Question map
Which of the following statements about the Ethics Committee in the Lok Sabha are correct ? 1. Initially it was an ad-hoc Committee. 2. Only a Member of the Lok Sabha can make a complaint relating to unethical conduct of a member of the Lok Sabha. 3. This Committee cannot take up any matter which is sub-judice. Select the answer using the code given below :
Explanation
The correct answer is option C (statements 1 and 3 only).
**Statement 1 is correct**: The House may appoint an ad hoc Committee to investigate the conduct of a member with a view to determining whether particular conduct is derogatory to the dignity of the House[1], and ad hoc Committees have been set up from time to time[2]. The Ethics Committee was initially constituted as an ad-hoc committee before becoming a standing committee.
**Statement 2 is incorrect**: Any person or member may make a complaint relating to unethical conduct of a member in Lok Sabha[3]. This clearly indicates that complaints are not restricted to members alone; any person can file a complaint.
**Statement 3 is correct**: The Committee does not take up any matter which is sub judice and the decision of the Committee as to whether such matter is or is not sub judice is treated as final[4]. This restriction prevents the Committee from interfering with matters under judicial consideration.
Therefore, only statements 1 and 3 are correct, making option C the right answer.
Sources- [1] https://cms.rajyasabha.nic.in/UploadedFiles/Procedure/RajyaSabhaAtWork/English/311-345/CHAPTER9.pdf
- [2] https://cms.rajyasabha.nic.in/UploadedFiles/Procedure/HandBookForMembers/English/Handbook2022.pdf
- [4] https://cms.rajyasabha.nic.in/UploadedFiles/Procedure/RajyaSabhaAtWork/English/834-967/CHAPTER25.pdf
PROVENANCE & STUDY PATTERN
Full viewThis question is a classic 'Current Affairs disguised as Static'. The Mahua Moitra 'Cash-for-Query' case (2023-24) brought the Ethics Committee into the limelight. While standard books (Laxmikanth) cover the basics, the procedural nuances (ad-hoc history, complaint mechanism) required reading the specific news analysis or the 'Rules of Procedure' triggered by the controversy.
This question can be broken into the following sub-statements. Tap a statement sentence to jump into its detailed analysis.
- Statement 1: Was the Ethics Committee of the Lok Sabha initially constituted as an ad-hoc committee?
- Statement 2: Is only a Member of the Lok Sabha permitted to make a complaint to the Lok Sabha Ethics Committee regarding unethical conduct of a Lok Sabha member?
- Statement 3: Is the Lok Sabha Ethics Committee prohibited from taking up any matter that is sub-judice?
Defines 'Ad hoc committees' as bodies constituted from time to time (by motion or Speaker) to inquire into specific subjects, implying temporariness and purpose-specific formation.
A student could check whether the Ethics Committee was described as time-limited or created for a specific inquiry to see if it fits this ad-hoc pattern.
States the Ethics Committee was constituted in Lok Sabha in 2000 and describes its ongoing functions and fixed membership (5 members).
Compare this single founding date and permanent-sounding functions with the ad-hoc definition to judge whether it was intended as a permanent/standing body or a temporary one.
Describes 'Consultative Committees' as committees that are constituted after a new Lok Sabha and that dissolve on dissolution, illustrating a category of temporary committees tied to a Lok Sabha term.
A student could ask whether the Ethics Committee is tied to the life of a Lok Sabha (temporary) or continues across dissolutions (standing).
Gives an example (Committee on Papers Laid on the Table, constituted 1975) with defined membership and ongoing functions, illustrating how standing committees are described with constitution dates and continuing roles.
Compare the language used for this standing committee with the Ethics Committee entry to infer whether Ethics was set up as a standing committee.
Describes the Committee on Public Undertakings (created in 1964) with regular election of members, showing another model of a permanent parliamentary committee.
A student could contrast the Ethics Committee's membership selection and permanence with this example to judge if Ethics followed the standing-committee model.
- Directly states who may make complaints under the Lok Sabha procedure for ethics complaints.
- Says 'Any person or member' may make a complaint, which contradicts the claim that only a Member may complain.
- Shows the Rajya Sabha Ethics Committee accepts complaints from 'any person', supporting the broader principle that non-members can lodge ethics complaints to parliamentary ethics committees.
- Reinforces that complaint-making is not restricted solely to members in parliamentary ethics procedures.
States the Lok Sabha Ethics Committee 'examines the cases of misconduct and recommends appropriate action' — establishes that the committee is the forum for dealing with members' misconduct.
