Indian Kanoon - Search engine for Indian Law

Lok Sabha Debates

Combined Discussion On Statutory Resolution Regarding Disapproval Of Central ... on 9 December, 2021

Seventeenth Loksabha an> Title: Combined discussion on Statutory Resolution regarding Disapproval of Central Vigilance Commission (Amendment) Ordinance, 2021 (No. 9 of 2021) and  Central Vigilance Commission (Amendment) Bill, 2021 and Statutory Resolution regarding Disapproval of Delhi Special Police Establishment (Amendment) Ordinance, 2021 (No. 10 of 2021) and Delhi Special Police Establishment (Amendment) Bill, 2021 (Statuory Resolutons - Negatived 2021 and Government Bills-passed).

SHRI N. K. PREMACHANDRAN (KOLLAM): Sir, I beg to move the following resolution: --

“That this House disapproves of the Central Vigilance Commission (Amendment) Ordinance, 2021 (9 of 2021) promulgated by the President on 14 November, 2021.” THE MINISTER OF STATE OF THE MINISTRY OF SCIENCE AND TECHNOLOGY, MINISTER OF STATE OF THE MINISTRY OF EARTH SCIENCES, MINISTER OF STATE IN THE PRIME MINISTER’S OFFICE, MINISTER OF STATE IN THE MINISTRY OF PERSONNEL, PUBLIC GRIEVANCES AND PENSIONS, MINISTER OF STATE IN THE DEPARTMENT OF ATOMIC ENERGY, AND MINISTER OF STATE IN THE DEPARTMENT OF SPACE (DR. JITENDRA SINGH): Sir, I beg to move:

“That the Bill further to amend the Central Vigilance Commission Act, 2003 be taken into consideration.”   SHRI MANISH TEWARI (ANANDPUR SAHIB): Sir, I beg to move the following resolution: --

“That this House disapproves of the Delhi Special Police Establishment (Amendment) Ordinance, 2021 (10 of 2021) promulgated by the President on 14 November, 2021.”   DR. JITENDRA SINGH: Sir, I beg to move:

“That the Bill further to amend the Delhi Special Police Establishment Act, 1946 be taken into consideration.” At the time of introduction इस बात को उस समय भी स्पष्ट किया गया था ।Now that is being taken up for consideration मुझे केवल इतना ही कहना है कि इस अमेंडमेंट के माध्यम से जितना बड़ा विवाद हो रहा है, उतना बड़ा विषय नहीं है । मैं सभी माननीय सदस्यों से आग्रह करूंगा, to respect the spirit of the Order, rather than seeing too much into this. It is because as we know and I would request everybody to go by the intent of this Government. Ever since, Shri Narendra Modi took over as the Prime Minister, one of the very early declarations that he made was that this Government will follow a policy of `Zero Tolerance’ towards corruption. He has walked the talk over the years which is evident from the fact that the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 30 सालों के बाद पहली बार संशोधित किया गया था ।

The bribe giver was also made culpable along with the bribe taker and at the same time, good performing and honest officers were given certain safeguards. 

Similarly, even in recruitment to Government jobs, interviews were abolished to provide a level-playing field.  I would request that, in the context of all this, in our collective fight against corruption, we have to realise that corruption and crime have achieved multiple dimensions in recent years.  Corruption is getting linked; black money is also getting linked to international crime and thereby, as an offshoot ramification, we have drug trafficking, we have terrorism and criminal offences.  All these, in collectivity, have led to new methodologies and new technologies.

