Lok Sabha Expels MP in Cash for Query’ Case

Disclosure of e-portal login credentials: The practice of online submission of questions is recent and there are no clear guidelines prohibiting MPs from exchanging login credentials since. | In the absence of a regulation, the scrutiny of a particular MP appears disproportionate and excessive. z Accepting Large Quantities of Cash and Gifts: The Committee arrived at a conclusive decision based on an affidavit that failed to address the vital issues of financial transactions and detailed information about lavish gifts. Way Forward: z Single Committee for Privileges and Ethics: As advised by the Committee of Privileges of the Eleventh Lok Sabha, privileges and ethics are interconnected and should be dealt with by a single committee, i.e. the Committee on Ethics and Privileges. z Amendment of Lok Sabha Rules: The rule should have been amended when online submissions were allowed. Had there been a rule, some safeguards against violations would have been specified as well. z Making Distinction between Privilege and Misconduct: There is a need for a well-defined framework regarding what constitutes privileges and misconduct and what is the line of demarcation between them. z Code of Ethics for Ministers: Mahua Moitra has been found guilty of breaching a code of ethics that does not exist and there was no evidence of cash or gift given to her. | Thus, it is necessary that in addition to the Code of Conduct, there should be a Code of Ethics so that MPs and Ministers uphold the highest standards of constitutional and ethical conduct.Cash for Query: Mahua Moitra (MP from West Bengal) was accused of taking bribes in exchange for asking questions critical of the government in Parliament. z Contempt of House: She was also declared to be in “Contempt of the House” for sharing the login information for her private and secret account on the legislative website. | A Contempt of the House can be defined as any act that: | Causes an obstruction in the conduct of proceedings of the House. | Causes an obstruction in the performance of functions by any officer or member of the House. | Any other act that directly or indirectly has such an effect. z Legal Inquiry: It also called for a legal institutional inquiry by the Government in the case. What is ‘Cash for Query Case’? z An allegation that someone accepted payment in exchange for asking questions in Parliament is known as a “cash-for-query” complaint. PV Narasimha Rao’s case (1998): z It granted MPs and MLAs immunity from prosecution for taking a bribe to make a speech or vote in Parliament and state legislatures. Cash For Query Scandal 2005/Raja Ram Pal Case: z Raja Ram Pal was among the 12 MPs – expelled for alleged involvement in the December 2005 cash-for-query scam. z In January 2007, a Constitution Bench of the Supreme Court, by 4-1 majority, upheld the expulsion terming it a “self-protection” exercise by Parliament. z For Example “Cash-for-query” scam led to the conviction of eleven former Members of Parliament in 2005 for taking cash to ask questions in Parliament. Challenges with Ethics Committee Report: z Authority to Inquire: The standard process for resolution of issues pertaining to privilege violations is taken by the Lok Sabha Committee on Privileges. The Ethics Committee can only investigate improper activity by MPs. | This case should have been inquired into by the Privileges Committee rather than the Ethics Committee. z No Clear Distinction between Privileges and Misconduct: Objections to committee selection are also due to the lack of clear distinction between what constitutes privileges and misconduct. | For example, bribery could trigger privilege proceedings, as per the Supreme Court’s ruling in PV Narasimha Rao’s case (1998). | However, in the 2005 “cash for query” scandal, bribery was categorised as misconduct by the inquiry committee.Lok Sabha Expels MP in Cash for Query’ Case