Parliament.
5. Limits on Investigating Sources: An investigation into the sources of information used by an MP may lack legal authorization due to the constitutional freedom granted to MPs. Parliament, however, retains the authority to discipline its members when necessary.

Source: The Hindu

Mains question

Examine the key subjects and procedures referred to the Ethics Committee of the Parliament. Discuss the significance and implications of such referrals in upholding the integrity of parliamentary conduct.