CPI leader in Rajya Sabha flays executive interference in JPC proceedings
text_fields
The leader of the CPI in the Rajya Sabha, Santhosh Kumar has written to the Lok Sabha Speaker Om Birla highlighting the impropriety of procedures seen in presenting the report of the JPC on Waqf Amendment Bill, 2014 in both Houses of Parliament.
In his letter on Monday, Santhosh Kumar cited that the JPC report was presented to the Speaker on January 30, 2025 and was circulated among the members of the Lok Sabha. Although it mentioned that Dissent Notes of some members f JPC, several pages of the same were found to be expunged.
He said he wanted to bring to your attention the impropriety of procedure in presenting the report of the JPC on Waqf Amendment Bill, 2024 in both Houses of Parliament on February 13. Some Ministers made mutually contradictory statements about the reason for expunging of the dissent notes. Later on a Corrigendum to Annexure IV of the Report was also tabled in the Rajya Sabha whereas the Report in the Lok Sabha showed no such Corrigendum.
The CPI MP also highlighted that the dissident notes ‘were modified as an afterthought’ and that the publication of the Report without capturing the later modification amounted to misrepresentation of facts.
The letter also took exception to the Home Minister, Amit Shah at one point intervening in the debate and saying that the ruling party had no objection to including the dissent notes which ‘smacked of pure authoritarian approach of the government’. He drew attention to the fact that a JPC is a panel independent of the Executive and as such did not need the ruling party’s opinion or acceptance. Therefore the Home Minister’s remark amounted to the executive undermining the authority of the parliament by which only the Presiding Officers have powers over the Committee, and all other members including the Ministers are equally placed.
Santhosh Kumar inferred in the letter that the handling of the dissent notes by the Ministers with indication that they were aware of the JPC proceedings much more than others, can be safely presumed as a sign of the indirect influence wielded by the executive on parliament’s functioning.