A student could infer that there must be some procedure for initiating those 'cases of misconduct' and then check whether that procedure limits complainants to MPs.
Repeats that the Lok Sabha Ethics Committee enforces the code of conduct and examines misconduct — reinforcing that the committee is an internal parliamentary mechanism.
From this, one could reasonably look for rules about who may bring matters before internal parliamentary bodies (e.g., only members, the Speaker, or any citizen).
Describes that Inquiry Committees can be 'constituted from time to time, either by the two Houses on a motion adopted in that behalf, or by the Speaker/Chairman, to inquire into and report on specific subjects' including 'Committee to Inquire into the Improper Conduct of a Member'.
A student could extend this pattern to suspect that misconduct inquiries can be initiated by House motions or the Speaker — implying complainants need not be individual MPs alone.
Explains that certain committees 'are elected by the Parliament every year from amongst its own members' and deal with procedure and conduct of business.
One could infer parliamentary committees are internal bodies composed of MPs, so initiation mechanisms may be internal (motions, Speaker referral) rather than limited to complaints by individual MPs.
Notes that membership of consultative committees is voluntary and drawn from members, illustrating a general pattern that parliamentary committees are constituted from MPs.
A student might use this pattern to hypothesize that both the membership and initiation of committee action are primarily internal parliamentary processes, suggesting external complainant restrictions are not automatic but need verification.
- Explicitly states the Committee's practice regarding sub judice matters.
- Says the Committee does not take up any matter which is sub judice and can decide on that question.
- Records the Chairman's ruling that a sub judice matter cannot be referred to the Ethics Committee.
- Shows an authoritative procedural refusal to refer sub judice matters to the Ethics Committee.
- Summarizes rules and rulings indicating sub judice matters cannot be referred to the Committee on Ethics.
- Reinforces the principle across multiple rulings noted in the source.
Defines the Ethics Committee's remit: it 'examines the cases of misconduct and recommends appropriate action', indicating the committee routinely deals with allegations and inquiries about members' conduct.
A student could use this remit plus the general legal idea that courts decide sub-judice matters to ask whether a parliamentary body investigating misconduct should avoid matters before courts, and then check procedural rules or precedents.
Same text as [1] (duplicate source) reinforcing that the Lok Sabha Ethics Committee's core function is to examine misconduct complaints against MPs.
Reinforcement: a student could compare the committee's investigative role with norms about separation of powers and sub-judice restraint to judge plausibility of a prohibition and then seek specific rules or rulings.
Describes 'Inquiry Committees' (ad hoc) constituted to 'inquire into and report on specific subjects', giving an example of parliamentary inquiry mechanisms parallel to the Ethics Committee's fact-finding role.
A student could extend this pattern to ask whether parliamentary inquiry committees customarily avoid cases pending in courts (sub-judice) and then look for standing orders or precedents limiting such inquiries.
- [THE VERDICT]: Current Affairs Trap. The topic is static, but the depth (ad-hoc history, complaint rules) is derived entirely from the Mahua Moitra expulsion controversy.
- [THE CONCEPTUAL TRIGGER]: The 'Cash-for-Query' scandal. When a parliamentary committee is weaponized or highlighted in news, you must move beyond 'Composition' to 'Procedure'.
- [THE HORIZONTAL EXPANSION]: (1) LS Ethics Comm: 15 members (Nominated by Speaker) vs RS: 10 members. (2) History: LS Committee was Ad-hoc (2000) -> Permanent (2015, Rule 316A). (3) Jurisdiction: Does NOT handle Privilege breaches (Privileges Committee does). (4) Sanctions: Can recommend expulsion, but the House must vote. (5) Complaint: Any person can complain (if non-MP, needs affidavit + MP forwarding).
- [THE STRATEGIC METACOGNITION]: Standard books list committees as lists. Real prep involves 'Event-Based Deep Dives'. If the Speaker refers a matter to the Ethics Committee, Google 'Lok Sabha Ethics Committee Rules' and read the first 2 pages of the official handbook.
Ad hoc committees are temporary bodies constituted to inquire into specific subjects or to give advice, classified into Inquiry and Advisory categories.
High-yield because UPSC asks about types, functions and formation procedures of parliamentary committees; mastering this helps distinguish temporary (ad hoc) bodies from permanent committees and answer questions on committee mandates and lifespan.
- Indian Polity, M. Laxmikanth(7th ed.) > Chapter 24: Parliamentary Committees > Ad Hoc Committees > p. 271
- Laxmikanth, M. Indian Polity. 7th ed., McGraw Hill. > Chapter 24: Parliamentary Committees > Ad Hoc Committees > p. 271
Ethics Committee was constituted in Rajya Sabha in 1997 and in Lok Sabha in 2000 and is tasked with enforcing MPs' code of conduct and examining misconduct.
