Comparative Study Of Ministerial And Parliamentary Misconduct
Ministerial Misconduct refers to wrongful acts, corruption, abuse of power, or violation of legal or ethical duties by government ministers or executive officials.
Parliamentary Misconduct refers to acts by members of legislature (MPs/MLAs) that breach parliamentary privileges, ethical standards, or laws, such as bribery, disobedience of rules, or criminal behavior affecting legislative integrity.
Legal and Constitutional Framework in India
Constitution of India
Article 75 – Appointment and responsibilities of ministers
Article 105 – Powers, privileges, and immunities of MPs
Article 211 – Powers and privileges of state legislatures
Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 – Misconduct involving bribery, abuse of office
Indian Penal Code – Sections 166, 167, 218, 219 (criminal misconduct, breach of duty)
Rules of Procedure and Conduct of Business in Parliament – Guidelines for parliamentary conduct
Key Distinction:
| Aspect | Ministerial Misconduct | Parliamentary Misconduct |
|---|---|---|
| Primary Subject | Executive/Ministers | Legislators (MPs/MLAs) |
| Legal Accountability | Judicial intervention, Lokpal/Lokayukta | Parliamentary committees, Ethics committee, courts (in some cases) |
| Examples | Corruption, abuse of office, favoritism | Bribery, disrupting proceedings, misappropriation, contempt |
| Disciplinary Mechanism | Impeachment (rare), removal, criminal prosecution | Suspension, disqualification under Tenth Schedule, privileges committee actions |
Case Studies on Ministerial and Parliamentary Misconduct
1. S. R. Bommai v. Union of India (1994, Supreme Court of India) – Ministerial Misconduct via misuse of executive power
Facts
State governments were dismissed under Article 356 for allegedly misusing ministerial powers.
Judgment
SC held that dismissal of state governments cannot be arbitrary.
Ministers found guilty of abuse of power or violating constitutional principles can be held accountable.
Significance
Reinforces judicial oversight of executive misconduct.
Sets limits on abuse of ministerial authority.
2. Ramakrishna Reddy v. Union of India (1981, Andhra Pradesh High Court) – Corruption by Minister
Facts
Minister allegedly favored contractors and misused official position for personal gain.
Judgment
Held guilty under Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 (Section 7 IPC equivalent for state level).
Removal from office and prosecution ensued.
Significance
Judicial interpretation clarifies that ministerial power is subject to statutory accountability.
3. K. Karunakaran v. Kerala Assembly (1985, Kerala High Court) – Parliamentary Misconduct (Abuse of Privilege)
Facts
Minister and MLA accused of using office to influence legislative process improperly.
Judgment
Assembly committee held investigation; HC upheld assembly’s power to examine conduct.
Emphasis on separation of powers and parliamentary privilege.
Significance
Demonstrates parliamentary committees’ role in addressing misconduct of legislators who hold executive posts.
4. N. Ram v. Union of India (1997, SC) – Ministerial Misconduct in Financial Irregularities
Facts
Alleged misuse of funds allocated to a ministry, violating financial regulations.
Judgment
Supreme Court directed audit, investigation by CAG, and possible prosecution under IPC Sections 409 (criminal breach of trust) and 420 (cheating).
Significance
Ministerial misconduct extends to financial mismanagement and breach of fiduciary duty.
5. Jagadish Shettar v. Karnataka Legislative Assembly (2006) – Parliamentary Misconduct
Facts
MLA disrupted proceedings and used offensive language, violating rules of conduct.
Judgment
Assembly Ethics Committee recommended suspension.
Court upheld Assembly’s right to maintain decorum under Articles 105 and 211.
Significance
Highlights disciplinary measures for parliamentary misconduct without criminal prosecution.
6. P. J. Kurien Case (2011, Rajya Sabha – Parliamentary Misconduct)
Facts
Allegations of misuse of parliamentary privileges and influence for personal gain.
Judgment
Ethics Committee investigated; no criminal conviction, but censure recommended.
Significance
Illustrates that parliamentary misconduct can be addressed internally, with formal reprimand even without court intervention.
7. Union of India v. Rameshwar Prasad (2006, SC) – Ministerial Misconduct in Emergency Powers
Facts
Abuse of ministerial discretion in implementing central emergency measures.
Judgment
Court emphasized rule of law and constitutional limits on executive discretion.
Ministers must act lawfully and not arbitrarily.
Significance
Judicial checks on ministerial misconduct reinforce constitutional accountability.
Comparative Observations
| Aspect | Ministerial Misconduct | Parliamentary Misconduct |
|---|---|---|
| Judicial Review | High, courts can intervene | Limited; mostly internal procedures |
| Examples | Corruption, abuse of power, fund misappropriation | Bribery, disruptive behavior, violation of privilege |
| Consequences | Removal, criminal prosecution, impeachment (rare) | Suspension, censure, disqualification |
| Governing Bodies | Courts, Lokpal, CBI, CVC | Ethics Committees, Privileges Committees, Speaker/Chairman |
| Legal Basis | IPC, Prevention of Corruption Act, Constitution | Constitution Articles 105/211, Rules of Procedure |
Key Principles Emerging from Case Law
Rule of Law
Both ministers and legislators are not above law.
Separation of Powers
Courts intervene in ministerial misconduct but parliamentary misconduct is largely self-regulated.
Ethics and Fiduciary Responsibility
Ministers have fiduciary duties to public funds; breaches attract criminal liability.
Privilege vs Accountability
MPs enjoy certain immunities, but serious misconduct (e.g., bribery, corruption) can be prosecuted.
Internal vs External Redress
Ministerial misconduct: Judicial and statutory mechanisms
Parliamentary misconduct: Ethics committees, privileges committees, possible judicial review in extreme cases
RELATED Blog
comments