Parliamentary Oversight vs Supreme Court Inquiry: The Debate Over Adani Group's Funding
With the Congress Party demanding a JPC to investigate the Adani Group, and the ruling BJP government resisting, the political atmosphere gets super-charged.
The demand by the now disqualified MP and Congress Leader Rahul Gandhi for setting up of a Joint Parliamentary Committee (JPC) to probe into the funding of the Adani Group of Companies has once again brought to the fore the question of parliamentary oversight and accountability in India. The main opposition party, the Congress, has been vehemently demanding a JPC to investigate the alleged financial irregularities in the Adani Group, while the ruling BJP government has been resisting the demand, citing the ongoing proceedings in the Supreme Court. The controversy surrounding the Adani Group’s funding has sparked a heated political debate, with both sides presenting their arguments and counter-arguments.
What is a JPC?
JPC stands for Joint Parliamentary Committee, which is a committee consisting of members from both houses of Parliament in India. The purpose of a JPC probe is to investigate and inquire into a specific matter of public interest or concern, and to provide a report of its findings to the Parliament.
When a matter of public interest is referred to a JPC, it is usually because the issue is complex and requires a thorough investigation. The JPC is empowered to summon witnesses, examine documents and take evidence on oath. The findings of the JPC are presented in the form of a report, which is laid before both houses of Parliament.
JPC probes are often conducted in cases of corruption, financial irregularities, and other matters that involve public interest. The JPC is seen as an important mechanism for ensuring transparency and accountability in the functioning of the government and its agencies.
Scope of a JPC
The Joint Parliamentary Committee (JPC) is a fact-finding body and does not have the power to convict anyone. However, the findings and recommendations of the JPC are presented to the Parliament in the form of a report. Based on the report, the Parliament can take appropriate action, such as:
Legislative action: The Parliament can amend existing laws or enact new laws based on the recommendations of the JPC.
Administrative action: The government can take administrative action, such as cancelling contracts or taking disciplinary action against officials based on the findings of the JPC.
Criminal action: If the JPC finds evidence of criminal wrongdoing, it can refer the matter to the appropriate law enforcement agency for further investigation and prosecution by agencies like the CBI or NIA and ED.
In case of criminal wrongdoing, the JPC cannot convict anyone as it is not a court of law. However, the evidence collected by the JPC can be used in a court of law to prosecute the accused. The accused is entitled to an opportunity to be heard during the JPC’s proceedings, and any evidence collected against them must be legally admissible in court.
How is a JPC constituted? The members of the Joint Parliamentary Committee (JPC) are chosen from both houses of Parliament in India — the Lok Sabha (Lower House) and the Rajya Sabha (Upper House). The composition of the JPC is decided by the Speaker of the Lok Sabha or the Chairman of the Rajya Sabha, as the case may be, in consultation with the leaders of political parties.
The Speaker or Chairman determines the number of members from each political party or group in proportion to the strength of the party in the respective House. The members of the JPC are appointed by the Speaker or Chairman based on the recommendations of the leaders of the political parties.
The Chairman of the JPC is also appointed by the Speaker of the Lok Sabha or the Chairman of the Rajya Sabha, depending on the House where the JPC is formed. The Chairman is usually a senior Member of Parliament (MP) with experience in parliamentary affairs.
The Chairman of the JPC has the power to summon witnesses, examine documents, and take evidence on oath. They also preside over the meetings of the JPC and ensure that the proceedings are conducted in a fair and impartial manner.
Previous JPCs
Given below are the broad findings of the five Joint Parliamentary Committees (JPCs) that have been set up in the recent times:
Bofors scandal (1987): The JPC could not conclusively establish the identity of the beneficiaries of the alleged kickbacks. However, the committee’s report did mention several procedural lapses and irregularities in the deal.
Harshad Mehta securities scam (1992): The JPC found that the securities scam was caused by the regulatory failures of the government and the Reserve Bank of India. The committee recommended several measures to strengthen the regulatory framework for the securities market.
2G spectrum scam (2010): The JPC’s report was divided along party lines, with the ruling party presenting a dissenting note. The JPC could not find any evidence of corruption or favoritism in the allocation of 2G spectrum licenses.