High-yield because committee origins and functions are frequent polity topics; understanding its date of constitution and remit connects to questions on parliamentary discipline, privileges and committee jurisdictions.
- Laxmikanth, M. Indian Polity. 7th ed., McGraw Hill. > Chapter 24: Parliamentary Committees > Ethics Committee . > p. 277
- Indian Polity, M. Laxmikanth(7th ed.) > Chapter 24: Parliamentary Committees > Ethics Committee . > p. 277
The Ethics Committee enforces the code of conduct of Members of Parliament and examines cases of misconduct.
Committees that enforce member conduct are central to parliamentary accountability; mastering their function helps answer questions on discipline, oversight, and internal parliamentary mechanisms. This concept links to topics on legislative ethics, privileges, and checks within Parliament and is commonly tested in polity papers.
- Laxmikanth, M. Indian Polity. 7th ed., McGraw Hill. > Chapter 24: Parliamentary Committees > Ethics Committee . > p. 277
Ethics Committees were constituted in Rajya Sabha (1997) and Lok Sabha (2000) and have different member counts.
Knowing establishment years and membership differences is high-yield for factual MCQs and short-answer questions on parliamentary committees; it connects to wider study of house-specific rules and committee composition.
- Laxmikanth, M. Indian Polity. 7th ed., McGraw Hill. > Chapter 24: Parliamentary Committees > Ethics Committee . > p. 277
Ad hoc inquiry committees can be constituted to inquire into improper conduct of a member, while consultative committees have voluntary membership and dissolve with the Lok Sabha.
Distinguishing committee types and their powers is essential for questions on parliamentary procedure and inquiries; this enables candidates to reason which body handles specific functions (e.g., inquiries into conduct) and to answer procedural scenario-based questions.
- Indian Polity, M. Laxmikanth(7th ed.) > Chapter 24: Parliamentary Committees > Ad Hoc Committees > p. 271
- Indian Polity, M. Laxmikanth(7th ed.) > Chapter 24: Parliamentary Committees > CONSULTATIVE COMMITTEES > p. 280
The committee's remit (enforcing code of conduct, examining misconduct, recommending action) is directly relevant to questions about what matters it may or may not take up.
High-yield: questions often test the scope and functions of parliamentary committees and disciplinary mechanisms. Understanding the Ethics Committee's role helps reason about jurisdictional limits and overlaps with courts. This links to broader topics on parliamentary privileges and member conduct.
- Indian Polity, M. Laxmikanth(7th ed.) > Chapter 24: Parliamentary Committees > Ethics Committee . > p. 277
- Laxmikanth, M. Indian Polity. 7th ed., McGraw Hill. > Chapter 24: Parliamentary Committees > Ethics Committee . > p. 277
Different committee types have distinct mandates (e.g., inquiry committees constituted to inquire and report), which affects whether they can investigate matters that might be sub-judice.
High-yield: UPSC asks about committee classification, powers, and dissolution. Mastering these categories enables answering questions on procedural limits, investigative powers, and how parliamentary oversight interfaces with judicial processes.
- Indian Polity, M. Laxmikanth(7th ed.) > Chapter 24: Parliamentary Committees > Ad Hoc Committees > p. 271
- Indian Polity, M. Laxmikanth(7th ed.) > Chapter 24: Parliamentary Committees > CONSULTATIVE COMMITTEES > p. 280
The 'Affidavit Rule': While Statement 2 is false because non-members CAN complain, the Shadow Fact is that a non-member complainant must submit an affidavit ensuring the complaint is not false/frivolous/vexatious. Also, the Ethics Committee cannot take up matters related to the 'Privileges Committee' (Jurisdictional Bar).
Apply the 'Accountability Logic' to Statement 2. It says 'Only a Member... can make a complaint'. In a representative democracy, if a citizen has proof of an MP's corruption, barring them completely contradicts the principle of accountability. Usually, citizens can complain (often via an MP or affidavit). The word 'Only' is a restrictive extreme that fails the democratic logic test. Eliminating 2 leaves only Option C.
Mains GS-2 (Parliamentary Accountability): Contrast the 'Ethics Committee' (Moral conduct/Unethical behavior) with the 'Privileges Committee' (Breach of rights/immunities). Discuss whether the Ethics Committee is becoming a tool for political vendetta vs. a self-cleansing mechanism.