Ethics and our lawmakers

Please refer to the report ‘Disclosures by our MPs inadequate’ (Oct 31). MP Shyam Charan Gupta, a member of the Lok Sabha, made a rather 'dubious' proposition that there was no casual relationship between tobacco consumption and cancer. Of the British Parliament – HOUSE OF COMMONS – it is said: “It can make and unmake anything, except changing a woman into a man and a man into a woman.” An inheritance of the British legacy, Members of our Parliament consider themselves as embodiment of intelligence. The Member made the statement before a Parliamentary Committee.

If only a private citizen, particularly by a dealer in tobacco or its products were to make such a statement, there would have been demand for hauling him up for 'Breach of privilege of the House.' 'Dubious' is a very mild term. One MP from India wants the whole world to believe that the entire team of scientists, all over the world that is engaged in the studies of harmful effects of tobacco consumption, are a bundle of liers. Any person, more particularly a Parliamentarian, to borrow a Shakespearean phrase “shall not overstep his/her limits.” If an ordinary person crosses his limit, the influence is limited. When a Parliamentarian utters something, it is “a section India speaks.”

While advancing the arguments, defending the them before Supreme Court, the 99th Amendment to the Constitution and the Constitution of National Judicial Appointments Committee (NJAC), the Attorney General questioned the justification of 'Judges appointing the Judges.' (It is a different matter that the argument is negated by the Supreme Court). How about the Legislators and Parliamentarians voting, cutting across party lines, a rare occasion and gesture of unanimity, without a single dissent on the upward revision of their salaries, perks and perquisites?

Wasted time in the Parliament costs the nation dearly. With due respects to our parliamentarians, it has to be admitted that they observe utmost discipline, decency and decorum when the condolence is moved. Thy must shed their belief that "The King (Parliament) can do no wrong.” Justice Chandrachud in the monumental Keshavananda Bharathi case said: “We are all conscious that his vast country has vast problems.

And it is not possible to realise the dream of the Father of the Nation to wipe every tear from every eye. But if despite the large powers now conceded to parliament, the social objectives are going to be a dustbin of sentiments, then woe betide to those in whom the county has placed such massive faith.” (The writer is an advocate and president of Gadicharla Foundation, Kurnool)

By K C Kalkura