Author: A Surya Prakash
Publication:  The Pioneer
Date: October 30, 2012
URL: http://www.dailypioneer.com/columnists/item/52738-don%E2%80%99t-fetter-the-jpc-with-outdated-rules.html

The archaic guidelines are cutting the Prime Minister off from Parliament. Also, why should Ministers need to be shielded from scrutiny? Perhaps they lack the intellectual wherewithal to face a probe by such panels

 The Congress’s blind assertion of its majority in the Joint Parliamentary Committee that is probing the 2G Spectrum scam and its stiff opposition to the demand for summoning the Prime Minister and the Union Minister for Finance has put a question mark on the efficacy of parliamentary committees. It has also and struck a blow against the semblance of non-partisanship that characterised the work of these committees over the years.

 The argument against summoning the Prime Minister and the Union Finance Minister is also not well founded. Parliament has had several JPCs in the past and there have been two such joint committees which have summoned Ministers. For example, in 1992, Parliament constituted a JPC to probe irregularities in securities and banking transactions. This committee, which was headed by Ram Niwas Mirdha, summoned many Ministers and former Ministers. It investigated irregularities and fraudulent manipulations in transactions relating to securities, shares, bonds and other financial instruments, and the role of banks, stock exchanges, financial institutions and public sector undertakings in the scam. The committee also had to fix responsibility and recommend safeguards to prevent such manipulation of the market in future. This JPC asked as many as 10 Ministers and former Ministers to send in their responses to issues before the committee, and this included then Union Finance Minister Manmohan Singh, Union Health Minister B Shankaranand and messrs VP Singh, Yashwant Sinha, SP Malaviya, Madhu Dandavate, Chinta Mohan, Madhavrao Scindia, ND Tewari and P Chidambaram. The committee also asked Mr Manmohan Singh, B Shankaranand and former Finance Minister Madhu Dandavate to appear before it.

 Again, in April, 2001, Parliament appointed a JPC to probe yet another stock market scam. It was asked to investigate market manipulations in all its ramifications including insider trading and to examine the role of banks, stock exchanges, brokers and promoters and regulatory authorities. The committee was expected to fix responsibility on individuals (and institutions) who had manipulated the market and to suggest deterrent measures to punish wrongdoers. This committee, headed by Prakash Mani Tripathi,  submitted its report in December, 2002. This committee too decided to seek written information from former Union Minister for Finance Jaswant Singh and former Union Minister for External Affairs Yashwant Sinha. Thereafter, it felt that there were some points on which “further clarification” was needed and called both the Ministers to tender evidence before it. This JPC also summoned two former Finance Ministers — Mr Manmohan Singh and Mr P Chidambaram.

 Interestingly, the terms of reference of both these JPCs said that they were to function within the ambit of the Lok Sabha’s Rules of Procedure relating to parliamentary committees, subject to the rider that “if the need arises” they could adopt a different procedure with the concurrence of the Speaker. When it comes to summoning Ministers, an impediment that is often cited is Direction 99 of the Directions of the Speaker which is applicable to financial committees. This prohibits committees from calling Ministers either to give evidence or for consultation. However, these two JPCs overcame this hurdle by seeking the Speaker’s permission to record the evidence of Ministers.

 This brings us to the question as to why parliamentary rules impede the summoning of Ministers. Obviously, these rules were written in another age and time when ideas like transparency and accountability were unheard of. Should we persist with them in this day and age? Second, when the Constitution requires the Prime Minister to be responsible to the House of the People, why should he not be summoned by a committee of Parliament?

 The argument advanced by Mr PC Chacko, Chairman of the JPC probing the 2G Spectrum scam, that decisions have to be taken in the committee on the basis of a majority vote, is equally preposterous. Barring exceptions, parliamentary committees have always functioned in a non-partisan environment. If committees work on the majority-minority principle, then independent parliamentary investigations will become impossible.

 Over the years, because of the deterioration in the internal security environment, the Prime Minister is encircled by the Special Protection Group and completely cut off from the people. What these archaic rules of Parliament are doing is to cut him off from Parliament as well. Similarly, one wonders why the Finance Minister or any other Minister needs to be shielded from scrutiny. Do they lack the gumption or the intellectual wherewithal to face a parliamentary committee and explain the decisions that they take? If indeed they lack the confidence, why do they continue in office? And, why should parliamentary rules go to their rescue?

 There is another good reason why the Prime Minister and other Ministers must pick up courage to face parliamentary committees — the proceedings are in camera. In India, since parliamentary committees work within closed doors, away from the glare of publicity, there is no fear of the Prime Minister being subjected to cross examination under the harsh glare of television cameras. Even if that be so, why run away from it if one is confident of the manner in which he runs the Government? When American presidential hopefuls have face-to-face debates on all issues affecting the people, why do we need rules and norms to protect our Prime Minister from MPs?

 Let us now turn from the general proposition to something more specific. We often see the present Finance Minister lecturing and talking down to the media. Many MPs believe that he treats them as well in the same fashion. Why should a person like him fight shy of facing some sharp-shooters among MPs on a parliamentary committee?

 The reluctance of Mr Manmohan Singh and Mr Chidambaram to face the JPC probing the 2G Spectrum scam is inexplicable for yet another reason, namely, that both of them are in a sense JPC-experts in this Government, having tendered evidence before the JPCs constituted in 1992 and 2001. These two JPCs not only recorded the evidence of former Ministers but also of Ministers in the Union Government at that time. But, now both of them have developed cold feet.

 In the light of this evidence, both the Prime Minister and Finance Minister ought to have volunteered to appear before the present JPC, rather than hide behind some archaic rules and even jeopardise the committee’s working. Obviously the duo are incapable of defending their decisions vis-à-vis 2G Spectrum scam. But, we should not acquiesce in their reticence.