Day 23 – Q.1 Should the public conduct of MPs and MLAs be subject to parliamentary scrutiny? Why or why not? Substantiate your views.

Should the public conduct of MPs and MLAs be subject to parliamentary scrutiny? Why or why not? Substantiate your views.

क्या सांसदों और विधायकों का सार्वजनिक आचरण संसदीय जांच के अधीन होना चाहिए? क्यों या क्यों नहीं? अपने मतों की पुष्टि कीजिए।

Approach

Candidates can start the answer with giving short description on legislators conduct in public and then simply address whether there is requirement of any scrutiny also provide other side of arguments.

Introduction

In a bid to assert their superiority over the rest, some MPs or MLAs go overboard and do misconduct in public. Some even threaten voters with dire consequences if they are not voted to power. Therefore, to ensure civility in political speeches and expressions, parliamentary scrutiny seems necessary in some situation.

Body

Necessary of parliamentary scrutiny:

• The parliamentarian representing their constituencies in the Parliament/legislative body have time and again brought ill-repute to the institution with their incivility.
• Creating public nuisance, making unacceptable remarks and disrupting law and order are some of the major allegations they face. For example, communal sloganeering during pro CAA rallies in Delhi.
• Hate speeches are found tantamount to incitement of any offence, whether it’s hated speech or treason, they are already punishable under Indian law if made outside the legislative house but parliamentary scrutiny will stand more effective.
• Parliamentary Committee while scrutinizing reports will be usually exhaustive and provide authentic information on matters related to misconduct of legislators.
• As parliamentary scrutiny through committee will be ‘closed-door’ and members will not be bounded by party whips, the parliamentary committee work on the ethos of debate and discussions.
• Nevertheless, free speech has to be distinguished from hate speech. Hate speech made by a legislator sometimes may not amount to offence, but some public check will have to be there even if it does not amount to an offence.

Parliamentary scrutiny will unfairly restrain legislators from making political speeches:

• The policing of public speeches will severely impact the ability of opposition voice to check the Executive and will thus be a detriment to accountability.
• Free speech of legislators protects the integrity of deliberations and is a shield against executive suppression of inconvenient voices.
• Freedom of expression is generally regarded as the foundation of a liberal democracy.
• Unfairly restraining legislators from making political speeches will strike a serious blow to democratic structure.
• Parliamentary Committees help by providing a forum where members can engage with domain experts and government officials during the course of their study. Scrutiny of legislators conduct in public should be left to state police.
• Reduced working hours of Parliament getting increased day by day due to frequent disruptions in the house in such situation role of committees in legislation process increases.

Conclusion

The credibility of legislatures is defined by the conduct and behavior of their members. Therefore, MPs and MLAs are expected to observe the highest standards of discipline and decorum, both inside and outside the Houses.