The All India Trinamool Congress (AITC) and the Samajwadi Party (SP), the second largest Opposition parties in Parliament, decided not to nominate any of its members to the Joint Parliamentary Committee (JPC) being proposed to examine the Constitution (One Hundred and Thirtieth Amendment) Bill, calling the committee a 'farce'.
Here are three reasons why JPCs are an exercise in futility:
One, the chairperson of the JPC is decided by the Speaker of Lok Sabha and the chairperson of Rajya Sabha, in consultation with each other as may be necessary, and its members are subsequently nominated by each party according to the party's strength. This makes these committees skewed towards the ruling majority because of their numbers in the Houses. The chairperson of the JPC would have been a BJP MP.
Second, in almost every JPC there is no consensus on the final report. Whenever important amendments are proposed by an opposition MP, the amendments are defeated in the committee by a show of hands. The ruling party uses its brute majority to do this. This has become a trend. Instead of coming to these meetings with an open mind, Members of Parliament representing the treasury benches come and rubber stamp the views of the ruling party. Those in the opposition, holding an alternate view, are outvoted. The only recourse left is to table a dissenting note - for the record.
Third, let me pluck out a few examples - from 1987, 1992 and 2001. In the Bofors case of 1987, it was alleged that a Congress member had taken bribes while settling the deal of purchasing the Bofors 'shoot and scoot' guns. The JPC report was boycotted by the opposition highlighting that the committee was packed with members of the ruling party. When the Harshad Mehta scam (1992) surfaced, a JPC was set up to inquire into allegations that Mehta diverted funds to Maruti Udyog Limited and provoked a major fall in the Sensex. However, the recommendations were neither accepted nor implemented. During the Share Market Scam (2001), the Ahmedabad-based Madhavpura Mercantile Cooperative Bank had big exposure to the stock market, courtesy former stockbroker Ketan Parekh. The JPC suggested stock market regulations, which were subsequently diluted.
There have been other cases where a JPC has been formed for investigations. For example, the Joint Committee on pesticide residues in and safety standards for soft drinks, fruit juice and other beverages (2003) and the Joint Committee to examine matters relating to allocation and pricing of telecom licences and spectrum (2011). While only some recommendations were implemented from the former, the latter was mired in controversy. (Extract from column which appeared on NDTV on 6 March, 2023)
Joint Parliamentary Committees (JPCs) were originally conceived as democratic and well-intentioned mechanisms, established through motions passed by both Houses of Parliament and endowed with exceptional powers, such as summoning witnesses, demanding documents, and examining experts. These are far beyond what ordinary committees can do, to ensure transparency and public accountability. However, this purpose has eroded significantly post-2014, with JPCs increasingly being manipulated by the government in power. Now, in the same committee which represents public accountability, procedures are bypassed, opposition amendments rejected, and meaningful debate replaced by partisan fluff.
The Modi coalition pushing to form this JPC to examine an 'unconstitutional bill' is a stunt performed to create a distraction from Special Intensive Revision (SIR - vote chori). Someone needed to call a stunt a stunt. I am glad we did.
(Additional research: Chahat Mangtani, Ayashman Dey)
(Derek O'Brien, MP, leads the Trinamool Congress in the Rajya Sabha)
Disclaimer: These are the personal opinions of the author
