Opinion - Editorials   

Dangerous precedent

The Punjab State Assembly has overreached itself in expelling former Chief Minister and senior Congress leader Amarinder Singh from the House. The expulsion came soon after a nine-member House committee dominated by MLAs of the ruling Akali Dal and BJP found Mr. Singh and three others guilty of corruption in permitting the transfer of some 32 acres of land in Amritsar to a private developer. It is argued that the authority to expel a member of the House is derived from Art icle 194 of the Constitution, which defines the powers and privileges of legislative assemblies and its members and committees thereof. But this Article — a reproduction of Article 105, which defines these very powers in relation to Parliament — was never intended to arm legislative assemblies with the untrammelled authority to take such action. The allegation against Mr. Singh is unrelated to the present Assembly, but pertains to the previous one. Moreover, the allegations have no link whatsoever with the functioning of either the present or the previous Assembly. The proper course in this instance would have been to register an FIR (which ironically was done a day after his expulsion) and proceed against Mr. Singh under the criminal law. There are scores of MLAs with all kinds of criminal cases against them who continue to function in the legislatures. What then was the justification for expelling Mr. Singh in such unseemly haste?

That Parliament and legislative assemblies enjoy constitutionally-derived powers to expel their members is not in question. The Supreme Court has upheld this power in the cash-for-questions and the MPLAD scandals — in which sting operations showed MPs accepting money to ask questions in Parliament and demanding commissions against the promise of making recommendations under the local area development scheme. But the fundamental issues in these cases were very different. First, the money accepted or commissions demanded had a direct connection with the work and functioning of Parliament. Secondly, the MPs’ unethical behaviour had unambiguously lowered the prestige and eroded the credibility of the Houses they were members of. Mr. Singh’s decision to facilitate the transfer of government land was an administrative one. Its alleged illegality deserves a thorough criminal investigation — and a stiff punishment if found guilty — rather than a summary expulsion. If unchecked, the action of the Punjab Assembly would set a dangerous precedent. It would open the doors for Parliament and State Assemblies to expel inconvenient members of the opposition through the simple device of an enquiry by a House committee packed with members of the ruling parties and deciding by a majority.

Printer friendly page  
Send this article to Friends by E-Mail

Stories in this Section

Dangerous precedent
Ensuring transparency
Abandoning a Parliament session
When the Congressmen come marching in
The hunt for the Indian Mujahideen’s ‘al-Arbi’
Tu-160 as a means of persuasion
Jail for jibe?
Corrections and clarifications
Bush’s message
Collider tests
Law unto himself?

Copyright © 2008, The Hindu. Republication or redissemination of the contents of this screen are expressly prohibited without the written consent of The Hindu