Question Hour: Why do people pay to ask questions?
This post shall explore the history of cash-for-queries 'scams', understand what parliamentary questions are and locate allegations against Mahua Moitra in that light.
Last week’s domestic news cycle was dominated by a custody battle for a dog, a “jilted ex-lover”, sharing of login credentials and parliamentary questions. This post is all about that last bit. Ms. Mahua Moitra, a Member of Parliament (MP) from Krishnagar Lok Sabha Constituency of West Bengal has been accused of receiving bribes from businessperson Darshan Hiranandani to ask parliamentary questions. There are two parts to this allegation, first, an MP asking parliamentary questions on behalf of/on the instruction of someone and second, receiving bribes to ask questions. This post shall explore the history of such instances, understand what parliamentary questions are, and finally try to locate the allegations within such understanding.
Image Courtesy Asian Age
Previous Instances
Most of the readers would be aware of/remember the infamous 2005 cash-for-questions ‘scam’. Please note that this is different from the cash-for-vote ‘scams’ in 1993 and 2008; it is hard to keep track! In 2005, Cobrapost conducted a large-scale sting operation, which led to the discovery that 11 MPs across party lines – BJP (6), INC (1), BSP (3) and RJD (1) – and from both houses of Parliament had admitted on camera to asking parliamentary questions in exchange of monetary favours. A special inquiry committee headed by future Union Minister Pawan Kumar Bansal was constituted by then Speaker Somnath Chatterjee. The Bansal Committee came up with a report within two weeks recommending the expulsion of all MPs. The Lok Sabha and Rajya Sabha passed resolutions executing this recommendation.
However, this was not the first instance of a legislator currying favours in exchange of offering services for the benefit of others. Even before the first Lok Sabha election, a member of the provisional Parliament H. G. Mudgal was accused of seeking money for asking parliamentary questions in 1951. The Frontline has done an excellent story on this saga – do read this for a full picture. In short, Mr. Mudgal had agreed to make parliamentary interventions beneficial to the Bombay Bullion Association (BBA) for a sum of money. Unwittingly, he had asked obviously suspicious questions such as
“Whether the Ministry of Finance was aware of the views and directors of the Bombay Bullion Exchange, namely, that smuggling of bullion and the resultant loss of foreign exchange through the backdoor could be stopped by permitting regulated imports of bullion”
A special committee chaired by T. T. Krishnamachari was constituted and recommended Mr. Mudgal’s expulsion. However, he resigned before the house could vote on the resolution of expulsion moved by Pandit Jawaharlal Nehru.
History of Parliamentary Questions
As with most practices in parliamentary democracies, parliamentary questions originated in the Parliament of the United Kingdom (UK). According to the UK Parliament, the first recorded question was asked in 1721. However, this did not evolve into a practice till more than a century later. “Question Time” started in 1869 when a special heading for “Questions” was provided to all notices seeking to ask questions to Ministers. The number of questions asked by MPs in a session also increased significantly from 5,106 in 1900 to 26,391 in 2009-10.
In the UK Parliament, notice for asking oral questions must be given three days in advance. There is a limit of two oral questions per day per MP. However, for written questions, there is no limit. After all MPs submit notices for asking oral questions, there is a lottery system known as “the shuffle” to determine the sequence of questions – and whether they form part of the quota of questions for a day. Much of this is the same in the Indian Parliament. However, a unique feature of the Question Time in the UK Parliament is a dedicated time of 30 minutes in each week for Prime Minister’s Questions – usually a 10-minute melee between the PM and the Leader of the Opposition followed by other MPs asking questions directly to the PM, and of course, the PM answering them.
Parliamentary Questions in India
The Rules of Procedure and Conduct of Business in Lok Sabha and the Rules of Procedure and Conduct of Business in the Council of States (Rajya Sabha) lay down the rules with respect to questions. In Lok Sabha (LS), the “Question Hour” is the first hour of every sitting (usually 11 AM to 12 noon) and in Rajya Sabha (RS) it is 12 noon to 1 PM. A notice of at least fifteen days is required for asking questions. Questions are of two types – starred and unstarred; that is oral and written. Oral questions are those which are answered in the Question Hour by the respective Minister orally. The MP who has asked that question or any other MP can ask follow-up questions to the Minister based on the answer; this is called a supplementary question. This provides an opportunity to MPs to put Ministers on the spot since these would be extempore questions for Ministers.
The rules speak of the number of starred questions in a day, the limit on the number of questions a member can ask in a day and a session, admissibility of questions, format of questions, etc. The rules also refer to ‘rotational allotment of days for questions’. There are scores of Ministries in the Union Government. It is not possible for all Ministers to answer questions each day – it would be pandemonium. Therefore, the LS and RS Secretariats club Ministries into five groups with each day of the week assigned to a group and release the schedule in advance. For example, in the Monsoon Session in 2023, the RS had grouped Ministries of Civil Aviation, Coal, Defence, etc. to answer questions on Monday, Ministries of Cooperation, Education, Home Affairs, etc. on Wednesday and so on.
One can check out all questions across since 1952 asked by MPs on the LS or RS websites – they are a treasure trove of information.
The Importance of Parliamentary Questions
In a Westminster system of government, the Government is accountable to the legislature, and the members of the legislature are in turn accountable and responsible to their constituents. The members of the opposition primarily hold the government to account. When India chose this system over the Presidential system, we chose, in Dr Ambedkar’s words, ‘accountability and responsibility of the executive over stability’. There are several ways in which the legislature holds the executive accountable – parliamentary questions are one such tool.
The Government is the sole custodian of official information. It chooses to release data and information in the public domain as per its wisdom, understanding and convenience. However, questions are a way of seeking information and data from the government. Questions are also asked on what policies the government is pursuing, domestically or internationally. Questions are asked about constituencies, about performance of schemes at district, state and national levels. Therefore, questions are an effective way to keep a government on its toes – at least with respect to official data and information; if not ground-level work.
Parliamentary Questions had immense importance till the Right To Information Act. However, most of the information sought through questions can be asked by citizens through RTIs. Of course, the urgency of a parliamentary question and the national attention an issue would receive is a function of the importance of MPs in our system. Nevertheless, questions do not have the same role within our democracy any more.
Seriousness of Allegations
Anyone who has seen the work of an MP closely would know that there are thousands of people who meet MPs with their own agenda, issues, or concerns. They bring to the notice of MPs information that the MP may not be aware of; after all MPs are not omniscient beings. MPs then use such information in questions, speeches, and other interventions. Is this not the spirit of democracy?
The question of sharing of login credentials is not to be taken lightly. The rules mention that the notice “shall be given in writing” and be signed by a member. However, after the Members’ portal has been introduced, there have been no change in rules. It would have to be assumed that notice for questions on the portal is given by the member or on authorisation of the member. Accessing the portal requires one time passwords (OTPs) at different points of time. Several MPs do not use their own number for the OTP, it is the PAs/PSs whose number is provided. However, Mahua Moitra has clarified that her own number has been provided and therefore, any OTP generation, including for interventions would be after her authorisation. This can be easily verified by the NIC. A lesson from this episode is the need to amend rules to reflect technological advancement.
Of course, the sharing of login credentials is questionable and misusing public office for personal gains is unethical. However, the act of asking questions is not.
The question asked by Mr. Mudgal although wrapped in public interest obviously pertained to business interests of the BBA. What about Ms. Moitra’s questions about financial irregularities by a conglomerate which virtually impacts all aspects of our lives, even if on ‘instructions’ of another businessperson? I will leave it to the readers to make up their minds on that.