Patricia Mukhim
In a democracy where public representatives are elected every five years, the electors need to know the performance of their legislators. At present there is no robust system of public scrutiny except the annual reports of the Comptroller and Auditor General (CAG), the details of which have to be disseminated by the media. But even the CAG has no punitive powers except to point out anomalies. So there is virtually no report card system by which a legislator can be held publicly accountable, except when he/she is caught with their hands in the till. But even then, most corrupt legislators, including those with criminal charges are re-elected because the reason why he/she is elected are subjective and based on personal likes and dislikes of the voters and the amount of money the candidate spends in an election. It is therefore the role of the media to provide reliable reports of government functioning so that members of the public who are not influenced by money power can make at least make informed choices. Also the reason why legislative proceedings are not held in camera but that there is a press gallery means inside the House means that the deeds and words of legislators (both from the Treasury and the Opposition) inside the Assembly or Parliament are telecast/reported (unless expunged because of use of unparliamentary language, for public consumption, so that the public gets to know what actually transpires inside the House.
The next question is whether public criticism of the goings-on inside the Assembly/Parliament can be construed as breach of legislative privilege. In a democracy, the people who are the voters and who elect their representatives are the ultimate masters, we are told. But are we really? Do public representatives who are actually public servants really understand the meaning of “public servant?” In normal circumstances, a master can reprimand a servant and point out his faults and failings in the conduct of his duties. In this case since the MLAs/MPs are paid out of public funds the public have every right to critique their performance inside and outside the House when those are in the public good. Critiquing assembly debates is surely not a personal, verbal attack on any single MLA. Since every minute spent inside the House is also paid for from the public exchequer, MLAs/MPs cannot waste the time of the House in banal discussions such as the menu in the Meghalaya Bhavans. And since the public is not easily fooled, we also know that not much preparation and due diligence is observed by political parties before the assembly sessions. Judging by the supplementaries that follow each reply, it would seem that the right questions are not asked because of the lack of preparation. The supplementaries are as important as the starred questions and require very assiduous preparation so that any attempt at filibustering by the Treasury bench is stopped in its tracks and Government is therefore held accountable. As of today the Government is having a joyride since its acts of omission and commission are ingeniously explained away by an “intelligent” Chief Minister. If there is a Mukul Sangma on the Treasury Benches, who is his equivalent on the Opposition side?
Allegations of government misdemeanours remain only allegations unless supported by statistical evidence. There is a lot of statistics in the public domain regarding dismal public health indicators; poor educational outcomes; about the manner in which land is being alienated in the state. Further, we have had massive scams in the Public Health Engineering Department perpetrated by one single person at the helm who now wants to jump into electoral politics so that money accumulated over long years of service can now be invested to come to power and cover up all the dirty tracks of several decades. What kind of a state is Meghalaya when investments in the PHED for supply of potable drinking water to citizens are used by a few officials in connivance with respective ministers of that Department? That citizens silently suffer the lack of drinking water is of course the curse of democracy since, as pointed out we lack a vigorous social audit system. But the crux of the matter is that it is the onus of the Opposition to ferret out cases of corruption by public servants (bureaucrats and technocrats) and to bring those to the House for a fiery discussion. Did we witness such discussion in the recently held assembly sessions or any other one before that during the tenure of this Government? No we didn’t. So the Mukul Sangma Government has in fact escaped unscathed, not just this time but repeatedly. If at all the education scam is reopened it is not because of the effort of the Opposition MLAs but because of the judiciary and public activism. Are the MLAs therefore proud of their performance? And does criticism of such poor performance breach their legislative privileges? And what exactly is that legislative privilege that MLAs so readily claim.
Legislative privilege is the not legally codified and is therefore left to the interpretation of the Speaker. Legislative privilege contradicts the very idea of the Fundamental Right to Freedom of Speech and Expression, in which is included press freedom. Right to Freedom of Expression is the basic component of a democracy. Take away that right and that’s the end of democracy. Attempts to invoke the breach of privilege clause at the drop of a hat is, a poor attempt to flex legislative muscle and muzzle the public voice. Article 105 defines thepower, privileges and immunities of each House of Parliament and of the Members and the Committees of each House. The Article comprises four clauses. Clause (1) says that “subject to the provisions of this Constitution and to the rules and standing orders regulating the procedure of Parliament, there shall be freedom of speech in Parliament”. Clause (2) declares that “no member of Parliament shall be liable to any proceedings in any court in respect of anything said or any vote given by him in Parliament or any Committee thereof and no person shall be so liable in respect of the publication by or under the authority of either House of Parliament of any report, paper, votes or proceedings”. Clause (3), which has undergone an amendment under the Constitution 44th Amendment Act, 1978, read before the amendment as follows: “in other respects the powers, privileges and immunities of each House of Parliament, and of the Members and the Committees of each House, shall be such as may from time to time be defined by Parliament by law, and until so defined shall be those of the House of Commons of Parliament of the United Kingdom and of its Members and Committees at the commencement of this Constitution”. After the aforesaid amendment, clause (3) now reads as follows: “(3) In other respects, the powers, privileges and immunities of each House of Parliament, and of the members and the committees of each House, shall be such as may from time to time be defined by Parliament by law, and, until so defined, shall be those of that House and of its members and committees immediately before the coming into force of section 15 of the Constitution (Forty-fourth Amendment) Act, 1978.” Clause (4) reads thus: “(4) The provisions of clauses (1), (2) and (3) shall apply in relation to persons who by virtue of this Constitution have the right to speak in, and otherwise to take part in the proceedings of, a House of Parliament or any committee thereof as they apply in relation to members of Parliament.” Article 194 follows the same principles in respect of the State Legislatures.
Going by Article 105 and by extension Article 194, there is no breach of privilege by a member of the public when that person critiques the speeches made in the assembly. One wonders therefore as to what breach of privilege motion is being raised by Mr John Leslee Sangma on this writer or on any other member of the public who used Article 19 of the Constitution to speak his/her mind. If the people of Meghalaya choose to remain silent and do not contest such frivolous attempts at curbing their fundamental rights, we will soon degenerate into an autocracy.