By Inder Jit

(Released on 28 December 1976)

Preoccupation with the affairs in West Bengal, Orissa and Gujarat and the mini shuffle at the Centre has prevented the Congress High Command from considering in depth the non-Communist Opposition’s unconditional offer for dialogue with the Government. However, there is general appreciation of the need for “a comprehensive code of democratic functioning”. Actually, Mrs Gandhi herself has spoken in favour of drawing up a code of conduct. The Congress President, Mr D.K. Barooah, too, has been thinking in terms of such an overall code with two separate thrusts — one for political functioning and the other for integrity among those occupying public offices. Overdue thought has, moreover, been given to the subject by the Servants of the People Society, founded by Lala Lajpatrai, and an interesting six-point code evolved by its little-known Lok Tantra Raksha Parishad some time back.

In fact, Jawaharlal Nehru and after him Lal Bahadur Shastri favoured a code of conduct for the political parties. Some spade work was even done informally under the aegis of the National Integration Conference. Unfortunately, the proposal for a comprehensive code could not be pursued actively. Nevertheless, the idea was revived by the Chavan Committee on defections in its report to Parliament on February 18, 1969. The Committee, which was headed by Mr Y.B. Chavan, then Union Home Minister, and included Mr Jaya Prakash Narayan, Mr Mohan Kumaramangalam and Mr M.C. Setalvad among its 19 members, expressed itself in favour of “a code of conduct or set of conventions that took into account the fundamental proportions and decencies that ought to govern the functioning of democratic institutions.” In the Committee’s view a lasting solution to the problem of defections could only come from the adherence by political parties to such a code — regardless of the legislative and constitutional measures against political defections.

In the Chavan Committee's view a lasting solution to the problem of defections could only come from the adherence by political parties to such a code -- regardless of the legislative and constitutional measures against political defections.

At the same time, the Committee was clear that the adoption of such a code “would serve little purpose without a machinery, or sanctions to ensure its observance.” One suggestion placed before the Committee was that this could be “achieved by having a Standing Committee or Board comprising leaders of political parties and men with legal background who were highly regarded in the country for their experience of public affairs, objectivity, integrity and political neutrality. Any political party which had a grievance against another for non-observance of the code could take up the matter before the Board which, if the material before it was adequate, could convoy its censure or disapproval which in due course would acquire moral sanction... The Committee felt that the principle underlying this suggestion was sound, although the manner of giving it a concrete shape would have to be gone into in greater detail from the political as well as the practical point of view.”

The Lok Tantra Raksha Parishad, comprising retired but widely-experienced publicmen and knowledgeable non-partymen, evolved the following code, gravely provoked by the scourge of defections, described by the Chavan Committee as “a national malady which is eating into the very vitals of our democracy.” The six points were: 1. Political parties shall not use or encourage violent methods for achieving their aims and shall help to enforce the “Rule of Law”. 2. No political party shall induce, accept or reward defection of any legislator elected on another party’s ticket till he resigns his seat and seeks a fresh mandate from his electorate. 3. Political parties shall not put up candidates for elections to educational institutions, nor use students of less than 21 years ago for their political objectives.

The remaining three points, which sought to ensure high integrity in public life, were as follows: 4. In view of the extreme poverty of our people, no political party shall allow its officio-bearers, legislators or ministers to indulge in extravagant or ostentatious living or to drew any remuneration (including all perquisites), from public or government funds, in excess of hundred times the national average per capita income, less income tax. 5. No political party shall discriminate against any citizen of India merely on the ground of his religion, caste, language or region nor shall the party appeal to any of these sectarian interests in selecting its candidates for election or in the conduct of its election campaign. 6. No political party shall permit its office-bearers, legislators or ministers, to accept any funds without issuing regular receipt for the same and every political party shall publish its annual accounts, duly audited. No party shall accept any money from foreign countries for fighting elections or otherwise.

Thought on the question of a code has also been given by the Election Commission, though in a different way. On October 3, 1968, the Commission issued a five-point “minimum code” of conduct to be observed by political parties in the ensuing mid-term elections. The code, among other things, called for abjuring violence, both in words and deeds, and using places of religious worship in the election campaign. It however, urged candidates to confine their criticism of other political parties to their principles, policies and programs, their past record and work but eschew criticism of all aspects of private life of leaders and workers of other parties. Do not, added the code, indulge in criticism of other parties and their leaders and workers based on unverified allegations and distortions and do not make any appeal to the electorate on the ground of religion, race, caste, community or language.

