Needlepoint: Right to Information; Arrogance to Deny it

Needlepoint
The Right to information
The Arrogance to deny it

By Amba Charan Vashishth
Words: 910

On April 24 in all his wisdom and authority Rajya Sabha Chairman Mr. Hamid Ansari invoked, for the first time after 1989, Rule 255 and named Mr. V. Maitreyan of the AIADMK for disorderly behaviour and asked him to leave the House.
The provocation for the Chairman’s order was the member’s persistent demand for a response from Prime Minister Dr. Manmohan Singh, who was present in the House, to the charge that Union Surface Transport Minister Mr T.R. Baalu sought a favour for his sons’ firms in allocation of gas and that the Prime Minister had recommended his case.
The Chairman disallowed his plea and asked him not to disrupt the proceedings. However, Mr. Maitreyan continued to press for a “clarification” by the Prime Minister. At this stage, Mr. Ansari warned him that he would invoke Rule 255, observing that “this disorderly behaviour was unbecoming of a parliamentarian.” When an agitated Mr. Maitreyan remained adamant, Mr. Ansari said he was invoking the rule.
There are no two opinions on the righteousness of the Hon’ble Chairman’s directions. An MP is expected to behave and submit to the directions of the chair in all humility in the interest of decorum in a house.
It is none of anybody’s business to comment upon what happens within the precincts of a house. Yet, as a free citizen – above all, a responsible voter – of this great country and democracy, it is equally his inalienable right to keep a close watch on what right or wrong is going on in the two houses of Parliament and to ponder over dispassionately, when, what, why and how did it happen.
Two basic questions do arise in the mind. Does an honourable MP not have a right to seek clarification or reaction of a minister or prime minister on any matter of public importance in which the name of a minister or PM may have been rightly or wrongly been dragged? Is it not the duty and responsibility of a minister concerned to satisfy the curiosity of the member – and through him and Parliament, of the general public – of the facts of the case?
It is right that no member can expect – and force – a minister or government into instantly and there and then making a statement without first referring to records and verifying facts. But in this age of fast means of communications promising to do so next day or day after should not be construed as meaning something like asking for the moon. That would only have soothed the frayed tempers and sent out a clear message that there is no intention to hide facts.
The greatest tragedy of our system of democracy is that rights and duties don’t go hand in hand; these are neither inter-linked nor inter-dependent. In the Westminster style of parliamentary system of government, an honourable MP or minister does have the right to reply immediately if his name is referred to by any other member in the house. But, it is not the duty – and, on the contrary, it is his sole discretion -- to respond or not if any allegation, howsoever serious it may be, against a member or minister.
In democracy, no person/minister, howsoever high, has the right – and don't forget the Right to Information Act – to withhold facts – unless, of course, it involves the security of the country, which is not true in the instant case – from the house because he/she is answerable, accountable and responsible to Parliament and the people.
Till the time this piece has been sent, neither the right of the House – and through it, of the people – to know the reality has been respected nor has the government discharged its duty to lay the facts bare. The Minister for Parliamentary Affairs does have given an assurance that government will look into it and respond but, at the same time, without specifying when.
When the matter was raised in the Rajya Sabha on April 25, saying that the members expected some understanding from the Chair of their intentions and feelings, and that there were many situations which could be resolved without invoking any penal provisions of the rules of the House, the Chairman Mr. Ansari said, “In fact none was punished or castigated. All that had happened was that in pursuant to the rule of the House, the attention of the member was drawn to that and he complied”.
Rule 255: “The Chairman may direct any member, whose conduct is in his opinion grossly disorderly, to withdraw immediately from the Council, and any member so ordered to withdraw shall do so forthwith and shall absent himself during the remainder of the day’s meeting.”
It clearly means that the Hon’ble Chairman invoked this Rule only after “in his opinion, Mr. Maitreyan’s conduct was “grossly disorderly" and, therefore, ordered him "to withdraw immediately from the Council". The concerned MP "so ordered to withdraw" did so forthwith and did "absent himself during the remainder of (that) today's meeting".
Earlier the Rule was invoked in 1989 in a slightly different context and situation. A member had physically prevented another member from asking a supplementary question. When the chair asked the recalcitrant MP to tender an apology to the House for this "grossly disorderly" conduct and the latter refused to comply, the provisions of the Rule were applied.
The people of the country do have the right – and the duty – to draw their own conclusion, right or wrong. They certainly will. ***