Kay Benedict

Fear judicial review once that is done

New Delhi: Though a number of MPs of late have come under a cloud over their conduct, the Lok Sabha Privileges Committee has decided against codification of parliamentary privileges fearing that the move would give judiciary a handle to interfere in the affairs of legislature.

The fear is that once the privileges are codified, in the event of any slightest violation or perceived violation, anybody can knock at the doors of the courts inviting judicial intervention, something the parliamentarians want to avoid. Constitutional validity can be challenged by the court and parliament’s sovereignty may be affected, said a member of the panel.

On the model of British House of Commons, the MPs enjoy certain rights and privileges under Article 105, which are not defined but not open to judicial scrutiny.

The panel, which tabled its report in the Lok Sabha on Wednesday, however, recommended a broad framework of code of conduct for members, such as members declaring their personal and business interests from time to time so as to avoid conflict of interests.

Panel chairman and senior Congress member V Kishore Chandra Deo said having regard to the declining standards of ethical behaviour of legislators, the committee felt that it was imperative to have an effective ethics regime to regulate overall ethical behaviour and conduct of members.

The panel which deliberated the code, rights and privileges of MPs for over a year, had a dissenting voice. Sebastian Paul, independent MP from Ernakulam, who appended a dissenting note said: “But what is the difficulty in codifying the privileges except the fear that it will make privileges subject to fundamental rights and attract judicial scrutiny.”

Talking to DNA Paul said: “Time has changed, our parliament is a creation of Constitution of a sovereign democratic country. Undefined powers without judicial review is not proper. It is like contempt of court. In the US there is no claim on privileges. Any adverse comment is not considered contempt of the House. An aggrieved member can always seek legal recourse.”

He said, “codification is necessary. Privileges should not be enlarged. In a democratic parliament privileges should be abridged.The decision not to codify privileges is not in keeping with the spirit of equality and accountability in a modern parliamentary democracy.”

The Constituent Assembly had opined that these privileges should be properly codified by parliament in due course of time. The supreme court had also, in 1965, felt the decision not to codify parliamentary privileges was not desirable.

The committee said the biggest challenge faced by it was to define the term “misconduct” in the proposed code and subsequently felt that it may not be prudent to try to give a comprehensive definition of misconduct in the code. The committee held that there has not been any misuse of the power of privileges “as erroneously believed in some quarters”.

Source : DNAIndia