New Delhi: In the latest in a series of ugly face-offs between the ruling party and opposition MPs, TMC MP Kalyan Banerjee smashed a glass bottle Tuesday during the Joint Parliamentary Committee (JPC) meeting on the Waqf (Amendment) Bill after a heated exchange with BJP MP Abhijit Gangopadhyay.
The incident, parliamentary experts and MPs told ThePrint, is a reflection of the increased polarisation parliamentary committees have been seeing in recent times.
Following Tuesday’s meeting, while opposition MPs wrote to Lok Sabha Speaker Om Birla accusing JPC chairman Jagdambika Pal of “bias and partisanship”, three BJP MPs demanded an FIR against Banerjee.
Similarly, Thursday’s Public Accounts Committee (PAC) meeting that had summoned SEBI chief Madhavi Puri Buch—accused of professional impropriety by the US-based short seller firm Hindenburg Research—turned contentious.
After Buch didn’t turn up, PAC chairman and senior Congress leader K. C. Venugopal adjourned the meeting, leading to BJP members accusing him of taking “unilateral decisions”.
Earlier, BJP MP Nishikant Dubey, a member of PAC, in a letter to the Speaker, accused Venugopal of misusing his position and working as part of a “tool kit” to damage the economy following the panel’s decision to summon Buch.
Parliamentary experts and opposition MPs said that such polarisation, along party lines, defeats the very purpose of constituting parliamentary committees. The committees are supposed to take a non-partisan approach when scrutinising bills and issues of public importance.
According to former Lok Sabha secretary general PDT Achary, traditionally, parliamentary committees have indeed functioned in non-partisan ways.
“The heat that is there in the House is totally absent in the committee meetings. These are meant to bring out the truth about a particular issue. They go very deep into the issue and unravel the misdeeds or wrong things that have been done. This can happen only if it functions in a non-partisan way,” he said.
But this tradition has been bypassed in the last few years.
“There is now a trend of constant bickering in the committee meetings….this is disturbing,” he said. “MPs have to have mutual respect for each other. If it continues, the very purpose of setting up the committees will be lost… they are supposed to come up with suggestions. But if the committees are divided on party lines, you won’t be able to achieve the purpose.”
Also Read: Drama mars Waqf JPC meet as TMC’s Kalyan Banerjee smashes glass bottle during argument with BJP MP
‘Committee meetings are not for settling political scores’
Vivek K. Agnihotri, former Rajya Sabha secretary general who was also a parliamentary affairs secretary, said the basic idea of keeping parliamentary committee meetings closed to the media, unlike Parliament proceedings, was to ensure that members can express their views openly irrespective of their party leanings.
“This whole purpose will be defeated if the atmosphere gets polarised,” Agnihotri said.
Achary cited the example of the standing committee meetings on Communications and Information Technology (IT) in the previous House, chaired by Congress MP Shashi Tharoor. “There were frequent face-offs between the Treasury and opposition MPs. It was reported that BJP MP Nishikant Dubey had written to the Speaker demanding Tharoor’s removal. We have never heard of something like this before.”
In another instance, on 2 November 2023, hours after TMC leader Mahua Moitra stormed out of a Lok Sabha Ethics Committee meeting along with other opposition MPs, she wrote a scathing letter to the Speaker, accusing committee chairperson and BJP MP Vinod Kumar Sonkar of subjecting her to “unethical, sordid, and prejudiced behaviour” at the meeting where she had appeared for questioning in connection with the cash-for-query charges against her.
Moitra was eventually dismissed from the Lok Sabha last December.
While terming what happened at Tuesday’s JPC meeting on waqf an exception than a norm, Manish Tewari, a senior Congress leader, told ThePrint that the idea of having parliamentary committees is to give lawmakers a chance to work in a multi-partisan manner.
He recalled the 2011 JPC discussion on 2G. “Senior BJP leaders, who were in the opposition, including Jaswant Singh, Yashwant Sinha, Ravi Shankar Prasad, besides RJD’s Sharad Yadav and CPI leader Gurudas Dasgupta were members. Comparatively from the Treasury benches there were members who were junior, including me. Mr PC Chacko chaired the committee. The differences in that committee were also very sharp, there were differences of opinion but they were all done in a civilised manner.”
Tewari, who has been part of several parliamentary committees, added, “Similarly in the joint committee on data protection law, there were differences but we were very civilised in how we articulated them. There was a joint committee of parliament on multi-state cooperative law, again very civilised. So it depends on committee to committee and who actually sits on that committee.”
‘Treasury benches have double membership in panels now’
But it’s not just polarisation. Several opposition MPs ThePrint spoke to feel the parliamentary committees have also been undermined in the past few years.
CPI(M) Rajya Sabha member John Brittas told ThePrint, “They are not doing what they are supposed to do, starting from referring bills to Parliament to discussing issues in a non-partisan way. See how the number of bills referred to the committees has now come down. The committee reports too are supposed to be based on profound consensus but now it’s very polarised.”
As other examples of the committees being undermined, MPs cited Birla’s letter to parliamentary panel heads on 29 August 2022 urging them not to examine matters that are subjudice, and the July 2023 meeting of the standing committee on IT which adopted the report on the draft data protection law before all members could examine it properly and even before it was tabled in Parliament.
