Committee Reports – Everything you need to know!
Introduction
This article talks about the various parliamentary committees and their functions. Further discussing the scope of committee reports as a source of interpretation of statutes and their evidentiary value as decided by the court of law in various cases.
What is a committee?
The work done by the Parliament in modern times is not only diverse and complex, but also large in scale. It has a certain amount of time at its disposal. As a result, it is unable to give careful attention to all legislation and other topics that come before it. As a result, a significant portion of its activity is conducted through House Committees, often known as Parliamentary Committees. The Lok Sabha Secretariat provides the Secretariat for a Parliamentary Committee that is appointed or elected by the House or nominated by the Speaker, operates under the control of the Speaker, and makes its report to the House or to the Speaker.
A committee is a body made up of members of Parliament, or members and senators in the case of joint committees, who are chosen to look into any problem that the House refers to or that is linked to their mandate.
Standing Committees and Ad hoc Committees are the two types of Parliamentary Committees. Standing Committees are permanent and regular committees that are formed when needed in accordance with the terms of an Act of Parliament or the Lok Sabha Rules of Procedure and Conduct of Business. The work of these Committees is ongoing. Standing Committees include the Financial Committees, the DRSCs, and a few smaller committees. Ad hoc Committees are formed for a specific reason, and they are disbanded once they have completed the assignment and submitted a report. The Select and Joint Committees on Bills are the most important Ad hoc Committees. In the Parliament House Complex, the Railway Convention Committee and the Joint Committee on Food Management.
What do committees do?
Most standing committees are tasked with overseeing one or more government departments and are responsible for reviewing applicable statutes, departmental operations and expenditures, and the effectiveness of policies and programmes.
Committees are free to conduct any research that relates to their mission. Orders of reference can also be used by the House to request that they consider certain issues.
Bills, issues requiring in-depth consideration, reports and other documents tabled in the House pursuant to a statute, estimates, which include the funds requested for government programmes and activities, non-judicial government appointments, and the failure of the government to respond to certain questions within a given time frame are all routinely referred to standing committees by the House.
Types Of Committees
The Standing Orders of the House of Commons establish standing committees. Because they are automatically renewed at the start of each parliamentary session, they are referred to as “standing.” The Standing Orders define the mandates of 24 standing committees and two standing combined committees. In India, there are six different types of standing committees. In nature, they are indestructible.
The following are the specifics for each of these:
Financial Advisory Boards
- Financial Committees are divided into three types:
- The Public Accounts Committee evaluates the government’s yearly reports and scrutinises the Comptroller and Auditor General’s reports, which are brought before parliament by the President.
- Projections Committee – Examines the government’s planned expenditure estimates in the budget and advises ‘economies’ in public spending.
- The Committee on Public Undertakings evaluates public undertakings’ reports and accounts.
Standing Committees of Departments
- There are 24 Departmental Standing Committees in total: 8 in the Rajya Sabha and 16 in the Lok Sabha. They work on grant requests from the relevant ministries. They don’t suggest any sort of cut-motion. They look over the bills for the ministry in question. They work on the ministries’ yearly reports. They also take into account policy documents given by ministries to both houses.houses.
Inquiry Committees
- There are three different types of Inquiry Committees.
- Committee on Petitions – This committee reviews any legislative petitions or matters of wide public significance.
- Committee on Privileges – If a member of the house violates the code of conduct, this committee investigates and recommends appropriate action. It has a semi-judicial nature to it. It has 15 MPs in the Lok Sabha and ten in the Rajya Sabha.
- Ethics Committee – If a member of the house commits a misdemeanour or displays indiscipline, this committee investigates it and takes appropriate action.
Scrutiny and Control Committees
- There are six different types of these committees, as listed below:
- Committee on Government Assurance – When a minister makes a promise, assures, or takes an undertaking in the Lok Sabha, this committee investigates the extent to which those promises, assurances, and undertakings were carried out.
- The Committee on Subordinate Legislation – It looks at whether the executive branch is properly utilising its rights to make regulations, rules, sub-rules, and bye-laws that have been delegated by Parliament or bestowed by the Constitution. It’s a total of 15 persons in two households.
- Committee on Papers Placed on the Table – When ministers place any paper on the table, this committee examines it for credibility and to see if it complies with the constitution’s provisions. It has 15 Lok Sabha members and 10 Rajya Sabha members.
