‘Convention’ of Parliament highlighted by Speaker outdated, says Bhartruhari Mahtab

NEW DELHI: Senior BJD MP and Standing Committee on Labour chairman Bhartruhari Mahtab said the “convention” of Parliament and the parliamentary committees avoiding discussions on sub-judice matters was no longer relevant because of the advent of “many new instruments such the public interest litigation and exponential growth in information technology and the media”. All these things, he stressed, were not foreseen by those who had laid down such a convention in the beginning of our parliamentary democracy.

Speaking to ET about Speaker Om Birla’s recent advice to the members of the standing committees to “follow the convention” of “not taking” up for discussions issues “pending before the courts”, Mahtab said: “If we get very rigid in imposing or following the tradition of our Parliament and the parliamentary committees restraining themselves from discussing matters pending before the court, we will confront two situations: One, through PIL many important issues are getting routinely raked up in courts, thus handicapping Parliament/parliamentary committees from discussing/scrutinising them; and second, in such a situation, we will find, except the restraint of parliamentary forums, the rest of the world discussing the same sub-judice matter, courtesy the reach of the conventional media, the social media and information technology.”

Following the Speaker’s advice, the Standing Committee on IT has already dropped from its agenda the issue of 4G internet suspension in J&K.


Pointing out that “it isn’t a direction” but a reminder from the Speaker, Mahtab stressed that “there is no rule” that barred Parliament and the parliamentary committees from discussing the sub-judice matters and that “no other parliamentary democracy has laid down any rule or convention that prevents their parliaments and parliamentary committees from discussing matters pending before the courts”.

Mahtab said: “The convention of Parliament/parliamentary committees not discussing matters pending before the court was based on the assumption that discussing such matters in the largest public forum — Parliament and parliamentary committees — may influence the minds of the judges.” But today, he said, “the media and social media even reach out to the bedrooms and bathrooms of judges 24X7 by discussing sub-judice matters. Mind you, the judges are anyway expected and trained to decide the matters before them by the merit of the case and the law. Nothing else”.

Mahtab said before the advent of the standing committees in early 1990s and “despite the convention”, Parliament and parliamentary forums had discussed many sub-judice matters by taking into account the larger public cause and interest. “Despite pending before the courts, the Mudra and Jeep scandals were discussed by the Public Accounts Committee in the ’50s and ’60s. Similarly, the Joint Parliamentary Committees examined Bofors issue in mid-’80s and recently the 2G and coal allocation scam (during UPA rule),” he said.

Finally, Mahtab reminded one and all that the norm for the standing committees “is to decide agenda through bipartisan consensus among members” and “political clashes over agenda reaching the court of the Speaker have been a rare exception”.