Expert panel reports only gather dust. One exception to this dismal trend has been the report submitted two years ago by the Constitution Review Commission (CRC). Yes, the same 11-member expert panel to which P.A. Sangma was appointed as the sole political representative, allegedly to push for a ban on foreign-born citizens ruling the country. Though other members (led by the CRC’s chairman, Justice M.N. Venkatachaliah) rejected Sangma’s hobby horse, the Vajpayee government did not altogether ignore the rest of the report.

It came up with a few Bills based on the CRC’s recommendations covering the gamut of issues related to governance. In fact, one of those Bills was passed last month as the 91st Constitutional Amendment Act, arguably the most far-reaching legislation for the polity in recent years. The Act restricts the size of the council of ministers, extends the ban on defections to party splits and disqualifies a defector from holding a public office for the remainder of the legislative term.

There are still many more such reforms waiting to be mined from the CRC’s report. Since the 13th Lok Sabha is on the verge of being dissolved, it is apt to take a fresh look at the status of the parliamentary reforms recommended by the CRC. The provisions of the 91st Amendment are actually derived from a chapter of the CRC report devoted to electoral processes and political parties. The government was only too happy to adopt those proposals because they strengthen the control of the political parties over their legislators.

But the same government has been less than enthusiastic about the CRC’s recommendations in a separate chapter on the functioning of Parliament and state legislatures. This is obviously because the proposed parliamentary reforms, if implemented, will make the government more accountable than ever before to the two Houses. The CRC altogether made 27 recommendations in this chapter. Out of them, the only issue on which the government and CRC seem to agree is regarding the Fiscal Responsibility and Budget Management Bill, which was already pending before Parliament when the panel gave its report in March 2002. The CRC patted the government for submitting itself to Parliament to enforce fiscal discipline. The government, however, cannot claim to have acted on any of the other proposals meant to strengthen Parliament.

If anything, in one case it did just the opposite of what the CRC proposed. Upholding the “federal character” of the Rajya Sabha, the CRC insisted on retaining the statutory requirement for a member of the Council of States to be a domicile of the state he represents. But, again, the vested interests of political parties prevailed over the needs of governance. In the teeth of the CRC’s recommendation, law minister Arun Jaitley piloted an amendment dispensing with the domiciliary requirement. Needless to add, the Bill received support from all major parties as it regularises the entry of Jaitley and other stalwarts into the Rajya Sabha from outside their home states.

If the 91st Amendment mentioned earlier provides a stick to party bosses, the MP Local Area Development (MPLAD) scheme, which puts Rs 2 crore every year at the disposal of each MP, is a carrot. The CRC said that the MPLAD scheme should be “discontinued immediately” as it is “inconsistent with the spirit of the Constitution in many ways.” Not surprisingly, the government has shown no inclination to withdraw a facility that the MPs have enjoyed for a decade.

Likewise, it has no compulsion to accept the CRC’s suggestion that the Constitution should be amended to overrule the Supreme Court’s outrageous judgment in the JMM bribery case: that an MP is not liable for corruption if he receives a bribe. The CRC proposed an amendment to clarify that the immunity enjoyed by MPs under parliamentary privileges “does not cover corrupt acts.” The government has also been silent on the CRC’s recommendation to codify parliamentary privileges so that they are “defined and delimited.” Instead, it was content expressing solidarity with the media when the Tamil Nadu Assembly recently hauled up journalists on the charge of breaching its privileges.