Mahua Moitra’s disquieting, unnatural expulsion from Parliament
The legislature can punish its members for wrongdoing, but when such punishment is given through a majority decision, it is absolutely essential to ensure the integrity and fairness of the procedure followed in establishing the guiltMahua was given a chance to rebut the affidavits against her. She refused to do so and stormed out of the committee room. By admitting she gave her log-in details she had admitted she broke the rules. That was enough to establish her guilt.
The expulsion of Mahua Moitra, the Trinamool Congress MP from the Lok Sabha is unique in many respects.
It is exactly like the 2005 Cobrapost affair in which this cretin tried to pressurise the Media to stop the expose.
Firstly, it is not clear whether the Ethics Committee of Lok Sabha has the jurisdiction and the mandate to recommend expulsion.
It was meant to be a milder alternative. The accused would show contrition and plead mitigating circumstances. Mahua acted brazenly and then accused the Committee members of asking sexually explicit questions and thus outraging her modesty. She was lying. A Sikh woman MP- the Maharani of Patiala- was on that committee. She is an Independent MP. Can we believe a Sikh woman will stand idly by while men ask prurient questions of a female MP?
The principal charge against Moitra was that she received money for asking questions in Parliament from a Dubai-based businessman. If an MP accepts money for asking questions or doing other parliamentary work, he will be guilty of gross violation of the privileges of the House. But then, such cases are always investigated by the Committee of Privileges, or in certain situations, any special committee set up by the House for that purpose.
The intention was to give Mahua a way of minimizing the damage done to her reputation. If the Ethics Committee said 'she is a new MP. Because of her inexperience, she broke a rule. She says the affidavits against her are motivated by spite. We are not a law enforcement agency and can't decide questions of fact. We penalize her for breaking a rule but show clemency on the grounds that she is inexperienced and has displayed great contrition'.
The special committee, if set up, is given a clear mandate by the House to investigate the speecific allegation, find the truth and suggest punishment.
The House has an inherent power greater than any committee of its members. In the Mahua case there was flagrant wrongdoing and then false allegations- including that an Independent Sikh lady MP had sat idly by while Mahua was subjected to 'Draupati Vastraharanam'- i.e. her modesty was outraged.
If the allegation is found to be true, these committees can, in the appropriate case, recommend even the expulsion of the member from the House.
The House can expel who it likes. However, the matter is justiciable. The Court may decide that the action was arbitrary or unmerited by the facts of the case.
Since the acceptance of bribes by an MP is a serious breach of privilege and contempt of the House, the House takes action as per the recommendations of the committee.
It can do so, suo moto.
One important point to be noted here is that members of the Indian legislature — Parliament and state legislatures — enjoy the same privileges which were available to the members of the House of commons as on January 26, 1950.
Unless they had superior immunities by reason of Royal titles. In the UK a peer of the realm could not sit in the Commons.
Although the privileges of the legislature have not been codified, there is now a greater certainty about them in the UK as well as in India. Every legislature has a committee to investigate the breaches of privilege of the House and also of the members. This committee is exclusively tasked to investigate the breaches of privilege and cases of contempt of the House.
The Ethics Committee was set up in the Nineties as a more lenient alternative. However, what this cretin does not get is that the House can vote to expel anybody it likes. The Courts may demand reinstatement on the grounds that the action was arbitrary. But Parliament can then pass a bill to make the matter non-justiciable. A bureaucrat like the author should advise the House not to proceed in an arbitrary manner so as to prevent a clash between the Legislature and the Judiciary. But the Legislature can insist on its sovereignty.
Contempt of the House is fairly wide term and every misconduct can be brought within its ambit. No other regular committee of Parliament has any jurisdiction over the privilege matters.
Unless they choose not to exercise it so the matter can be dealt with by the more lenient Ethics Committee. That is what happened in this case. Mahua was offered a way to save face. She chose to make a spectacle of herself.
So Moitra’s case being a case of breach of privilege in terms of the main complaint should have been investigated by the Committee of Privileges. Instead it was referred to the Ethics Committee, presumably on the basis of a supplementary charge that she shared her login details with a businessman who tabled questions in Parliament against another business house.
No. It was on the basis that as a first time member of the Central Legislature some leniency could be shown to her. She had broken the law but was she an ethical person who had made an error of judgment? No. She was and is a scoundrel who lies her head off and then pretends that she is being victimized because of her gender.
