By Vivek K Agnihotri

Nishikant Dubey, a BJP MP, wrote to the Lok Sabha Speaker recently accusing Mahua Moitra, a Trinamool Congress MP, of taking gifts and cash from the business house of Darshan Hiranandani in return for asking questions in Parliament to protect its interests. The Speaker has referred the complaint to the Ethics Committee of the House, even as Moitra denied the allegation.

If, for a moment, we put aside the issue of gifts and cash, the fact remains that an MP cannot be faulted for asking questions in respect of his constituents whom he represents. However, there are certain rules of the game.

First and foremost, an MP, soon after he is elected, has to provide details of his professional and business interests, which are entered in a Register of Members’ Interests, which is available to other members for inspection on request. It is also accessible to ordinary citizens under the Right to Information Act, 2005.

Further, whenever a member raises an issue in Parliament which has any association with his professional or business interests, he has to make a prior declaration to that effect. For example, if a member, who is a practising lawyer, wants to participate in a debate in which one of his client’s interest may be involved, he is required to make a declaration to that effect first. Similarly, if a member has business interests in a company to which the question relates, he has to make a prior declaration before raising it.

Moreover, there is a practice of prescribing a code of conduct for MPs. While there is no definitive code of conduct for MPs of the Lok Sabha, there are various provisions in the rules of procedure and conduct of business in the Lok Sabha for ensuring decorum and dignified conduct of members.

On the other hand, in the Fourth Report of the Ethics Committee of the Rajya Sabha, which was adopted by the House on April 20, 2005, a 14-point Code of Conduct for members was recommended. Its major points are: 

• If members find that there is a conflict between their personal interests and the public trust which they hold, they should resolve it in a manner that their private interests are subordinated to the duty of their public office.
• Members must not do anything that brings disrepute to the Parliament and affects their credibility.
• Members holding public offices should use public resources in such a manner as may lead to public good.
• Members should always see that their private financial interests and those of their immediate family do not come in conflict with the public interest. And if any such conflict ever arises, they should try to resolve it in a manner that the public interest is not jeopardized.
• Members should never expect or accept any fee, remuneration or benefit for a vote given or not given by them on the floor of the House, for introducing a Bill, for moving a resolution or desisting from moving a resolution, putting a question or abstaining from asking a question or participating in the deliberations of the House or a Parliamentary Committee.

Internationally, too, there is a convention of prescribing a code of conduct for MPs. In the UK, a code of conduct for MPs was prepared pursuant to the Resolution of the House of July 19, 1995. The Canadian House of Commons has a Conflict of Interest and Ethics Commissioner with powers to examine violations of the Conflict of Interest Code at the request of another member or by Resolution of the House or on his own initiative. Germany has had a Code of Conduct for members of the Bundestag since 1972. The US has had a Code since 1968. Pakistan too has a Code of Conduct for members of the Senate.

This is not the first instance when an allegation has been made against an MP for acceptance of favours for raising issues or asking questions in the House to promote the interests of a private party. The conduct of members involving corruption in the execution of their office is treated by the House as a breach of privilege. It would also be a breach of privilege or misconduct by a member to enter into an agreement with another person for a sum of money to advocate the claims of such a person in the House. 

As early as 1951, an ad hoc committee of the House was appointed by the Provisional Parliament to investigate the conduct and activities of a member in connection with some of his dealings with a business association. This included canvassing support and making propaganda in Parliament on certain problems on behalf of that association in return for alleged financial and other business advantages.

In its report, the committee held that the conduct of the member was derogatory to the dignity of the House and inconsistent with the standards which Parliament was entitled to expect from its members. The committee recommended the expulsion of the member from the House. The member submitted his resignation. In a resolution, the House accepted the findings of the committee and deprecated the attempt of the member to circumvent the effects of the motion expelling him. This constituted contempt of the House and aggravated his offence.

The most notorious case arose on December 12, 2005, when a private television channel carried video footage showing some MPs allegedly accepting money for tabling questions and raising other matters in the House. On the same day, the Speaker told the members concerned not to attend the session of the House until the matter was looked into and a decision taken. An inquiry committee was appointed and directed to submit its report by December 21, 2005. The report of the committee was adopted by the two Houses on December 23, 2005, expelling 10 members (nine of the Lok Sabha and one of the Rajya Sabha) from the membership of the Parliament.