इसमें यदि किसी संस्था का कोई अधिकारी या मुखिया जांच कर रहा है, तोit requires a certain amount of continuity and at the same time, besides institutional continuity, इंडिविजुअल कंटिन्यूटी का महत्व यह बन जाता है कि बहुत सारी ऐसी जानकारी होती है, जिसे कांफिडेंशियल रखना अनिवार्य होता है । जब इस तरह के केस चल रहे हों तो कई बार किसी अधिकारी का उस पद पर या उस जिम्मेवारी पर कुछ और निर्धारित समय तक रहने के लिए न्याय के हक में एक निर्णय लेना अनिवार्य बन जाता है ।

          Therefore, to that extent, it is just an enabling provision particularly when the FATF has also suggested to different nations to improve their law enforcement authorities.   I would like to quote from one of its Report.  It says:

 

“The country should have in place a process to ensure that the staff of these authorities maintain professional standards including standards concerning confidentiality and should be of high integrity and appropriately skilled.” From that point of view also, one has to keep in mind that many of the investigating agencies abroad have the term of the Head lasting over several years.   FBI has a term of ten years and most of the countries have an average tenure of five or seven years or a flexible term. So, let us look at it as an enabling provision in the interest of justice, in the interest of checking crime and in the interest of checking international ramifications. 

Somehow the misgiving has gone in that there is an attempt to extend the term of the Head of the institution which is not so.  On the contrary, this is going to ensure that the term is going to get limited to five years. क्योंकि जो पहला एक्ट सीवीसी 2003 में था, if we read it carefully, it says ‘tenure not more than two years’.  It does not say ‘tenure up to two years’.  Now we are introducing tenure up to five years.  In fact, we are doing precisely what some of the hon. Members of the Opposition want to be done.  We are actually restricting the Government not to go beyond five years. … (Interruptions)

Let us discuss in that spirit.  Thank you, Sir.

HON. CHAIRPERSON: Motions moved:

“That this House disapproves of the Central Vigilance Commission (Amendment) Ordinance, 2021 (9 of 2021) promulgated by the President on 14 November, 2021.” “That the Bill further to amend the Central Vigilance Commission Act, 2003, be taken into consideration.” “That this House disapproves of the Delhi Special Police Establishment (Amendment) Ordinance, 2021 (10 of 2021) promulgated by the President on 14 November, 2021.” “That the Bill further to amend the Delhi Special Police Establishment Act, 1946, be taken into consideration.”   SHRI N. K. PREMACHANDRAN : Sir, I thank you very much.  It is very interesting to hear the introductory remarks of hon. Minister.  Whenever there is a very serious concern and serious matter to be discussed, and if somebody has no logical reply to that issue, the strategy to be followed is to take it in a very lighter vein and thus, by smiling, he is introducing the Bill.

            He is substantiating the arguments advanced by the Opposition Members regarding the promulgation of the Ordinance.  When he is objecting to the Statutory Resolution, the hon. Minister has said nothing to justify the promulgation of the Ordinance.  That means the position taken by the Opposition has been ratified by the Government also since there is no reply from the part of the hon. Minister, and it cannot be taken in a lighter vein.  It is a very serious matter of concern regarding the independence of the Enforcement Directorate as well as the CBI, the premier investigation agencies of the country.

          Sir, I am moving the Statutory Resolution to disallow this Ordinance. Why? I have stated so many times in this august House about Article 123. I am not going to repeat it. It is there on record.

          Article 123 envisages that an Ordinance can be promulgated by His Excellency, the President of India only in extraordinary circumstances or compelling circumstances. It is a separate legislation; it is an independent legislation by the Executive.

          So, in extraordinary circumstances and compelling circumstances when the Session is not there, then only His Excellency, the President is empowered to promulgate an ordinance under Article 123. Sir, whether the Central Vigilance Commission (Amendment) Ordinance No.9 of 2021 will attract Article 123 or not, that is the first point to be agitated and discussed.

          Regarding this issue, the hon. Supreme Court in several cases repeatedly said that the Constitution does not permit the President or the Governor as a parallel law-making authority. In this case, the ... (Expunged as ordered by the Chair) is becoming a law-making authority. If it is extraordinary circumstances or compelling circumstances and if there is any necessity or exigency, definitely we will concede and we will accept this because the Constitution empowers the President to promulgate an Ordinance.