A code of conduct for ministers was first advocated by the Senthanam Committee on Prevention of Corruption, which submitted its report on March 31, 1964. In pursuance of this report, the Centre announced in October 1964 a comprehensive code for Central and State Ministers. The code provided, inter alia, for furnishing to the Prime Minister/Chief Minister at the initial appointment and subsequently every year by a minister a declaration showing the details of the assets and liabilities and business interests of the minister and members of his family (wife or husband, minor children and dependent relations). The details to be disclosed were to consist of particulars of all immovable property and the total approximate values of (a) shares and debentures, (b) cash holdings and (c) jewellery. Some of the other provisions required that a minister should also ensure that members of his family did not start any business depending primarily on government permits quotas and licences.

The Lok Tantra Raksha Parishad, comprising retired but widely-experienced publicmen and knowledgeable non-partymen, evolved the following code, gravely provoked by the scourge of defections, described by the Chavan Committee as "a national malady which is eating into the very vitals of our democracy."

The code, which placed the responsibility for its observance on the Prime Minister in the case of Central ministers, the Prime Minister and the Union Home Minister in the case of Chief Ministers and the Chief Minister concerned in the case of State ministers, also dealt with the question of mobilizing funds for the party. No minister, it said, should “raise funds or accept contributions except for a registered society or a charitable body or an institution recognized by a public authority, or a political party in which case also any purse or cheque or contributions received should be immediately passed on to the organisations concerned.” (Of interest in this context is the recent pronouncement by Mr Sanjay Gandhi in Bombay asking people to donate money to the Congress only by cheques in the name of the party Treasurer.)

The code further made three other points. First, no minister should accept himself or through members of his family valuable gifts except from close relatives. Second, no minister should permit a member of his family to contract debts likely to embarrass him in the discharge of his duties. Third, a minister should discourage lavishness in parties given to him and while on tour should avoid accepting private hospitality.

The six points included: 1. Political parties shall not use or encourage violent methods for achieving their aims and shall help to enforce the "Rule of Law". 2. No political party shall induce, accept or reward defection of any legislator elected on another party's ticket till he resigns his seat and seeks a fresh mandate from his electorate.

Early in 1967, another code was drafted by the Union Home Ministry to regulate the relationship between MPs and MLAs and the civil servants. Every civil servant was enjoined under the code to help all members to the extent possible in the discharge of their functions under the Constitution. But it simultaneously placed certain obligations on the legislators too. Legislators, it said, should ask for information only about matters of public interest or national interest and should abstain from taking up individual cases concerning grants of permits and licences, recruitment, promotion, transfer or disciplinary action. They should not seek information to further private interest or for use in court litigation. Written communication in all routine matters could be addressed by them to the Secretary of the Department/Ministry concerned, but not to from other officer. For more important matters, they could address letters to the minister or deputy minister concerned.

Early in 1967, another code was drafted by the Union Home Ministry to regulate the relationship between MPs and MLAs and the civil servants. Every civil servant was enjoined under the code to help all members to the extent possible in the discharge of their functions under the Constitution.

Several State Governments subsequently evolved their own code of conduct. The West Bengal Government, for instance, adopted the Central code in August 1969 with some amendments including one that expanded the definition of family of a Minister to cover sons and unmarried daughters for the purpose of declaring assets and liabilities. In June 1972, the Mysore (now Karnataka) Chief Minister formulated a comprehensive 30-points code with specific dos and don’ts for the guidance of the ministers. Tamil Nadu’s DMK Government adopted a seven-point code based almost entirely on the Central code. However, under the Tamil Nadu code the ministers were also required to refrain from joining the editorial boards of newspapers. Moreover, while the ministers were required to declare their assets to the Chief Minister the latter was required to do so to the Council of Ministers. Interestingly, the authority for ensuring the observance of the code was mentioned as the Chief Minister alone thereby keeping the Prime Minister and the Union Home Minister altogether out.

Where do we go from here? One way would be to follow the suggestion made by the Chavan Committee in 1969. This Committee did not think that there should be any official initiative in the matter. Indeed, it felt that it should be left to the political parties themselves to arrive at a code and to decide on the composition of a Committee to observe its implementation by “discussions among themselves.” Be that as it may, it should not be beyond our ingenuity to evolve with the help of existing codes and various suggestions some acceptable means of forging a comprehensive code of conduct or a new dharma for the healthy functioning of our young democratic institutions. Parliamentary democracy is essentially a civilised form of government. It cannot survive the politics of disruption. Let this be one thought for the New Year. — INFA