Published on Tue, Jul 28, 2009 at 02:42, Updated on Tue, Jul 28, 2009 at 03:09 in Politics section
The above is from a politician of high standing in Jammu & Kashmir, Ms Mehbooba Mufti, in India and the current President of the Peoples' Democratic Party (PDP), a party in Opposition which had been an ally of the ruling party in the last assembly. Her father has been the Union Home Minister and later the Chief Minister of Jammu & Kashmir in alliance with the Indian National Congress (I) with an arrangement on chiefmisnistership on a 50:50 tenure sharing basis. However, when it came over to hand over the position to the Congress parties' nominee, he reneged on the promise, withdrew support to the Congress party and resorted to all kinds of disruptive activities with the result that the assembly had to be dissolved.
The accompanying picture shows Ms Mufti yanking the speaker's mike and throwing it at him or someone else in the vicinity.
In the recent elections, PDP got a drubbing, a situation which it is most uncomfortable with.
A few months ago, in the Indian parliament, we witnessed a drama, where the main opposition party accused some members of a party supporting the ruling party of attempting to bribe the members from the former to vote with the ruling party in support of the important Indo-US nuclear agreement; this could certainly not have been proved if provisions of the evidence act had to be applied yet the proceedings of the house were disrupted at tremendous cost to the people.
In Uttar Pradesh, some time back, members indulged in a free for all almost totally destroying the furniture, fitments and other equiment.
Such brawls, melees and conundrum has been witnessed in a large number of fora of elected representatives of people.
Law provides them immunity - immunity from prosecution for their conduct, may it be verbal abuse and slander, defamation, criminal acts like uprooting furniture and furnishings, fistfights amongst members and assault including assault on the speaker.
Is this law not totally unfair that a supposedly responsible member is allowed to act in a criminally irresponsible manner ?? Should members of public not be able to seek prosecution of unruly legislateurs in criminal courts without any prejudice to the dignity of the house and seek their dismissal either by the legislature itself (within the law) or by a court recognised as competent for such purpose subjecting the perpetrators of such irresponsible and criminal behaviour to the law of the land ??
It needs to be appreciated that the damage caused to the peoples' property created for the use of elected members in pursuit of their public duty must be paid for by errant members with a suitable fine and imprisonment in addition to its replacement value. Would not such be the case if the common man indulged in such behaviour ??
Similarly, why should the principle of EQUITY BEFORE LAW not be applied to elected representatives be in terms of their attendance of the house proceedings or behaviour in or outside of the parliament or assemblies etc ??
I appeal to all to sign a petition to the heads of state of all member countries of the UN, the secretary general of the UN and elected representatives themselves that a law be enacted that makes errant members responsible to the people through courts since a large number of legislatures are unlikely to enact such a law based on the fact that they may be acting against their own interest by removing a legislative privilege.
Published on Tue, Jul 28, 2009 at 02:42, Updated on Tue, Jul 28, 2009 at 03:09 in Politics section
The above is from a politician of high standing in Jammu & Kashmir, Ms Mehbooba Mufti, in India and the current President of the Peoples' Democratic Party (PDP), a party in Opposition which had been an ally of the ruling party in the last assembly. Her father has been the Union Home Minister and later the Chief Minister of Jammu & Kashmir in alliance with the Indian National Congress (I) with an arrangement on chiefmisnistership on a 50:50 tenure sharing basis. However, when it came over to hand over the position to the Congress parties' nominee, he reneged on the promise, withdrew support to the Congress party and resorted to all kinds of disruptive activities with the result that the assembly had to be dissolved.
The accompanying picture shows Ms Mufti yanking the speaker's mike and throwing it at him or someone else in the vicinity.
In the recent elections, PDP got a drubbing, a situation which it is most uncomfortable with.
A few months ago, in the Indian parliament, we witnessed a drama, where the main opposition party accused some members of a party supporting the ruling party of attempting to bribe the members from the former to vote with the ruling party in support of the important Indo-US nuclear agreement; this could certainly not have been proved if provisions of the evidence act had to be applied yet the proceedings of the house were disrupted at tremendous cost to the people.
In Uttar Pradesh, some time back, members indulged in a free for all almost totally destroying the furniture, fitments and other equiment.
Such brawls, melees and conundrum has been witnessed in a large number of fora of elected representatives of people.
Law provides them immunity - immunity from prosecution for their conduct, may it be verbal abuse and slander, defamation, criminal acts like uprooting furniture and furnishings, fistfights amongst members and assault including assault on the speaker.
Is this law not totally unfair that a supposedly responsible member is allowed to act in a criminally irresponsible manner ?? Should members of public not be able to seek prosecution of unruly legislateurs in criminal courts without any prejudice to the dignity of the house and seek their dismissal either by the legislature itself (within the law) or by a court recognised as competent for such purpose subjecting the perpetrators of such irresponsible and criminal behaviour to the law of the land ??
It needs to be appreciated that the damage caused to the peoples' property created for the use of elected members in pursuit of their public duty must be paid for by errant members with a suitable fine and imprisonment in addition to its replacement value. Would not such be the case if the common man indulged in such behaviour ??
Similarly, why should the principle of EQUITY BEFORE LAW not be applied to elected representatives be in terms of their attendance of the house proceedings or behaviour in or outside of the parliament or assemblies etc ??
I appeal to all to sign a petition to the heads of state of all member countries of the UN, the secretary general of the UN and elected representatives themselves that a law be enacted that makes errant members responsible to the people through courts since a large number of legislatures are unlikely to enact such a law based on the fact that they may be acting against their own interest by removing a legislative privilege.
