& çâÌæÚUæð´ ·¤è ¥ôÚU Îð¹Ùæ ÁæÚUè ÚU¹ð´ ¥ÍæüÌ ¥ÂÙð ÜÿØ ÂÚU ŠØæÙ ÚU¹ð´Ð ãæÚU Ù ×æÙð´, €UØô´ç·¤ ·¤æ× ·¤ÚUÙð âð ¥æÂ·¤ô ©gðàØ ·¤è Âýæç# ãôÌè ãñ ¥õÚU ÁèßÙ ·¤æ ¹æÜèÂÙ ÎêÚU ãôÌæ ãñÐ ÖÜð ãè ÁèßÙ ×ð´ ç·¤ÌÙè Öè ·¤çÆÙæ§ü €UØô´ Ù ¥æ°, çÁ™ææâæ ¥õÚU ©ˆâæã ÕÙæ° ÚU¹ð´Ð ŠØæÙ ÚU¹ð´, ÜÿØ ã×ðàææ ¥æÂ·Ô¤ Âæâ ãôÌð ãñ´ çÁ‹ãð´ ÂæÙð ·Ô¤ çÜ° ÂýØæâ ¥æÂ ·¤Öè Öè àæéM¤ ·¤ÚU â·¤Ìð ãñ´Ð

IMPEACHMENT BILL

JS body deserves kudos, but not fully

Shakhawat Liton
***The ministry did not consult with the law commission. And now the government does not want to hold any discussion with the stakeholders before passage of the bill. The parliamentary body on the law ministry endorsed the government strategy and decided not to hold any discussion with jurists and others on the bill.***
IN the opinion of some members of the parliamentary standing committee on law ministry, the preamble of the constitutional amendment bill has made a judgmental announcement by declaring the existing provision for the Supreme Judicial Council (SJC) to be against Article 7 of the Constitution. But making such an announcement in a proposed legislation is outside the jurisdiction of the law ministry. The constitution empowers only the Supreme Court (SC) with the authority to interpret the constitutional provision and to give decision. The preamble of the bill has also concealed and distorted facts about the history of the introduction of the SJC and the revival of the Article 96 of the Constitution of 1972 to restore the parliament's power to remove a SC judge on ground of misbehaviour or incapacity.
Therefore, the parliamentary standing committee has decided to recommend to the House to scrap the entire preamble of the bill. The committee feels that the preamble is unnecessary and irrelevant. In one word the preamble is faulty. So, the committee decided to recommend that the House replace the one-page preamble with only a single line containing a few words which may say the bill was placed as it is necessary for further amendment of the constitution. Scrutinising the bill at the two meetings on Tuesday and Wednesday, the parliamentary body finalised its recommendations. This is a rare instance. None of the previous 15 constitutional amendment bills in the last four decades has experienced such a situation.
The parliamentary body has done its real jobs. Its considered observation should prevent the House from passing the constitutional amendment bill with a faulty preamble which, if remains unchanged, will be a part of the legislation. This incident however exposed some crucial aspects which deserve careful consideration.
This situation could have been avoided easily had the parliamentary body got scope to scrutinise the content of the bill before it was placed in parliament. But the government did not allow the committee to scrutinise the bill earlier. In so doing, the government opted for the convention and ignored the constitutional provision. Article 76 (2) (a) of the constitution empowers the parliamentary body to examine draft bills and other legislative proposals before they are placed in parliament. But none of the successive governments followed Article 76 (2) (a). Rather they have developed a bizarre convention to place the bills ignoring the parliamentary committees' constitutional jurisdiction. The committees are
allowed to scrutinise the bills only after they are placed in the House. That is how the successive governments have passed more than 1200 bills in the last four decades. The House did not got any scope to determine the necessity for passage of any of the bills before they were placed.
This convention mocks our parliamentary democracy in which the parliament is supposed to take the driving seat and become the focal point of all activities. In many countries with functional democracy, conventions always contribute to upholding constitutionalism. But in our case, this particular convention has been diminishing the prospect of the growth of an effective parliamentary democracy. This bad convention must be abolished to sustain the constitutional provision.
Although it placed in parliament the constitutional amendment bill with a faulty preamble, the government is lucky. It did not face any criticism in the House for this, thanks to the absence of a real opposition there. The handmaiden opposition Jatiyo Party has not been in a position to criticise the bill. The party itself is plunged into chaos, and its policymakers have already sought the prime minister's interference to resolve the growing crisis. This is really a unique situation in the history of our parliamentary democracy.
Yet, the government policymakers should assess the strength and weakness of the law
ministry and take necessary measures to prevent recurrence of such blunder in future. This incident should be considered an eye opener.
The gross error in the preamble of the bill has made it clear that the law ministry drafted the bill without consultation with experts. Even the ministry did not consult with the law commission. And now the government does not want to hold any discussion with the stakeholders before passage of the bill. The parliamentary body on the law ministry endorsed the government strategy and decided not to hold any discussion with jurists and others on the bill. The chief of the parliamentary body, Suranjit Sengupta had earlier announced that the committee would seek opinion of experts on the bill. But the committee did not do so as the government does not want it By endorsing the government's stance on the bill, the parliamentary body has surrendered its jurisdiction to the will of the government. And it did not pay heed to Section 213 (2) of the Rules of Procedure of the Jatiya Sangsad that clearly say that a committee may obtain co-operation and advice from any expert in its respective field, if deemed necessary. The parliamentary body, however, deemed necessary to go along with the government's strategy to avert differing views differing on the bill in the parliamentary proceedings.
The writer Is Senior Reporter, The Dally star.