NEW DELHI: Nearly two years into the tenure of the Lok Sabha, two of its key oversight bodies, the Privileges Committee and the Ethics Committee, are yet to be constituted, even as the government is weighing the option of referring Leader of Opposition Rahul Gandhi’s case to one of them.
The issue came to the fore after Parliamentary Affairs Minister Kiren Rijiju responded to a “substantive motion” moved by BJP MP Nishikant Dubey against Gandhi over his speech during the Budget session. Rijiju said that once the motion is admitted by the Speaker, a decision would be taken in consultation with the chair on whether the matter should be referred to the Privileges Committee, the Ethics Committee, or be discussed directly in the House during the second leg of the Budget session beginning March 9.
His remarks amid intensifying confrontation between the government and the Opposition have drawn attention to an unusual institutional vacuum that neither of the two committees has been set up in the 18th Lok Sabha so far.
The absence of these panels has raised procedural and political questions, say experts. The Committee of Privileges in the Lok Sabha is a standing committee, comprising 15 members nominated by the Speaker, which examines cases involving breach of privilege or contempt of the House and its members. Constitutional experts say that it functions in a semi-judicial capacity, probing contempt of the House and recommending action such as reprimand or suspension of the members.
Speaking to this newspaper, former Lok Sabha Secretary General and constitutional expert P D T Achary described the delay as “unusual”. He said, “As soon as a new government comes in, committees are constituted. In fact, permanent committees, like the Privileges Committee, are normally set up first, followed by department related standing committees. Without their constitution, any move to refer matters to them could face practical hurdles,” he said.
Under parliamentary practice, the Privileges Committee plays a critical role because parliamentary privileges flow from constitutional provisions. “There has to be a mechanism to examine the alleged breaches. That is why the committee exists as a permanent body of the House,” Achary added.
Opposition leaders argue that invoking the possibility of recommending committees that have not been formed shows the deepening rift in the House. A senior Opposition MP told this newspaper that the non-constitution of the Privileges Committee shows the government’s priorities. He pointed out that with Rijiju indicating that Gandhi’s case could be examined through one of these panels, the Speaker may first need to constitute the relevant committee if a referral is decided upon.
Meanwhile, the Ethics Committee, which examines issues related to members’ conduct and adherence to ethical standards, also remains in limbo. A senior Congress leader pointed out that the government was keener on constituting other important panels, such as the Petitions Committee, Committee on Subordinate Legislation, and Committee on Official Language.
The Congress leader said that the government had offered the chairmanship of the Ethics Committee to the party, but it declined, as it demanded chairmanship of significant committees, such as the Official Language panel. The demand was not accepted, he added.
‘Permanent committees usually set up first’
Speaking to the paper, former Lok Sabha Secretary General and constitutional expert PDT Achary described the delay as “unusual”. “As soon as a new government comes in, committees are constituted. In fact, permanent committees like the Privileges Committee are normally set up first, followed by department related standing committees. Without their constitution, any move to refer matters to them could face practical hurdles,” he said. Under parliamentary practice, the Privileges Committee plays a critical role. “There has to be a mechanism to examine alleged breaches. That is why the committee exists as a permanent body of the House,” Achary added.