Brittas, who was a member of the IT committee in the previous House, said, “It is unheard of in parliamentary procedure that a house panel passes a report on a bill based on discussions with officials of the Ministry of Electronics and Information Technology, that was not introduced in either Lok Sabha or Rajya Sabha and before all the members got a chance to examine it. I gave my dissent note on this.”
Parliamentary procedures mandate that a bill needs to be referred to a standing committee for scrutiny after being introduced in the House. However, in this case the committee adopted a report on the bill without even knowing the content, Brittas said.
He also highlighted how there was a delay of two months in constituting the parliamentary committees even though the new Lok Sabha was formed in June.
“Also, when the new committees were constituted in September, many MPs from Treasury benches were given double membership. I counted that there are 29 members from BJP and allies who are in more than one standing committee,” the MP said.
Although this happened earlier, it was “frugal”, Brittas said, adding that, now it has become a norm.
“The same norm does not apply to opposition parties,” he said.
Adding that this more often than not leads to BJP MPs taking a view supporting the government, he said, “This actually tweaks the culture of the committee, which is supposed to be an extension of the Parliament.”
For instance, on 28 July 2021, a parliamentary panel meeting to discuss the Pegasus ‘hacking’ controversy had to be adjourned due to a lack of quorum after BJP members refused to sign the meet’s attendance register.
An MP, who was also a member of the committee, had told ThePrint on condition of anonymity that members of the BJP attended the meeting but asked to be treated as “absent” because they had not signed the attendance register.
After the meeting was adjourned, committee chairman Tharoor and non-BJP members of the panel met the Lok Sabha Speaker and complained about the way the meeting had to be adjourned because of the stand taken by BJP members.
‘Questioning the executive is for better governance’
According to P Wilson, DMK Rajya Sabha MP, the Department Related Standing Committees (DRSC), is like an extended Parliament. It is constituted to take up bills and scrutinise issues of public importance that the Parliament can’t take up because of paucity of time.
While JPCs are temporary and constituted to look into a specific issue, DRSCs perform many important functions. Besides scrutinising bills and looking into issues of public importance, they also consider Demands for Grants from central government ministries and submit reports on them to the House.
“The committees’ main role is to hold the executive accountable and raise questions. It’s not a place for settling political scores,” he told ThePrint.
But increasingly, Wilson said, the ruling party MPs are unable to understand that when opposition MPs ask the executive questions, it is not directed at the prime minister or his cabinet ministers.
“The questioning of the executive is for better governance. If ruling party MPs think that the opposition MPs are browbeating the government, it’s not the case. We are just putting them on the right track. Ultimately, it’s the public who benefits if the laws are good. These committees can shape up better policies,” Wilson added.
But this will not be possible, Wilson said, if there is an absence of good understanding among MPs. He added that, if the current polarisation continues, what will ultimately happen is that the executive will go without any checks.
BJP MP Bhartruhari Mahtab, a veteran parliamentarian, said the polarisation is a reflection of the general atmosphere. “When the society is getting polarised how can committees stay away,” he told ThePrint.
Tuesday’s incident, the Odisha MP, who was earlier with the BJD, said, was a new low where MPs were using derogatory language against each other. “It is unbecoming,” he said.
In the past too, Mahtab, who has been a member of many parliamentary panels, said JPCs have witnessed polarisation. He cited the instance of the 1987 JPC constituted to probe the allegations of kickbacks during the Bofors defence deal. The JPC was chaired by Congress leader B Shankaranand.
“I recall that time also, the same polarisation happened. Opposition MPs were constrained from asking questions. I was a member of the Public Account Committee headed by BJP MP Murli Manohar Joshi that was looking into the 2G scam. The MPs came to blows during the proceedings,” Mahtab said.
He added that in the case of JPC on the 2G scam, the report could not even be placed in the House.
Mahtab added that it all depends on the atmosphere people are living in. “I agree that democracy can thrive if the atmosphere in committee meetings is conducive.”
(Edited by Sanya Mathur)
Also Read: Tribal land being usurped in name of mosques, must be returned, VHP tells joint panel on Waqf Bill
Kalyan Banerjee is a known hooligan. He has many criminal cases registered against him.
For that matter, most TMC leaders are.
Being a resident of Bengal, I know the deeds and misdeeds of these TMC goons. Everyday life is dependent here on us paying up every now and then to the henchmen of the local TMC councillor. Everyone has his cut of the loot.
These state sponsored criminals have made life hell for everyone. But everyone keeps quiet – simply out of fear. If you speak up, the entire state machinery comes for you.
The smashed bottle is not the issue here. The issue is Kalyan Banerjee’s demeanour and attitude towards his fellow MPs.
The man is an example of what happens when “qualities” like ignorance, narcissism, arrogance and conceit come together and join hands. He is all about making noises, grandstanding.
What exactly is Mr. Banerjee’s achievement in life? He owes his political career to Mamata Banerjee. If he were to be expelled from the TMC today, he would not manage to get even a hundred votes by himself.
Say what one may about Abhijit Gangopadhyay, he went on to become a respected (and much loved) judge of the Calcutta High Court. And he owes that to nobody.