The Ethics Committee looks into what is termed as unethical conduct of the MPs. Unethical conduct has not been defined by the Rules. Nevertheless, it can be safely assumed that conduct which does not strictly amount to a breach of privilege or contempt of the House, but at the same time is unacceptable by the standards of a member of Parliament, can be brought before this committee.
No. There is no need for any assumption. Look at when and why the Ethics Committee was set up. It was a way to show that Parliament was taking action against members who were in the news for scandalous wrong-doing but the aim was to prevent expulsion and the holding of a by-election which might threaten the stability of the ruling coalition.
It can certainly recommend punishments such as admonition, reprimand or, in some cases, suspension from the sittings of the House.
But Mahua's actions were so brazen, it had no alternative but to recommend expulsion.
Expulsion from the House is the most serious punishment the House inflicts on its members. But, traditionally, this punishment has been reserved for cases of serious and aggravated breaches of privilege or contempt of the House.
Which is what Mahua displayed by alleging her modesty was outraged by the prurient questions of members of the Ethics Committee.
A misdemeanour which does not amount to a breach of privilege does not attract the punishment of expulsion.
Letting a businessman write your parliamentary questions so as to attack a rival businessman is a crime. It attracts the punishment of not just expulsion but also criminal prosecution. This cretin seems to think Mahua's misdemeanour was that she got drunk and flashed her boobs at the Speaker.
Mohua Moitra has been held guilty of unethical conduct in sharing her personal password and login details with another person who is alleged to have misused it for promoting his business interests.
She is being investigated for criminal behaviour.
Technically, it is not possible for the person to table questions through the Lok Sabha portal without them being seen by the MP.
Technically, it is possible for the MP not to be able to read and write or to show no interest in reading questions drafted by someone else. Had that person been on her staff or were from her party, she has the defence that she lacked the knowledge to frame it herself but knew it was in the political interest of her party to put forward that question. Suppose Mahua can prove in Court that Mamta instructed her to give her password to the billionaire in question because Mamta had a political reason to attack Adani- e.g. she didn't want him to do the Tajpur port- then, provided, she received no expensive gifts or money, she may be acquitted.
If the MP has seen them it must be presumed that those questions have been approved by her.
How do we know she saw them? She had a chance to tell the Ethics Committee if this were the case. She did nothing to clear her name. She stormed out of the room and then abused the members of the Committee. This is the behaviour of a brazen law breaker.
The questions which are thus submitted to the Lok Sabha secretariat are examined in terms of the Rules, and admitted or disallowed by the Speaker. Once the Speaker admits the questions, they are replied to by the government. If the Speaker admits a question and the government replies to it, no further issues can arise there from. The motive of an MP behind asking a particular question is not looked into or investigated by the House.
Unless there is evidence that consideration was received in return for posing such questions.
Under the House Rules, the speaker will disallow a question which is about an individual or an institution which is not responsible to the government.
This is irrelevant. Even if a question was disallowed, the very act of taking money or gifts as a quid pro quo for submitting it is a corrupt practice which triggers expulsion and criminal proceedings.
Similarly, a question relating to a matter with which the government of India is not directly concerned will not be admitted by the Speaker. Therefore, the question of misconduct of an MP involving the promotion of business interest of any individual through Parliament questions does not, strictly speaking, arise in such cases.
Just taking money is enough even if no question is tabled. One of the Cobrapost MPs was expelled though none of his questions were selected.
Article 122 of the Constitution prohibits the courts from inquiring into the proceedings of the House on the ground of any procedural irregularity.
The Legislature can defy the Judiciary and curb its power. It has chosen not to do so.
However, the Supreme Court had held in Raja Rampal vs Hon’ble Speaker, Lok Sabha (2007) that this immunity is not available to the proceedings when the challenge is on the ground of unconstitutionality, gross illegality and denial of natural justice. In the above case, the challenge was against the expulsion of a member by the House. Significantly, the Court said in its judgment that it would ascertain the existence of a privilege, the violation of which has led to the expulsion. Thus, according to the Court, the breach of an existing and ascertainable privilege of the House is the sine qua non of the exercise of the power of expulsion. This judgment can be considered to be an authority for the proposition that the expulsion of a member of the legislature can be resorted to only when there is clear breach of a known and identifiable privilege of the House.
The Bench upheld Parliament's right to expel corrupt members. The precedent here is against Mahua.
