House must look into MPs’ misconduct: panel

House must look into MPs’ misconduct: panel

Pradeep Kaushal

Posted online: Saturday, May 03, 2008 at 2349 hrs IST

NEW DELHI, MAY 2
A Lok Sabha committee has held that matters involving misconduct by MPs, “even if they involve penal offences, need to be investigated” by a parliamentary committee, “independent of investigation by the law-enforcing agencies”.

The committee, headed by senior Congress member V Kishore Chandra Sengh Deo, has said that “whenever a matter regarding misconduct of a member comes up, whether involving a penal offence or otherwise, it becomes imperative” for the legislature concerned to take cognisance “with alacrity and promptitude and investigate the same”.

The committee, which submitted its report to the Lok Sabha on April 30, considered a scenario where a case would involve both misconduct and a criminal offence. Obviously, it would lead to two parallel inquiries — one by the House for misconduct and the other by the police for criminal offence. One natural argument in this case would be that any action against the member should be taken only after his guilt has been proved in a court of law. This scenario matches the cases involving MPs in human trafficking and accepting money for asking questions, which have been dealt with by the Lok Sabha without waiting for legal procedures to conclude.

The committee felt the legal procedure might go beyond the tenure of the Lok Sabha. “Such a situation would give a rise to an impression among general public that this is a deliberate ploy by the fraternity of legislators to protect” a member against an in-house action.

The committee agreed that it was possible that the House panel might award punishment to a member, who might be later exonerated by the court. However, it felt the issue could be resolved “through exercising hard options”. “If a legislator has to pay the price for being a public servant in such matters, then so be it,” the committee added.

While conceding that parliamentary committees may neither have the expertise of the police nor the judicial acumen and training of a court, “they certainly have the sagacity and wisdom in enough measure to follow rules of natural justice and to ensure that any action is recommended against the member only after his guilt has been proved beyond reasonable doubt”.

The committee emphasised that the “thrust” of an inquiry by a parliamentary panel was basically on moral and ethical aspect of the issue. Moral and ethical offences need not necessarily constitute offences under the penal statutes and it is quite possible that perpetrators of such offences may escape punishment when tried in court of law. “For moral and ethical offences and conduct unbecoming of a member of Parliament, the penal jurisdiction in fact lies only with the legislatures,” the panel said.

The committee held that any act of misuse of status, powers, privileges, immunities, rights and facilities by an MP, be it in the domain of his parliamentary duties, public life or even his personal life, should be considered misconduct.

The committee refrained from giving a comprehensive definition of misconduct on the premise that human mind would always find new ways to bypass any set of rules.

	Print Story
House must look into MPs’ misconduct: panel Pradeep Kaushal Posted online: Saturday, May 03, 2008 at 2349 hrs IST NEW DELHI, MAY 2 A Lok Sabha committee has held that matters involving misconduct by MPs, “even if they involve penal offences, need to be investigated” by a parliamentary committee, “independent of investigation by the law-enforcing agencies”. The committee, headed by senior Congress member V Kishore Chandra Sengh Deo, has said that “whenever a matter regarding misconduct of a member comes up, whether involving a penal offence or otherwise, it becomes imperative” for the legislature concerned to take cognisance “with alacrity and promptitude and investigate the same”. The committee, which submitted its report to the Lok Sabha on April 30, considered a scenario where a case would involve both misconduct and a criminal offence. Obviously, it would lead to two parallel inquiries — one by the House for misconduct and the other by the police for criminal offence. One natural argument in this case would be that any action against the member should be taken only after his guilt has been proved in a court of law. This scenario matches the cases involving MPs in human trafficking and accepting money for asking questions, which have been dealt with by the Lok Sabha without waiting for legal procedures to conclude. The committee felt the legal procedure might go beyond the tenure of the Lok Sabha. “Such a situation would give a rise to an impression among general public that this is a deliberate ploy by the fraternity of legislators to protect” a member against an in-house action. The committee agreed that it was possible that the House panel might award punishment to a member, who might be later exonerated by the court. However, it felt the issue could be resolved “through exercising hard options”. “If a legislator has to pay the price for being a public servant in such matters, then so be it,” the committee added. While conceding that parliamentary committees may neither have the expertise of the police nor the judicial acumen and training of a court, “they certainly have the sagacity and wisdom in enough measure to follow rules of natural justice and to ensure that any action is recommended against the member only after his guilt has been proved beyond reasonable doubt”. The committee emphasised that the “thrust” of an inquiry by a parliamentary panel was basically on moral and ethical aspect of the issue. Moral and ethical offences need not necessarily constitute offences under the penal statutes and it is quite possible that perpetrators of such offences may escape punishment when tried in court of law. “For moral and ethical offences and conduct unbecoming of a member of Parliament, the penal jurisdiction in fact lies only with the legislatures,” the panel said. The committee held that any act of misuse of status, powers, privileges, immunities, rights and facilities by an MP, be it in the domain of his parliamentary duties, public life or even his personal life, should be considered misconduct. The committee refrained from giving a comprehensive definition of misconduct on the premise that human mind would always find new ways to bypass any set of rules.