Let Parliament not become a casualty of politics

On Monday, December 13, the last day of the winter session, parliamentarians thought of paying floral tributes at a chosen spot alongside   Parliament House to the intrepid men of the watch and ward staff who nine years ago this day  laid down their lives fighting a vicious militants’ attack on the complex.  Inside the two Houses, members later stood in silence.

Gratefulness and solemnity of the occasion lasted barely two minutes, however.  Hardly had the members sat down and the two Houses called to order when the trouble —by now a habit – erupted. Slogan-shouting   began from the opposition benches, and many members, some of them with placards, trooped into the well of the House to block the proceedings as they had been doing everyday during the session.

The Chairman of the Rajya Sabha, Mr Hamid Ansari, noted somberly at the end of what had become a daily drill,  that peace prevailed in the session only when obituaries were read. The Speaker of the Lok Sabha also expressed similar anxiety about the way Parliament proceedings were being disrupted.

A strange kind of sullen mood  descended  as the members came out into the lobbies and then moved to the Central Hall. There was, however, little evidence of guilt about what they were doing to Parliament.

If those who think that they have scored a great victory by not letting Parliament function even for a single day in the winter session ought to introspect on what they are trying to achieve. Disruption can be self-satisfying, possibly a good visual on the TV channels, but sober people among the opposition parties must know that such victories may at best turn out to be pyrrhic in nature and not worth their while for the effort.

Whatever, the seriousness of the issues, no political party, — ruling or in the opposition — will stand to gain if Parliament is wrecked from within.  The way things are going there is a danger to Parliament and the form of democracy it has come to represent.  Political parties themselves, whichever side of the House they sit, will themselves stand to lose. Who gains, if everyone loses?

No one can underestimate the seriousness of the issue of corruption and the  2G scam. They need to be fully probed and the guilty severely punished.  The government owes it to the nation that it will do so at the earliest.

But by using the scam for making   Parliament  dysfunctional, the opposition,  led by the BJP and AIADMK and joined by the CPM,  is not serving the cause. Whatever they do outside protest in Parliament has its limits.

Parliament has provided for ways allowing   the opposition to  force the government give all the information it wants on the 2G scam. The Public Accounts Committee, which is headed by a BJP leader Dr Murli Manohar Joshi, is already at work following the CAG’s  report  on the 2G licences.  The scope of the PAC”s inquiry can be easily widened. And now we find  senior BJP leaders faulting Dr Joshi for not going slow when the party is agitating for a Joint Parliamentary Committee.

Previous experiments with JPCs  have not been fruitful. They consume time.  May be the BJP wants to stretch the exercise for a couple of years to place the entire UPA government in the dock and whip up a pre-election campaign.  To the BJP the process is perhaps more important than the outcome.

The Opposition could easily move a no-confidence motion in the Lok Sabha  to challenge the government’s continuance in office on the 2G   scam,  but apparently it does not suit its political convenience.

The Supreme Court is also seized of the question, and so has been the CBI.  As the CBI’s credibility has often been questioned its investigation of the 2G scam placed under the supervision by the Supreme Court as also the  PAC’s probe, should have satisfied the Opposition.

How Parliament is being prevented from doing its duty to the people for whom it is meant will not  help it retain the respect of the electors. It is the respect of the people which ultimately lends legitimacy to a constitutional institution.

As the Chairman,  Mr Hamid Ansari, in his valedictory remarks noted with  anguish that no discussion on a matter of public interest took place, no special mention about the problems of the people was made, and not a single question was allowed to be answered in the question hour, which makes the ministers more accountable.

In a way, Parliament’s   authority flows  from its power to sanction money to the government and monitor how it is spent.  In the winter session it passed four Appropriation Bills sanctioning money worth thousands of crore of rupees amidst the ruckus and without a wee bit of scrutiny.  This is a serious lapse on the part of Parliament as an institution and decidedly a disservice to the people.

We project our democracy as India’s unique selling proposition and disruptions in the past as also the stalemate in the winter session, , are not going to be a great advertisement for our brand of democracy.

Successful running of Parliament will require patience, tolerance of the opponents’ view, a give-and-take approach , readiness to look for a way-out of the serious situations that are natural to a vibrant democracy.

It would also require readiness on the part of the leaders of all parties to reach a consensus on issues and the working of the institutions vital for the survival of the country’s democratic dispensation. Parliament is certainly one of them. Let the leaders of the parties sit together and come to an agreement that whatever the seriousness of the issues that may come to the fore, they will not let Parliament become a casualty of politics.

Another Republic Day is coming close. Let it not be said that our decision to opt for parliamentary democracy 61 years ago was  flawed.  Our Constitution was conceived in hope, but if we are not able to work it the fault will lie with men, not with the Constitution and all it encompasses – its values, principles and the democratic spirit. Let’s not fail the Constitution or the country.