In the case of Moitra no violation of a known privilege has been identified.The Committee deemed the act of sharing Lok Sabha login credentials with another person ‘Unethical Conduct’ and ‘Contempt of the House’. Parliamentary privilege extends to the House's power to expel people who submit questions written by some businessman out to harm a rival entrepreneur. The House has a right to conduct its affairs in a proper manner.
Unethical conduct remains undefined.
It means immoral wrongdoing.
A member of the House, as per the logic of the Raja Rampal judgment cannot be expelled from the House on the basis of an undefined offence.
The offence has been defined. The House has a right to enforce its own rules which prevent businessmen getting their questions tabled in the House so as to serve their own mercenary interests.
It may be noted here that the sharing of a password for tabling questions in Parliament is not prohibited by the House Rules.
Yes it is. MPs sign an undertaking saying they won't do this. Arguably, their PAs could have had access but no since the Mahua case has clarified this matter. It is one thing for your PA to do something for you, it is another for some businessman to file questions so as to harm his rival.
The legislature has the inherent power to punish its members for wrongdoing. But when such punishment is given through a majority decision, it is absolutely essential to ensure the integrity and fairness of the procedure followed in establishing the guilt.
The matter is justiciable. Mahua has approached the Bench. This cretin is not a judge. He is an ex-bureaucrat who thinks his job is to protect corrupt politicians.
In all civilised democracies, the legislature resorts to expulsion in the rarest of the rare cases.
Like taking cash for questions.
At a fundamental level, there is a disquieting unnaturalness about MPs terminating, through a voice vote, the membership of a fellow MP elected to the House by two million people.
Mahua may face jail time. It is natural that if you commit a crime, you may be prosecuted and sent to jail- even if you are an MP.
Scroll.in has an interview with this elderly cretin.
On Tuesday afternoon, 49 more Opposition MPs were suspended from the Lok Sabha from the remainder of the Winter Session of Parliament. Since December 14, a total of 141 Opposition MPs – 95 in the Lok Sabha and 46 in the Rajya Sabha – have been suspended for purportedly disrupting proceedings.
They actually disrupted proceedings. There is TV footage of them doing this.
The MPs have been seeking a discussion in Parliament on the December 13 security breach inside the Lok Sabha chamber.
Why? That is a matter for the Secretariat.
Under Rule 374 of the Rules of Procedure and Conduct of Business, the Lok Sabha speaker can name an MP who “disregards the authority of the Chair or abuses the rules”. After the MP is named, the House can move a motion to suspend the legislator. The chairman of Rajya Sabha has the same powers as the Speaker under Rule 256.
374 (A) means a disruptor can be chucked out even without a vote.
Former Lok Sabha Secretary General PDT Achary told Scroll that not only is the scale of these suspensions unprecedented,
The precedent is from 1989 when 63 opposition members were suspended.
they also raise questions about the government’s will to respond to the demands of the House
The House demands that disruptors are ejected so Parliament can function properly.
and the propriety of the bills being passed in the near-absence of the Opposition.
They are perfectly proper even if the Opposition sits outside Parliament noisily eating its own shit.
Here from an interview with him.
Is there a precedent for banning such a large number of MPs en masse in Parliament or any state assembly?
The only other instance that comes to my mind is when 63 MPs were suspended in 1989 during [former Prime Minister] Rajiv Gandhi’s tenure. The Opposition had been stalling Parliament for weeks in the wake of the Bofors scandal. But one key difference is that the MPs had been suspended for three days at that time, not for the entire session. Disruptions in the House happen all the time, but this scale of banning MPs is unprecedented.
The Opposition raised a hue and cry over the Thakkar Commission's Inquiry into Indira Gandhi's assassination. They calmed down after they were suspended. The difference between then and now is that the Opposition doesn't want to return to sit in the House. Why? This is because the sight of Opposition MPs from different parties and ideologies showing solidarity outside the House is meant to suggest there is Opposition unity. Sadly, this is backfiring because there is no pre-poll pact and no rival PM candidate. The misbehaviour of Opposition MPs- especially the mimicry of the Veep- makes them look like senile delinquents playing truant and eating pakoras. They know they will lose their seats soon enough. It is like the kids who know they have failed their exams and thus engage in hooligan behaviour towards the end of term. Since they will have to go work in Daddy's shop or Uncle's factory, they know they have nothing to lose.
What then is different this time that calls for banning MPs at this scale?
