`It was a step in the right direction'

VINO JOHN

Interview with Somnath Chatterjee, Speaker of the Lok Sabha.

The decision to expel 10 members of the Lok Sabha for misconduct and corruption would go down in the annals of Indian parliamentary history as one of the most momentous events. Lok Sabha Speaker Somnath Chatterjee, who presided over the proceedings of the House when the move was put to vote, spoke to Venkitesh Ramakrishnan on the various aspects of the step taken by Parliament. Excerpts from the interview:

The expulsion of 10 Lok Sabha members for taking bribes to raise questions has evoked mixed reactions. While on the one hand it is hailed as a historic and appropriate action, there is also criticism that the MPs should have been given time to respond to the charges. As the presiding officer of the Lower House, how do you view the situation?

This was an extraordinary situation. The members were caught on videotape accepting bribes and this was being broadcast on television networks. As the Speaker I had to respond to this. I called a meeting of party leaders, and a five-member inquiry committee was set up with the consent of all the leaders. The committee had members from the treasury as well as Opposition Benches. The committee itself decided its composition, the procedure of inquiry and the time schedule. At no stage during the inquiry was it suggested by anybody that 10 days were not sufficient or that there should be more time. Nobody came to me with that kind of a request. So, what is the insinuation about? I can only see the demand for more time as an afterthought.

It is being pointed out that in a similar case in 1951, the accused member, H.G. Mudgal, was given more time, and that the inquiry went on for five months.

I do not think we can make a direct comparison. The basic difference between that case and the present one is that the evidence in the present case is rated to be telltale. That is the conclusion of the inquiry committee.

L.K. Advani, the Leader of the Opposition, has maintained that the punishment is not proportionate to the crime.

This is actually unfortunate. At no point of time during the inquiry was such a point raised or brought to my notice. In fact, the Leader of the Opposition talked about this disproportionate punishment only when the completed report of the committee was discussed in the House. See, I did not recommend any punishment as the Speaker. It was entirely for the House to decide the matter; whether the MPs were guilty or not and if they were, what punishment should be given to them.

There is also an argument that a final decision should have been taken by going to the Privileges Committee...

With all humility and respect to my distinguished colleagues in Parliament, I should say that this is just trying to beat around the bush; trying to find an excuse, an escape route. See, Privileges Committee is a committee of the House, which works within certain well-defined parameters. I have also been the Chairman of the Privileges Committee for two years. In fact, the committee that was specially selected for the present inquiry had more powers because it could regulate its own procedure. But, now an impression is being created that if the issue had gone to the Privileges Committee there would have been an elaborate procedure, lawyers would have been involved and that the committee would have given a clear verdict. Far from it.

The Privileges Committee cannot give any punishment; like other committees it can only recommend a course of action. The recommendation has to come to the House for punishment. And it also functions according to the nature of the case, the nature of the defence taken and the nature of the evidence.

And in any parliamentary committee, including the Privileges Committee, nobody can have the legal assistance of a lawyer without the Speaker's permission. This would have been applicable to the present committee too. But nobody asked my permission to engage a lawyer.

What is the message of all this? That political considerations overrule even questions such as the dignity and sanctity of Parliament?

I do not wish to say anything on this. I am only happy that there was no division of votes on the issue though a walkout has some sort of a message. As far as I am concerned, this is a joint exercise of all sections of the House carried out with the combined wisdom of an appropriate body and the entire House. Even Vijay Kumar Malhotra's dissent note to the committee does not say that the findings of the committee are unjustified.

There is a view that this has set an extreme precedent. Now we have the case of MPLADS [MP Local Area Development Scheme] scam involving seven MPs.

The committee inquiring into that has also been set up with the concurrence of all party leaders. But let me draw your attention to the fact that there was great public shock and outrage when the scams unfolded. And the media did reflect the sense of outrage. This is a country of tremendous resources, talent and potential and we have a parliamentary system to govern it. And if you are part of the system as an elected representative of the people and you behave in a manner detrimental to the hopes of the people and interests of the nation, then you need to be corrected. That is the duty of Parliament as a whole. I am of the view that Parliament has taken a step in the right direction, a step that would help cleanse public life and instil some faith in the people that the elected representatives are somewhere responding to their hopes and aspirations of accountability and a just and humane society.

It is also believed that only the naive MPs get caught and that the big sharks get away in spite of a higher level of corruption.

Of course, no one should be spared. If there are such big sharks it is the job of society as a whole to keep a vigil and evolve ways and means to book them.