- The Committee for the Welfare of SCs and STs – It has 30 members. The Lok Sabha has 20 members, whereas the Rajya Sabha has ten. This committee considers the reports of the National Commission for SCs and the National Commission for STs.
- Committee on Women’s Empowerment – This committee considers the report of the National Commission on Women.
- The Joint Committee on Profitable Offices examines the composition and character of committees and other bodies appointed by the federal, state, and union territory governments, and makes recommendations on whether or not people who hold these positions should be barred from being elected to Parliament.
Committees dealing with the house’s day-to-day operations
- The following are the sorts of committees:
- The House’s timetable is regulated by the Business Advisory Committee.
- Committee on Private Members’ Bills and Resolutions — This committee classifies bills and allots time for debate on private members’ bills and resolutions.
- Rules Committee – If the house’s rules need to be changed, this committee offers a recommendation.
- Committee on Members’ Absences — This committee considers all leave requests submitted by members of the houses.
- Committees for Housekeeping – The following are the four sorts of committees:
Ad-hoc Committees
- Ad-hoc committees are those committees which are only there for a short period of time. These are divided into two categories.
- Committees of Inquiry – These committees can be suggested by either house or appointed by the respective house’s speaker/chairman. The following are a few instances of Inquiry Committees: Bofors Contract Joint Committee, Fertilizer Pricing Joint Committee. Joint Committee to Inquire into Securities and Banking Transactions Irregularities The Joint Committee on Stock Market Scams, among other things.
- Advisory Boards – These committees are appointed for bill-related concerns and are either select or joint committees. They provide information about certain bills. They differ from inquiry committees in that the procedure they follow is outlined in the Rules of Procedure, and they are also directed by the Speaker of the Lok Sabha or the Chairman of Rajya Sabha. When a measure is introduced in either chamber, it is referred to a select committee, which reviews it clause by clause.
Some Other Committees Include
- General Purposes Committee – This committee deals with issues that do not fall under the purview of other legislative committees.
- House Body – This committee oversees the services provided to members of the houses in the form of housing, food, and medical assistance, among other things.
- The Library Committee is in charge of the houses’ library as well as the amenities that go with it.
Committee Reports as a Source of Interpretation of Statutes And Their Evidentiary Value.
A Constitution Bench of the Supreme Court issued a lengthy judgement in Kalpana Mehta v Union of India (‘Kalpana Mehta judgement’) on whether courts can rely on the Report of a Parliamentary Standing Committee (‘PSC’). During a judicial action, the SC also looked at whether the factual remarks given in a PSC Report can be contested or challenged by the parties.
A two-judge bench of the Supreme Court issued a referral order that led to this decision. According to the two-judge bench, there was a “substantial question of law” that needed to be decided by a Constitution Bench under Article 145(3) of the Constitution. While the Constitution Bench took a unanimous view, three separate concurring opinions were issued by Justice Dipak Misra, Justice Dr. D Y Chandrachud and Justice Ashok Bhushan.
Conclusions from the Kalpana Mehta decision
1. Reliance on PSC Reports for statutory interpretation as “external aids.”
The Constitution Bench ruled that a PSC Report might be used as a “external help” in statutory interpretation by the Court. When the language of a statute are unclear, a PSC Report might be used as a “external aid” in interpreting it.
It was decided that a PSC Report can be used to assess a law’s historical context or the nature of the problem that the act was intended to address. When addressing an ambiguity in the wording of a statutory provision, a PSC Report has persuasive value.
In R.S. Nayak v. A.R. Antulay and State of Mysore v. R.V. Bidap , the Court agreed with the conclusions of two previous Constitution Bench decisions. The reports and recommendations of Committees/Commissions that preceded the enactment of a statute can be utilised as “external aids” to interpret the meaning of unclear phrases in a statutory provision in both of these rulings. It was also stated that such reports are not binding on the Court, and that the Court is free to reach a different result.
These rulings also expressed dissatisfaction with British courts’ approach, which had previously held that parliamentary papers are not viable resources for statutory interpretation.
It’s worth noting that the Antulay decision had previously addressed the legal position by concluding that committee reports can be utilised as external assistance to statutory interpretation. There was no substantial question of law that needed a referral to another Constitutional Court in this case.
