The Hindu Business Line : Cash-for-questions scam — Implications for democracy and society

THE COUNTRY was understandably stunned by the shocking visuals of the sting operation shown on TV channels in which 10 MPs of the Lok Sabha and one of the Rajya Sabha were seen eagerly accepting money from persons posing as representatives of a non-existent small manufacturers association for asking questions of Ministers on their behalf and as per drafts provided by them. The prompt action initiated by the Lok Sabha Speaker and the Rajya Sabha Chairman against the MPs caught on the spy camera has evoked country-wide appreciation.

Actually, this is not the first case of its kind. There was a forerunner in 1951, when it came to light that one H. G. Mudgal, Member of the Lok Sabha, had taken money for a similar purpose. Jawaharlal Nehru himself moved a resolution to strip him of his membership and the House adopted it unanimously and he was expelled. The Mother of Parliaments in the UK itself was rocked in the early 1990s with reports of two Conservative MPs taking money for asking questions. One immediately resigned, while the other challenged the allegation in court. He lost both the case and his seat in the election held subsequently, and died a bankrupt.

One direct beneficial outcome of the deplorable episode was the constitution of the Lord Nolan Committee which made a series of recommendations to enforce what it called the seven principles of public life: Selflessness, Integrity, Objectivity, Accountability, Openness, Honesty, and Leadership. It suggested a Code of Conduct embodying these principles and wanted the MPs to disclose fully in the already prescribed Register of Members' Interests all activities, including acceptance of hospitality, sponsorship of travel and the like, which could lead to conflicts of interest and imputations of misconduct. The most important step taken as per the recommendation of the Nolan Committee was the appointment of a person of independent standing as a Parliamentary Commissioner for Standards to take over the responsibility for maintaining the Register of Members' Interests; give advice and guidance to MPs on matters of conduct; ensure the observance of the Code of Conduct; and investigate allegations of misconduct.

Coming to the cash-for-questions scam in our country, "We, the People" should be pardoned if we are sceptical about condign punishment being meted out to the MPs found guilty, or deterrent corrective measures being put in place to avoid recurrence of such lapses from rectitude.

Refuge and excuse

Not to put too fine a point on it, the way instances of misconduct by political bigwigs have been dealt with in the past provides no reassurance for the future. Memories are still fresh of being duped time after time by the well-worn techniques adopted by the political class leading to the quiet burial of the cases after going through the motions of issuing show-cause notices, and undertaking inquiries and investigations.

After all the alarums and excursions, the culprits not only go scot-free but are even inducted into high party forums and Councils of Ministers to wreak havoc from within the system! Reports circulating about the nonchalant explanations tendered by the 11 MPs only fuels the suspicion that this time too the case that stunned the nation will vanish into "the dreary desert sands" of the Indian brand of politics. The Supreme Court judgment in P. V. Narasimha Rao vs The State (No.1108 dated 17-04-1998) is also likely to provide a refuge to the perpetrators and an excuse to the establishment. This case, it may be recalled, arose out of a charge framed against the former Prime Minister, P. V. Narasimha Rao, and a few other Congress Ministers and leaders, that they were instrumental in bribing some MPs to vote against a motion of No Confidence against the Government in the Lok Sabha.

The Supreme Court held that MPs enjoy unconditional immunity and protection under Article 105 (2) of the Constitution "to speak their mind in Parliament and vote in the same way, freed of the fear of being made answerable on that account in a court of law... To enable members to participate fearlessly in Parliamentary debates, members need the wider protection of immunity against all civil and criminal proceedings that bear a nexus to their speech or vote.

If a member of Parliament has, by his speech or vote in Parliament, committed an offence, he enjoys, by reason of Article 105(2), immunity from prosecution therefor. Those who have conspired with the member of Parliament in the commission of that offence have no such immunity. They can, therefore, be prosecuted for it."

Unlucky ones

The pith and substance of the interpretation of Article 105 contained in the judgment is that no forum can go into the motivations (whether in the form of bribes or otherwise) behind the exercise by an MP of his freedom to speak (including asking questions) and act as he pleases on the floor of Parliament. No civil or criminal proceedings, in whatever form or manner, will lie against him.

On the contrary, the person(s) who bribed him to speak or act the way he did within either House can be put behind bars! On the face of it, the judgment, with due respect to the Supreme Court, seems to take an extreme view of Parliamentary immunity and deserves to be brought before the Court again for review by some public-spirited civil society organisation. However that be, only the naïve will think that acts of malfeasance by those supposedly representing "We, the people" are limited to the 11. They are the unlucky ones to have fallen into the trap laid for them. In the whispering gallery that the circular Parliament House is, there is no dearth of gossip about shady goings-on. (This is equally applicable to the precincts of State Assemblies.)

Of course, not all of what circulates can be given credence, but there can be no doubt that because of the general backslapping noblesse oblige spirit, the make-believe nature of the functioning of the ethics committees and the want of an in-house vigilance mechanism under the presiding officers, any instances of misconduct by MPs go unreported, undetected and unchecked. The intent behind the proposed institution of Lok Pal was precisely to remedy this nebulous state of affairs.

But the Bill to that effect has been introduced in every Lok Sabha and allowed to lapse on the expiry of its term over the last 40 years. All the previous versions of the Bill included the Prime Minister also within its purview, but there have of late been second thoughts about this. The result is a question mark over the enactment of the Bill during this Parliament also. It is clear from the way it has been kicked about in every newly elected Parliament that the hearts and minds of the political establishment are not in that Bill, and the denizens of that exclusive world would rather live without it.

Larger implications

Keeping these gloomy forebodings aside, let us ponder over the other implications to society and democracy of such recurring shocks. The first thing that strikes us is that of the 11 MPs who were "stung", as many as eight were graduates, including two post-graduates, and two were Matriculates and one was non-Matriculate. Disturbingly, this means that there is no correlation between their educational qualifications and adherence to values. Three of them have actually been active in the RSS which boasts of giving a strong grounding to its members in India's glorious heritage of moral and ethical values, patriotism and nationalism.

Although transposing this chance finding to the general run of educated population may not be justified, still, looking around, one is struck by the absence of role models and the scant attention paid to the responsibility of nurturing values on the part of parents, teachers and elders.

The other striking fact is that the presence of all the good and able persons in Parliament and Government, especially those who had distinguished themselves by their accomplishments in their professions, organised services or the defence forces before they entered politics or were nominated to the Upper House, seem to have made little difference to the behaviour pattern of politicians cast in the time-dishonoured mould. They are taken to be the unspoilt ones in public perception, who could normally expected to be more sensitive to right and wrong, and the first to make assertive, if not aggressive, attempts to pump good sense into their wayward colleagues, and insist on their adhering to the values and the decencies the people expect of them.

But they, to all intents and purposes, have been content with playing the role of mute and helpless witnesses to the disrobing of democracy, much like the Bhishma and Dronachayrya of yore who did nothing to stop the disrobing of Draupadi. The time has come for both the classes and masses of the country to face up to, and do something about, a progressively deteriorating situation before

Things fall apart, the centre cannot hold;

Mere anarchy is loosed upon the world.

More Stories on : Politics | Economic Offences

Article E-Mail :: Comment :: Syndication :: Printer Friendly Page

Stories in this Section
Right notes

Indian economy: A balance-sheet

`Criminal conduct could be concealed in a thicket of detail'

Developing an internal audit plan

The unguarded deposit gate

Cash-for-questions scam — Implications for democracy and society

Trampled upon

Measure measures by their reliability and validity

Bihar's IT dream

President's blueprint