There have been several other cases involving misdemeanours by MPs, for which punishment ranging from reprimand, suspension and expulsion has been awarded.

In the present case, the ethics committee of the Lok Sabha, to which the matter was referred to, has summoned the complainants to take their evidence. In the meanwhile, Hiranandani has filed an affidavit before the committee corroborating the allegations. The committee will take the evidence, deliberate on the matter and then submit its report which will be placed before the House for consideration and decision. In the meanwhile, if the committee indicts the member, the Speaker may suspend her till the House takes a final decision. 

—The writer is former Secretary-General, Rajya Sabha

The Delhi High Court has refused to entertain a plea alleging construction of illegal and unauthorized super-structures in Sarai Rohilla region of the capital, noting that the petition has been filed without proper homework and only on the basis of information received from passers-by.

The Division Bench comprising Chief Justice D.N. Patel and Justice Amit Bansal dismissed the petition with a cost of Rs 50,000. Filed by a society named Fight For Right Social Welfare Society, the plea pointed out a list of 13 illegal properties located at Sarai Rohilla, and thereby, prayed for demolition of the alleged illegal and unauthorized properties. The plea further sought for directions to book the unbooked illegal and unauthorized construction. In addition, the plea prayed for disciplinary or legal action against those corrupt officials who are protecting such illegal and unauthorized encroachment. 

The Bench raised a query in respect of the source of knowledge to claim illegality in construction of the said properties, the Counsel for the petitioner society responded that they were informed about the same by persons living in the surroundings of such constructions.

While terming the answer as an “evasive” one, the Bench underscored that it is a “blackmailing type of litigation” and  not a PIL. Furthermore, the Bench enquired from the Counsel for the petitioner society if any information has been received in respect of the said properties under the Right to Information Act, 2005, upon which he answered in the negative.

The Bench stated thus:“The petitioner has filed this petition without proper homework and only on being informed by some persons who are moving on road. This is not a method in which Public Interest Litigation can be filed by the petitioner.”
“It ought to be kept in mind that whenever any superstructure is to be demolished, even if it is illegal in nature, the Petitioner ought to have joined owners / occupiers of the superstructure as a party Respondent. No construction can be demolished without hearing the owners / occupiers of the superstructure. In the facts of the present case, this Petitioner has not joined any owner / occupier of the superstructure in question which this Petitioner wants to be demolished,” the Bench added further.

A PIL has been filed before the Lucknow Bench of the Allahabad High Court seeking directions to the Central and the state governments for the payment of ex-gratia compensation to the families of persons who have lost their lives due to the Covid-19 pandemic.

The Division Bench of Justices Ritu Raj Awasthi and Manish Mathur listed the PIL, filed by Dr Sandeep Pandey through Advocate Rajat Rajan Singh, for July.

The petitioner has prayed for ex-gratia compensation under the Disaster Management Act, 2005 for persons who have lost their lives due to thr Covid-19 pandemic. The petition also seeks refund of the cost of hospitalization from the State Relief Fund.

Petitioner Advocate has pointed out that Section 12 of the Disaster Management Act mandates payment of ex-gratia amount to the person affected by the disaster.

The counsel informed the Court that after filing the writ petition, he has come to know that the Apex Court in a suo motu matter vide order dated April 30, 2021 has suggested the Central Government to consider payment of compensation etc. to the victims.

Read Also: Youth Bar Association seeks direction from SC on door-to-door COVID vaccination of senior citizens, differently-abled, poor

Additional Chief Standing Counsel H. P. Srivastava informs that the Court at Allahabad is also dealing with a PIL in which the issue pertaining to Covid-19 has been taken up.

“List this case in the month of July, 2021. In the meantime, in case any decision in this regard is taken by the Apex Court or by this Court at Allahabad, that may be brought on record,” the Court said.

The Supreme Court in an order on Wednesday observed that the provisions of the Employees’ Provident Fund Act are applicable to private security agencies providing personnel to clients.

The Division Bench comprising Justice Navin Sinha and Justice Surya Kant passed this judgment while dismissing an appeal filed against the order of the High Court affirming the order dated 28.07.2008  of the Assistant Provident Fund  Commissioner, Kanpur under  Section  7A of the Employees’ Provident  Funds and  Miscellaneous  Provisions Act, 1952  holding the appellant liable for compliance with the provisions of the EPF Act and to deposit statutory dues within 15 days.