2. It is not a breach of parliamentary privilege to rely on PSC Reports
Because the PSC Report is a public document, it was determined that relying on it does not constitute a breach of parliamentary privilege under Article 105 of the Constitution. No Member of Parliament can be held accountable for remarks made before a ‘Select Committee’ or a ‘Standing Committee’ of Parliament, it was also decided.
3. A PSC Report cannot be contested in court on its own merits
The Court pointed out that because a PSC Report isn’t legally binding, it can’t be contested in court on its own. A judicial review of the PSC Report is not possible. A party cannot independently challenge any observation made in a PSC Report because of the notion of separation of powers.
4. The Court is not obligated to agree with a PSC Report’s factual findings
The Court used Section 57(4) of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872 (‘Evidence Act’) as authority for taking ‘judicial notice’ of a PSC Report. As a ‘public document,’ this Report will also be admissible under Section 74 of the Evidence Act.
But, the mere fact that a document is admissible as evidence would not automatically lead to a presumption that the contents of the document are accurate.
In other words, while a PSC Report is admissible as evidence, any factual observation or finding stated in the PSC Report is not binding on the Court. Based on the facts presented by the parties, the Court can make its own factual determination. The Court stated that, particularly in instances where a factual matter is disputed, the Court can make its own judgments based on the evidence presented by the parties. The Court emphasized that, in cases where a factual matter is in dispute, the Court can make its own judgments based on the additional information presented by the parties.
As a result, while a PSC Report cannot be contested in court on its own, the Court is also not bound by any of its conclusions.
5. The factual findings in the PSC Report are not binding on the parties to a judicial proceeding
While the parties to a judicial case cannot individually reject a PSC Report’s factual findings, the findings do not have any binding force between them. The parties are not bound by the PSC’s findings and can present evidence to the Court on their own. As a result, the parties to a judicial case, including the Court, are not obligated to accept any factual conclusions made in a PSC Report.
When a PSC Report’s factual finding is in dispute, the petitioner or respondent might independently collect the facts from other sources and produce them through affidavits.
From a corporation law standpoint, the Kalpana Mehta decision is important.
While the Kalpana Mehta decision dealt primarily with PSC Reports, it also applies to numerous committees established by regulators such as the Ministry of Corporate Affairs (‘MCA’), SEBI, and the Reserve Bank of India (‘RBI’). These regulators have formed a number of committees and working groups to propose changes to the Companies Act of 2013 (the “2013 Act”), the LODR, the Takeover Code, and the PIT Regulations, among other things.
The Reports presented by such Committees/Working Groups shall have persuasive value for interpreting a statutory provision, according to the Kalpana Mehta decision. For example, when interpreting any amendment made to the 2013 Act via the Companies (Amendment) Act, 2017, the Report of the Company Law Committee, 2016 (‘CLC 2016’) will be persuasive.
Committee Reports Act as External Help
The remarks stated in the CLC 2016 Report will have persuasive value when analysing the goal of any revisions made, and they can be referred to when there is any uncertainty in the wording of a provision. Only as a “external help” to legislative interpretation would the Report’s relevance be persuasive.
Two more conclusions can be derived from such Reports submitted by regulator-appointed Committees, in conformity with the spirit of the Kalpana Mehta decision:
Any factual findings or remarks stated in the Committee Report are not binding on the Court. Based on the evidence presented by the parties, the Court can reach its own independent conclusion.
Any factual findings or observations made by the Committee are also not binding on the parties to a judicial case. The parties are free to present evidence independently on any disputed factual point.
End Note –
Because Committee Reports are commonly employed as a tool for statutory interpretation, the Kalpana Mehta decision assumes relevant. As noted in the case of A.R. Antulay, courts in a variety of jurisdictions around the world have relied on Committee Reports to resolve statutory ambiguity.
Even UK courts have begun to depend on legislative material for interpreting statutes, reversing the rigid legal position they had previously taken. In Pepper v. Hart, for example, the House of Lords concluded that parliamentary papers and Law Commission proposals can be used to resolve ambiguity in statutory provisions.
Written By – Tanya Bhadauria
FOR MORE INFO VISIT US!
OR Mail us at edumoundoffical@gmail.com