– The Asian Age, December 31st, 2010

Justice Soumitra Sen had to go

Unless politics takes over Justice Soumitra Sen will make history of the wrong kind next week. The Rajya Sabha has already passed the motion for his removal; the Lok Sabha is likely to do so next week. He will be the first judge to be impeached since Independence.

Two weeks ago, the Rajya Sabha witnessed a unique debate where a cross-section of opposing views converged on one issue – the removal of Justice Soumitra Sen, a Calcutta High Court Judge on serious charges of misappropriation of public funds and misleading the court.

It was a sad time, however, for the Upper House to see a Judge standing in the dock before it for doing what he should not have done. None of the MPs across the political spectrum was drawing any pleasure to get an opportunity to punish a Judge for straying from the righteous path.

Justice Sen, now an accused before the House could have avoided the impeachment motion had he chosen to resign as soon as it came to be established that he had indulged himself with public money for personal gain.

The Chief Justice of India had, after consultations with his colleagues, advised him that in his own interest, he better sent in his papers and say good bye to the Bench. But Justice Sen would not listen to advice, even from the CJI. If he had resigned, he would have saved Parliament the pain of impeaching a Judge.

The process of removal of a Judge by impeachment is indeed painful and unpleasant. But the ouse had to do its duty to do so to save the Judiciary from someone who had frittered his right to sit on the augutHo

House had to do its duty to save the Judiciary from someone who had frittered away his right to sit on the august bench.

Justice Sen told the House that he had committed no wrong while being on the bench and that the charges against him pertained to the period before he was appointed a Judge of the High Court.

Actually, the real question was that of the integrity of a Judge. And, integrity has no cut off date. A judge is supposed to have it even to qualify for being selected a judge.

Integrity is not available off the shelf. Integrity cannot be acquired after taking the oath as a Judge. Justice Sen gave no evidence that integrity had not been compromised by him.

The case for the removal of Justice Sen is absolutely sound, and valid for impeachment. There were allegations which tended to suggest that Justice Sen had kept public money with himself and used it for private gain.

May be, he thought that his conscience was clear. Everyone knew how flexible conscience has become these days. The elasticity of conscience of many people leads to greed and most often to untruth and to the kind of complications Parliament is now sorting out.

By taking up the issue, the Rajya Sabha  was not wanting to interfere with  independence of the Judiciary, or encroach upon what falls in the judicial domain.

It was the Chief Justice of India who had written to the Prime Minister in 2008 seeking his intervention to initiate impeachment proceedings against Mr. Sen, a sittinging judge of the Calcutta High Court. The CJI gave details of Justice Sen’s  “misbehviour” when he was appointed receiver in the case called the Steel Authority of India versus the Shipping Corporation of India, way back in 1993.

The CJI also appointed an in-House committee of Judges to inquire into the allegations. It came to the conclusion that Justice Sen was not the kind of a judge who should adorn the Bench.  Hence, the CJI’s letter to the Prime Minister seeking Justice Sen’s removal under Article 124(4) of the Constitution.

The matter later fell in the lap of the Chairman of the Rajya Sabha.  Mr Hamid Ansari in turn appointed a Committee consisting of Justice B. Sudershan Reddy of the Supreme Court, Justice Mukul Mudgal, Chief Justice of Punjab and Haryana High Court and Mr Fali Nariman, noted jurist. They are all men of great integrity and calibre.

After several sittings, the committee came to well-thought out two conclusions:

One, that Justice Sen was duly proved guilty of misappropriation of large sums of money which he got as a receiver appointed by the High Court of Calcutta; and

Two, that Justice Sen was duly proved guilty of making false statements by misrepresenting facts about misappropriation of money before the Calcutta High Court.

The committee was meticulous in its approach. It gave enough opportunities to Justice Sen but he thought it below his dignity to personally explain to the committee as to why he did what he should not have done.

Justice Sen took about 100 minutes to present his case with which no one was convinced. The motion for the removal of Justice Sen was adopted by a majority of the House  and  a two-third majority of those present and voting.

How did Justice Sen get elevated to the Bench of the Calcutta High Court cannot be explained, while he, as a receiver, had the temerity to misappropriate large sums of money, and also tell untruths to the court.

During the debate the higher judiciary came naturally under severe criticism for the way it is selecting judges.

Members from several parties pointed out that Justice Sen’s  selection as a Judge of the High Court shows that a drastic review of the present system of selection of Judges by the collegium had become urgent. MPs asked what criteria were used by the collegium for selecting judges.

The Lok Sabha is to take up the impeachment motion early next week and it may pass it in this session  to enable the President to sign, ending Justice Sen’s judicial career.

The only way Justice Sen can escape impeachment is to simply resign. But he seems to be adamant and not open to reason.

– Daily Post, September 2nd, 2011