Commonwealth Games scam (2010): The JPC found evidence of financial irregularities and corruption in the organization of the Commonwealth Games. The committee recommended several measures to strengthen transparency and accountability in the conduct of such events.
AgustaWestland VVIP chopper scam (2013): The JPC’s report could not establish the role of the Indian government or any public official in the alleged irregularities in the purchase of AgustaWestland helicopters. However, the committee recommended several measures to prevent such incidents in the future.
These are broad findings of the JPCs mentioned above. However, it is important to note that the JPC’s reports often have dissenting notes and recommendations, and the final action taken by the Parliament may depend on various factors, including political considerations.
Limitations and Weaknesses of the JPC
The Joint Parliamentary Committee (JPC) is an important institution of parliamentary democracy in India, but it also has inherent weaknesses and limitations. Here are some of the limitations of JPC:
Political biases: JPCs are composed of members from various political parties, and their recommendations may be influenced by political considerations rather than objective facts and evidence.
Limited powers: JPCs do not have the powers of a court of law, and their findings and recommendations are not binding on the government or the Parliament. They are only advisory in nature, and the final action taken by the government or Parliament may be influenced by various factors.
Time-bound nature: JPCs are set up for a specific period to investigate a particular issue, and their work is often time-bound. This may limit their ability to conduct a comprehensive and in-depth investigation.
Resource constraints: JPCs do not have their own dedicated staff, and they rely on the administrative support of the Parliament. This may limit their ability to conduct a thorough and effective investigation.
Lack of expertise: JPC members may not have the necessary expertise or technical knowledge to investigate complex issues such as financial irregularities or technical malfunctions.
Non-participation of non-MPs: JPCs are composed of members of Parliament, and non-MPs or experts may not be allowed to participate in the proceedings. This may limit the quality of evidence and inputs that the JPC can gather.
Commission of Inquiry (COI)
A Commission of Inquiry headed by a sitting or retired judge of the Supreme Court can have some advantages over a Joint Parliamentary Committee (JPC) in terms of efficacy and independence. Here are some potential advantages of a Commission of Inquiry over a JPC:
Legal expertise: A judge heading the commission would have legal expertise, which could be particularly useful in investigating complex issues involving legal and technical aspects.
Independence: The Commission of Inquiry would be independent of the political considerations that often influence the functioning of a JPC. This could ensure that the inquiry is conducted objectively and impartially.
Powers similar to a court: The Commission of Inquiry would have the power to summon witnesses, examine documents, and take evidence on oath, similar to the powers of a court. This could enable the commission to conduct a more comprehensive and effective investigation.
Greater public trust: A commission headed by a judge could enjoy greater public trust, as it would be perceived as being less susceptible to political pressures and biases.
Time-bound nature: The Commission of Inquiry would be set up for a specific period to investigate a particular issue, and its work would not be influenced by the political cycles or agendas.
However, it is important to note that setting up a Commission of Inquiry can also have some disadvantages, including higher costs and longer timeframes, which may be an issue in cases where timely action is necessary. Furthermore, the recommendations of a Commission of Inquiry are also advisory in nature and not binding on the government or the Parliament.
Conclusion
Without doubt, there are some of the inherent weaknesses and limitations of JPCs. However, despite these limitations, JPCs remain an important tool for parliamentary oversight and accountability in India. Over the years, JPCs have been set up to investigate various issues ranging from financial irregularities to defense purchases, and their reports have been instrumental in shaping public policy and holding the government accountable. However, the efficacy of JPCs is often limited by their inherent weaknesses, including political biases, limited powers, time-bound nature, and lack of expertise. It is important to ensure that JPCs are set up in a fair and transparent manner, with a clear mandate and adequate resources to conduct a comprehensive and effective investigation.
The practical and pragmatic political question which the Congress Party must pose to itself is why a JPC and not a COI? But once Rahul Gandhi has demanded a JPC it’s highly unlikely that anyone within his party will press for a COI. That’s just the symptom, not the problem.
_________________________________________________________________
The author superannuated as Special Chief Secretary, Punjab in July, 2021, after nearly 37 years of service in the IAS.
He can be reached on kbs.sidhu@gmail.com .