The turf war over the 2G scam inquiry has refused to die down, with the Joint Parliamentary Committee planning to discuss on Thursday whether the Public Accounts Committee, chaired by senior Bharatiya Janata Party leader Murli Manohar Joshi, has gone beyond its mandate.
After discussing the issue at its first meeting on Thursday, the JPC plans to write to the PAC chairman about the committee confining itself to inquiring issues over which the CAG report has made its observations. "We have no quarrel with them. Propriety demands that we will point out to them."
"Joshiji is a very senior member of Parliament and he also knows propriety is very important," JPC chairman P C Chacko said. Maintaining that the JPC, which has 30 members from both the Houses, was constituted by a resolution passed by the Parliament and the terms of reference of the committee was mentioned in it.
Chacko told mediapersons, "Our ToR need not be the subject matter of another committee's enquiry. There is an impropriety in that obviously and that we want to point out to the committee." He said the two committees of Parliament submitting contradictory reports or different reports to Parliament will create a difficult situation.
"So normally, it is the precedent and it is the practice and as far as some committees are concerned it is a rule that the same topic will not be discussed by two committees," Chacko said. He said Thursday's meeting will also discuss the issues including the number of meetings to be held in a week, documents to be summoned, and the enquiry should start from where to where.
"All these things will be decided then," he said. "The JPC is supposed to submit the report to Parliament by the end of the monsoon session and it will try to keep to that time schedule. And if absolutely necessary, then we will ask for an extension."
Explaining the issue of two committees not not going into the same subject, Chacko said, "In Parliament, there is a rule, not applicable for this JPC or PAC, but to the other committees -- standing committees. When one standing committee is taking up one subject for discussion, another standing committee will not take that up or should not take that up. There is a rule like that."
Chacko said in the 2G scam there was a demand for a JPC and JPC was not formed. In that intervening period, the PAC which is normally entitled to scrutinise the CAG report seized on the matter and started inquiring into the whole 2G scam.
"Not only the CAG report, in addition to that the policy prescriptions, the telecom policy from 1998 onwards, even before that also, they started analysing. The telecom policy changes made by the subsequent governments, implementation and the problems in implementation and in all these, calling people, questioning them.
"This is exactly the job of the JPC," he said. The veteran parliamentarian from Kerala said now that the JPC has been formed by Parliament exclusively to go into all these issues, the PAC should refrain from going into a "wider" enquiry. "I think that this opinion is being acceptable to many even in the PAC."
"In our first meeting itself, I want to discuss these issues and then write to the PAC," he said. Chacko added that the CAG's report is before them. "Whether there is any financial loss, the PAC examining the CAG report is a routine business. As a normal routine how do they analyse the CAG report that only should be done.
"Because the media tells us that they are doing a roving enquiry into the whole question including the telecom policy and its implementation. Asked to cite an example of the roving inquiry, Chacko said the PAC was going into the policy formulations of the 1998 onwards.
"Now they have started calling for policy documents and Cabinet decisions, witnesses are being called along with all related journalists. That shows that the inquiry is a wide one not confined to CAG reports. So the duty of the JPC is to go into that. Simultaneous or a parallel enquiry will not be good for the parliament," he said.
