Why disclosures by our MPs is inadequate

‘Conflict of Interests’

MPs of Lok Sabha are not mandated to disclose their interests except declaring their assets and liabilities. In Rajya Sabha, the disclosures of interests are to be maintained and updated with changes on a yearly basis. However, in the absence of such disclosure data being absent in public domain by default, it can only be accessed by filing an RTI application

In May this year, Shyam Charan Gupta, the Member of Parliament from Allahabad in the Lok Sabha, made a rather dubious proposition that there was no causal relationship between tobacco consumption and cancer. As specious as the argument itself is, equally disconcerting is the fact that Gupta was speaking as a member of the Parliamentary committee on subordinate legislation, which was examining a proposal to allocate 85% of the surface area of tobacco products to graphic pictorial warnings.

The panel eventually mandated that the proposal should be dropped, never mind that EU and other countries strictly follow that norm. What is perhaps most discomforting is the fact that Gupta is a Bidi baron, with family interests in the tobacco industry, which makes it amply clear as to why he was opposed to a move such as this- a clear case of business interests trumping public health concerns or what in governance parlance would be termed ‘Conflict of Interest’…

Unfortunately, in India’s case, both the disclosure of ‘conflict of interests’ as well as the strict demarcation being laid out in a strong law are both inadequate and dysfunctional… MPs of Lok Sabha are not mandated to disclose their interests except declaring their assets and liabilities. This explains how MPs such as Shyam Charan Gupta can become members of Standing Committees that have a direct influence on key legislations and policies without disclosing that they have direct business or financial interests to be gained from such policies.

While the rules of the Lok Sabha’s ethics panel suggest that ‘An MP may object to another MP joining a Parliamentary Committee on grounds that he has personal, pecuniary or direct interest’, in the absence of disclosure of such interests, it is difficult to object and bring to the notice of the Speaker, who can withhold the MPs vote. This is a key reason why strong procedures of registering MPs interests are followed in most mature democracies.

MPs of Rajya Sabha are mandated to disclose their interests under the Rule 293 of the Rules of Procedure and Conduct of Business of Rajya Sabha. These interests are categorized under 5 heads: Remunerative directorship; Remunerated activity; Majority shareholding; Paid consultancy; and Professional engagement Again, in most mature democracies, the categories of disclosure are much more detailed and minutely categorized ranging from financial interests to gifts, landholding and even lobbying activities. In the US senate, there is a very detailed e-disclosure process for registering senators’ interests.

In Rajya Sabha, the disclosures of interests are to be maintained and updated with changes on a yearly basis. However, in the absence of such disclosure data being absent in public domain by default, it can only be accessed by filing an RTI application…A look at the register of interests from Rajya Sabha suggests that MPs disclosures have remained unchanged since 2011. This might either be that no changes have taken place or Rajya Sabha ethics panel has poor oversight over the process, the latter being the most likely scenario.

Consider the case of Union Minister Ravi Shankar Prasad, who was alleged by lawyer activist Prashant Bhushan to have been on the retainership of Fintech Corporation, an RIL company, between April 2013 and March 2014, while also looking into the gas pricing issue. Prasad denied having any conflict of interest as he surrendered the retainership two months before he became a minister. As a member of Rajya Sabha, he was obliged to declare his interest either under ‘regular remunerated activity’ or ‘paid consultancy.

However, in all the yearly registers since 2011, there is no mention of such an activity. Moreover, his ‘professional engagement’ disclosure shows an amount for Rs 3,24,04,511 for years 2011, 2012 and 2014. Since there is no change in his professional engagement earnings in the year 2014, when he became the minister, then either his claim of surrendering the retainership is not true or he has been insincere in his disclosures…

Earlier this year, a Congress MP EM Sudersana Natchiappan floated a Private Members Bill called ‘The Prevention and Management of Conflict of Interest Bill, 2015’, which covers the duty of an authority or a body and an individual holding public office. It also deals with restrictions on gifts, services and benefits accepted by a person in public office. In the absence of these disclosure and regulatory mechanisms, the so-called new era of transparency will only be a partial exercise.

By Bhanupriya Rao