Joint Parliamentary Committees (JPCs): India
Joint Parliamentary Committees
This is a newspaper article selected for the excellence of its content. |
Do JPCs tell anything we don’t already know?
Dhananjay Mahapatra TNN
Ayear-and-a-half after the trial in the 2G scam case began, the joint parliamentary committee has come up with a draft report on the irregular allocation of spectrum, squarely blaming A Raja, who was telecom minister in both UPA-I and II.
From the CBI chargesheet, we knew how Raja tweaked the rules of the game after play had begun to favour those who allegedly paid huge bribes to him and his party, the DMK. We were also told by the CBI that the trail of money allegedly went to various countries. The CBI, galvanized into action after the SC decided to monitor its probe, did a fairly good job in laying the charges against many persons. A JPC was also set up on March 4, 2011 to examine matters relating to allocation and pricing of telecom licences and spectrum.
Parliamentary democracy is not only about voicing concerns of the common man by their representatives but also about addressing perceptions about the working of the ruling dispensation. So, when a JPC is constituted, everybody expects it to go beyond the CBI’s investigations.
One of the main purposes behind setting up JPCs is not only to unmask those responsible for crimes that affect the nation’s economy or polity but, importantly, also to identify those who had the authority but did not exercise it or failed in their duty to check the crimes.
In a system of governance through a council of ministers headed by the PM, it is rather strange that the JPC, after collection of copious material, could find Raja to be the only person responsible for the scam. The JPC doubted the CAG’s calculations in arriving at the figure of Rs 1.76 lakh crore loss to the exchequer. We knew this too. The CBI had put the notional loss figure at a little over Rs 30,000 crore.
The only new fact which came to light was the loss of revenue due to a shift in policy in allocation of spectrum during the NDA regime. The JPC put the loss at Rs 40,000 crore, much higher than the Rs 846 crore estimated by the CBI.
It would be interesting to see whether the trial court asks the CBI to have a re-look at the losses incurred due to the NDA’s policy shift. But traditionally, courts desist from looking into the correctness of a JPC’s findings.
Of the six JPCs set up by Parliament starting with Bofor, no action was initiated on the basis of recommendations made by them, except for the one which looked into the 2001 stock market scam. This JPC’s recommendations saw some administrative action.
The stock market scam JPC report was also cited in the apex court to challenge the Double Taxation Avoidance Treaty between India and Mauritius, alleging that the Mauritian route for investing in India had become a channel to plough black money into India.
But the Supreme Court, in Union of India vs Azadi Bachao Andolan [2003 (10) SCC 1] said, “In our view, the recommendations of the working group of the JPC are intended for Parliament to take appropriate action. The JPC might have noticed certain consequences, intended and unintended, flowing from the DTAT and has made appropriate recommendations. Based on them, it is not possible for us to say that the DTAC or impugned circulars are contrary to law, nor would it be possible to interfere with either of them on the basis of the report of the JPC.”
Why are JPCs set up when the CBI is duty-bound to carry out a thoroughprobe? We can always fasten accountability on the CBI and its director.
The SC had in Union of India vs Sushil Kumar Modi [1996 (6) SCC 500] said, “The ultimate responsibility to ensure a fair and complete probe into accusations is that of the CBI director and he is expected to discharge his duties and faithfully towards this end. It is also necessary that the CBI director is not merely to perform his own duty in this manner but he is also to ensure that every officer of the CBI works honestly to achieve this end.”
But who will question the efficacy of the JPC system of inquiry? The opposition will reject the JPC findings and stall proceedings in Parliament for days, as they had done while demanding the setting up of a JPC.
Given the experience and intelligence of the members of the JPC, surely it is a body eminently suitable to thwart every kind of pressure and fearlessly go to the root of the problem to fix accountability even on the highest political executive. But who will tell the political masters about their duty?
