House that for erring MPs?

That the punishment in the first two cases was neither a deterrent nor exemplary was borne out by the fact that MPs were emboldened enough to indulge in human trafficking. They must have observed what action was taken by the Parliament as a collective, against the miscreants in the earlier cases. Of course, it is entirely possible that some of them were already indulging in illegal activities. It was, therefore, of considerable benefit to them not to impose too strict a punishment. The net result of the manner in which punishment was meted out and the quantum of punishment itself was such as to be perceived by future offenders as an encouragement rather than a discouragement to break the law. What is even more interesting is to see how the quantum of punishment has been decreased for the next instance. In the cash-for-questions case there was a great deal of indignation and those caught were expelled. In the second case, the kickbacks from MPLAD funds, a brief suspension was awarded.

The message was clear: a the probability of getting caught was low with the cloak of parliamentary privilege; b even if one is eventually caught, one can get away at least for the first four or five attempts; c there is always the possibility that even after being caught, Parliament is unlikely to do anything that is seriously damaging to one8217;s self-interests.

When committees are set up for reviewing the privileges of parliamentarians, the committee members should naturally review the need to have privileges like diplomatic passports and body searches at airports, the MPLAD funds, and so on, but more importantly, there is a need to set in stone strong deterrent and exemplary punishment for the criminal activities of MPs. Those in these committees know this but they still need to be reminded that even today the majority of our leaders are law-abiding and patriotic. It is the few crooked ones who are giving parliament a bad name. If the 8216;good8217; majority acts in a decisive manner now and makes violations of the law by MP that invite punishment that is ten times more stringent than is the case for ordinary people, we can perhaps save ourselves from crooked leaders.

When I talk of such punishment, the unfortunate case of Sanjaya Bahal, formerly of the United Nations, comes to mind. In less than one year after a fraud he committed was detected, he was charged, tried and convicted. He now faces up to 20 years behind bars. I am willing to bet that no Indian in the UN will commit such an offence again, at least in my life time. When was the last time that anybody who is somebody in India was given this kind of punishment? Those responsible for the dispensation of justice in India should wonder.

Think of the vast multiplier advantages of effective deterrent. Punish one, and a thousand others will become law-abiding. What a relief for law enforcement agencies that would be. How much more effective can they become in the discharge of their duties if their crimes are reduced a hundred-fold? At the same time, care should be taken to remember that a very large majority of MPs are the finest people one can imagine. So one should not grudge them the few increases in the pay and allowances that they ask. In fact, this will encourage the better people to come forward and assert themselves.

The writer is a retired IAS officer