Dec 21, 1998

Prabhakar Rao's arrest comes almost three years too late as vital evidence to nail him might be lost for good.

By Harish Gupta

Politicians talking about ethics may sound a bit like the devil quoting the scriptures. But 51 years after Independence, they seem determined to erase that image. A series of scams in recent years that hasn't spared even the office of the prime minister appears to have prompted the men and women in public life to indulge in some serious introspection. The result is a set of voluminous reports by ethics committees of both Houses of Parliament. Last week, the Rajya Sabha Ethics Committee headed by former home minister S.B. Chavan submitted a 75-page preliminary report to the House, which is a sequel to the one presented before the 11th Lok Sabha by a panel comprising members of the Lower House in November 1997.

If the fate of the reports of similar parliamentary committees in the past are anything to go by, it will be tempting to conclude that these too will be consigned to the parliamentary library and forgotten. But Chavan feels a new beginning has been made. "The committee has noted the general decline in moral and ethical standards in public life ... and members of Parliament have expressed themselves in favour of an internal self-regulatory mechanism," he says, adding that the formation of the ethics committee in the Upper House, "one of the instruments to ensure value-based politics", is a step in that direction.

Laudable objectives no doubt. Afterall, in democracies across the world, elected representatives are expected to adhere to certain standards of behaviour. Britain has a Committee on Standards in Public Life to ensure that the conduct of MPs is rigorously scrutinised. In the US too, the Senate has a Select Committee on Ethics while the House of Representatives has the Committee on Standards and Official Conduct. It's not as if our parliamentary system lacks such bodies to regulate the conduct of its MPs. Both the Lok Sabha and Rajya Sabha have extensive rules in place to tackle precisely these issues but the problem lies in their enforcement. No wonder some MPs are already questioning the propriety of setting up a new ethics committee "How is it different from the privileges committees in both the Houses?" asks one of them. "Aren't there enough rules to regulate the conduct of MPs inside and outside the House?"

Evidently, the Chavan panel thinks otherwise. In fact, so convinced were the 10 members of the panel about the need for a new code of conduct that they lost no time in undertaking an extensive tour of the world's developed democracies to analyse the parliamentary practices, standards of public life and ethics prevalent there. The "study tour" saw them covering the UK, France, Italy and Finland in the first leg in May this year. The team was also scheduled to go to Denmark, Australia, Canada and the US but the visits had to be abandoned following last minute hitches. The authorities in the US were blunt. They said that since the Congress hosted similar teams from India last year, there was little point in going through the exercise once again. They were referring to the eight-member Ethics Committee of the 11th Lok Sabha, headed by former minister P. Upendra, which also visited several countries, including the US, last June-July.

By Chavan's own admission, most of the provisions in his report exist in various rules and statutes of both the Houses. Their implementation either hangs fire or is questionable. For instance, one of the clauses in the new code entails that all MPs, their spouses and immediate family members declare their assets and table it before the House. But this provision already exists under the Lok Pal Bill which has been gathering dust for years.

"Never expect or accept any fee, remuneration or benefit for vote ..." goes another clause which is nothing more than a reworded extract from the Prevention of Corruption Act or the Anti-Defection Act. Similarly, the code exhorts MPs with confidential information not to disclose it for advancing their personal interest. This is a stipulation that exists under the Official Secrets Act. Another recommendation relates to the voting in the state assemblies for the Rajya Sabha which the committee feels should be through open ballot instead of the secret ballot as at present. The panel perhaps was not aware that Rajya Sabha Deputy Chairperson Najma Heptullah made precisely the same suggestion at a conference two years ago. "The new rules suggested by the committee are general in nature," agrees Chavan. But he is quick to add that specific, follow-up reports would follow soon. Presumably, that would entail another junket.

© Living Media India Ltd