New Delhi, December 12
Although already expelled by their respective parties, the 11 MPs involved in the “cash on camera” sting operation now face expulsion from Parliament as there is a 1951 precedent when a Lok Sabha member was stripped of his membership, also for taking money for asking questions in the House.

The decision to expel the members, however, can only be taken by Parliament which is vested with the inherent powers to take such an extreme measure against an errant MP. The final decision will be based on the recommendation of the special committee, set up by the Speaker and headed by Mr P.K. Bansal, and the Rajya Sabha’s ethics committee, which are to go into the expose on television of MPs allegedly taking bribes for asking questions in Parliament.

The Bansal committee will be guided by the 1951 precedent involving H.G. Mudgal, a Lok Sabha MP from Maharashtra, whose expulsion was recommended by a House committee, headed by T.T. Krishnamachari, which was subequently accepted by the House.

Mr Mudgal, according to records, had entered into an agreement with the Bombay Bullion Association for rendering several services which included putting questions, moving amendments to specific Bills and arranging interviews with ministers. He had also agreed to canvas support for this Association in Parliament on payment of a fee.

When these charges had come to light and Mr Mudgal pleaded “not guilty”, the then Prime Minister Jawaharlal Nehru had moved a motion in the Lok Sabha for setting up a special House panel to investigate the matter. The committee recommended his expulsion on the ground that Mr Mudgal’s “conduct is derogatory to the dignity of the House and inconsistent with the standards which Parliament is entitled to expect from its members.”

The committee’s report was placed before the House, which then moved a motion accepting its recommendation. On learning of his expulsion, Mr Mudgal preempted the move and sent in his resignation. However, his action was not appreciated by the Lok Sabha which, according to records, was seen as a contempt of the House and further “aggravated his offence.”