Parliament has an expensive new building. The Government wants the prestige of the Institution to rise.
It baffles me too, to be honest.
This cretin is easily baffled. He doesn't get that it is in the interest of the majority of MPs for Parliament to be viewed as a prestigious, well-run, institution.
From what I understand, the Opposition is asking for a statement from the home minister on the Parliament security breach and a discussion in Parliament. Yes, the MPs carried placards inside the House and there are rules that do not allow such protests. But, MPs also have the right to demand a response from the government.
And the Government has the right to tell the Opposition to eat shit.
Article 75(3) of the Constitution says that the council of ministers has a collective responsibility to the House.
That council enjoys the confidence of the House.
On a matter as serious as the security breach, I see no reason why the government cannot issue a statement.
But the matter was not serious at all.
Does this sort of action raise questions about the lack of checks and balances on the rules to suspend MPs?
The matter is justiciable. Let the suspended MPs approach the Courts.
I would say one could not foresee such use of the suspension rules when they had been formed. The rules had been formulated keeping unruly behaviour by individual MPs in mind, not for banning MPs by the bulk. After all, suspending MPs comes down to the majority’s wish in the House. But why should the majority demand bans at such a scale?
To prevent disruption and to go ahead with passing bills urgently required by the Nation. Don't forget, elections are coming up. The ruling Party's MPs need to be able to point to all they have achieved in Parliament. They are not required to show they tolerate rowdy behaviour or that they can be intimidated by hooligans.
If there is indeed grave disorder in the House, the Speaker should adjourn the proceedings and ensure that the two sides resolve the contentious matter amicably outside the House. I am not sure those channels are functional currently.
Because you are a fucking cretin. Being a boring Babu does not endow you with political savvy. The Opposition want to show solidarity by standing together outside the House. The Ruling Party rightly calculates that they will come across as senile delinquents playing truant. Meanwhile the splendid new Parliament will be more productive than ever.
What about the validity of the bills being passed in the House while such a large number of Opposition MPs are not present?
They are perfectly valid. Even if the Opposition Party (as happens in Ulster) refuses to take its seats in the House, Bills passed by the majority are valid.
Technically, the majority passes bills…so the bills being passed now will be valid. But it is a question of propriety.
No. It is a question of law. What Indira Gandhi did when she imprisoned Opposition MPs was improper. Chucking out disruptors is perfectly proper.
After a bill becomes a law, it affects the society at large and that is where the role of the Opposition is important.
Only if the Opposition gets elected and reverses that legislation.
Because it is the Opposition that points out lapses and faults in a bill.
No. Anybody at all is free to do so. If voters think there is a fault or a lapse they can elect a different set of legislators.
The government then takes corrective action to formulate a better bill. In the absence of this mechanism, what’s becoming a law is basically what has been drafted by the draftsmen. It also means that bills will hardly ever be referred to standing committees or parliamentary panels.
This suits the Opposition because they want to appear united whereas in fact there are sharp ideological divisions between them.
Is there any legal recourse that the MPs could take or do they have any other option get their suspension revoked?
No, the courts cannot intervene into Parliament rules on suspension of MPs unless someone files a plea saying that the rule itself is unconstitutional.
So, there is a judicial remedy.
The House can revoke the suspension at any time, but even for that the majority has to agree.
Having served as the secretary general of the Lok Sabha and being a close observer of parliamentary affairs for decades, how do you see these developments?
He served during Manmohan's tenure. He thinks Congress is nice and BJP is nasty. He comes from Kerala where BJP has little support.
This to me is an aggravated manner of handling the business of the House. You cannot suspend an MP representing 15 lakh-20 lakh voters at the drop of a hat.
You can if they are persistently disruptive.
The House not just requires, but deserves the service of all the MPs at all times.
Unless they choose to be disruptive. The House can't compel good behaviour but it can suspend those who are determined to disrupt its proceedings.
There is no reason for the majority in the House to demand that more than 140 MPs do not participate in the proceedings.
Yes there is. Those MPs have a political motivation for being disruptive and getting suspended. Let us see whether this brings them the political benefits they hope for.
As for PDT Achary, I suppose he will celebrate Rahul's losing his seat in Kerala by writing a book titled 'Resurgent Congress- Rahul Gandhi's vision for India'. Hopefully, he will be suitably rewarded for this- i.e. CPM goons will come and break his legs.
No comments:
Post a Comment