The appellant Panther Security Service Private Ltd. was engaged in providing security services to its clients since the year 2001.  A squad under the EPF  Act visited the appellant’s establishment on  29.12.2005 and seized certain records opining that the provisions of the EPF Act applied to the appellant. The Assistant Provident Fund Commissioner on 07.03.2006 on basis of the seized documents opined that the appellant had 79 employees as on 03.04.2001 allotting Code No. UP/39076,   requiring the appellant to deposit the necessary contributions. The appellant having objected to the same, proceedings were initiated under Section 7A of the EPF Act with due opportunity of defence to the appellant.

The remedy of an appeal before the Tribunal under Section 7­I was bypassed by the appellant instituting the writ petition directly.  The High Court declined interference with the conclusion of expert services being rendered by the appellant. A review petition contending that the appellant stood duly registered under the Act of 2005 was also rejected.

S. Sunil, counsel for the appellant submitted that the appellant was not covered by G.S.R. No.805 dated 17.05.1971 issued under Section 1(3)(B) of the EPF Act, since it was not engaged in rendering any   expert  services. It merely facilitated  in providing  Chowkidars to its clients  at the  request of the   latter. The appellant only levelled  a  service  charge forfacilitation. The salary  was paid to  the  Chowkidars by the client who engaged their services. The appellant had only  5 persons on its rolls.   The EPF Act  was therefore not applicable to it. Citing the Judgement of  Krantikari   Suraksha   Rakshak   Sanghatana   vs. Bharat  Sanchar  Nigam  Limited  and  others,  (2008) 10 SCC 166 and Saraswath  Films vs.  Regional Director, Employees’ State Insurance Corporation, Trichur, (2010) 11 SCC 553. 

Divya   Roy, counsel for the respondents submitted that the appellant renders expert services by way of providing trained personnel as security guards. It is fully covered by the Notification dated 17.05.1971.  Despite repeated notices the appellant never furnished its wage and salary registers.  The balance sheets seized for the financial years 2003-¬04, 2004-¬05, 2005-¬06 and 2006¬07, during raid ,  reveals a  very large amount paid towards  salaries  and  wages  running  into several lacs which cannot   be   the   wage  bill  of  five employees. The letter dated 03.04.2001 written by the appellant to the New India Assurance Company  Limited seeking Group Janta Personnel Accident Insurance Policy of one  lac each was in  respect of 79 security personnel.

The Court observed that “The Act of 2005 defines a private security agency under Section 2(g)  as an organization engaged in the business of providing security services including training to private security guards and providing such guards to any industrial or business undertakings or a company or any other person or property.  A licence is mandatory under Section 4 and those security agencies existing since earlier were mandated to obtain such licence within one year of coming into force of the Act.   A complete procedure is provided with regard to making of an application for grant of a licence under Section 7, renewal under Section 8 of the Act.  The eligibility for appointment as a security guard with such security agency is provided under Section 10 of the Act.  Section 11 provides for the condition of the licence and the licence can be cancelled under   Section   13.   A  private   security   agency   under Section 15 is required to maintain a register inter alia with the names,   addresses,   photographs   and   salaries   of   the   private security guards and supervisors under its control.”

The Top Court, therefore, rejected the firm’s contention that it merely facilitated in providing Chowkidars, holding that the provisions of Private Security Agencies (Regulation) Act, 2005 make it clear that the firm is the employer of such security guards and are paid wages by it.

”The appellant never made available the statutory registers under the Act of 2005  to the authorities under the EPF Act.  In fact, we have no hesitation in holding that it actually withheld relevant papers. This coupled with the letter dated 03.04.2001 written by the appellant, the appellant’s balance sheet seized for the financial years   2003¬04,   2004¬05,   2005¬06   and   2006¬07 showing payment of wages running into lacs, necessarily and only leads to the irresistible conclusion that the appellant has more than 20 employees on its roles. The provisions of the Act therefore necessarily apply to it”, the court remarked.

Also Read: Delhi HC allows Delhi riot accused Asif Iqbal Tanha to stay in guesthouse during his Jamia exams