          I would like to request the hon. Minister, to tell the House what the exigency is, what the urgency is, what extraordinary circumstance is prevailing to promulgate this Ordinance to extend the tenure of a particular individual officer. You please explain this to the House. We will fully support you. There is no logical explanation. That is why, with a beautiful smile and in a very lighter way, our learned friend, hon. Minister … (Interruptions)

THE MINISTER OF PARLIAMENTARY AFFAIRS, MINISTER OF COAL AND MINISTER OF MINES (SHRI PRALHAD JOSHI): You said several times that he is doing that by smiling. Should he do it by weeping?  क्या वह इसे रोते-रोते रखें, उन्होंने गुस्सा भी नहीं किया ।… (व्यवधान)

HON. CHAIRPERSON : Smiling is always good whether it is from Treasury Benches or Opposition Benches. Smiling is always good.

SHRI N. K. PREMACHANDRAN : This smiling is not seen in his face in other cases. Here, he is smiling only because by doing this, he wants to get it passed. It is very difficult to get it passed.

संसदीय कार्य मंत्रालय में राज्य मंत्री तथा संस्कृति मंत्रालय में राज्य मंत्री (श्री अर्जुन राम मेघवाल): माननीय सदस्य, सबका देखने का अपना-अपना नजरिया होता है । … (व्यवधान)

श्री प्रहलाद जोशी : हमें हंसते-हंसते काम करना है ।… (व्यवधान) हम में मतभेद हैं, लेकिन फिर भी हम हंसते-हंसते काम करेंगे । … (व्यवधान)

HON. CHAIRPERSON :Thank you for commenting on his smiling. Rather, there should be a broad smile. 

श्री एन. के. प्रेमचन्द्रन:हंसते-हंसते काम करना बहुत अच्छा है, लेकिन ऐसा हर समय होना चाहिए । वह केवल इसी समय कर रहे हैं । बात यह है कि it is a very serious matter. The Government has no answer. There is no logical explanation regarding the promulgation of this Ordinance. So, my point is, this Ordinance no.9 of 2021 will never attract Article 123. Therefore, this Resolution has to be accepted.

          The Central Vigilance Commission (Amendment) Ordinance was promulgated on 14th November, 2021. What is the intent of this Ordinance? The hon. Minister has just now spoken that they are fixing the tenure of five years. Sir, can the Minister say to this House whether this will be applicable to all?

          The point of difference is, now you are extending the period from two years to five years. But it is selective because every year after every two years, it will be subject to the whim and fancy of the Government. The entire authority will be cast upon the Government. That means, if you are interested in a particular officer, definitely his tenure can be extended. You are making a wider interpretation.

          Now, I am coming to the dates. Sir, 14th November is the date of promulgation of Ordinance to extend the tenure of the Head of the Directorate Enforcement up to a maximum period of five years. That is the whole intent of the Ordinance.  The Hon. Minister may not agree with me. What is the urgency and exigency of promulgating this Ordinance on 14th November? It is because, the present Executive Director, … * was retiring on 19th November, 2021. This has never been seen in the legislative history of Indian Parliament.

          The Government has promulgated this Ordinance just three days before the retirement of this particular officer. Let the Government explain the justification for the promulgation of this Ordinance. My point is, the Government is undermining the legislative authority of the Parliament. The Parliament is being taken for granted. The Government can bulldoze, the Government can promulgate any Ordinance at its whim and fancy. But that is not fair on the part of the Government. The legislative supremacy of the Parliament is challenged by the Government just to fulfil its narrow political ends. What is the extraordinary circumstance that was prevailing so as to promulgate this Ordinance? I am putting this question again to the Government. So, this is a clear case of misuse of Article 123 of the Constitution by this Government. That can never be justified.

          The Government has already extended the tenure of this officer for a period of one year. Even before the promulgation of the Ordinance. The officer’s tenure was extended for one year. The matter went to the Supreme Court. What did the Supreme Court say? The first part of the observation of the Supreme Court is in favour of the Government. I do agree with that. The Supreme Court had declined to interfere with the Government’s decision to extend the tenure for one more year. So, the Government’s position was ratified by the Supreme Court. But subsequently, the Supreme Court Bench comprising of Justice B.R. Gavai and Justice L. Nageswara Rao held:

“Extension of tenure granted to officers who have attained the age of superannuation should be done only in rare and exceptional cases.” Further, the Supreme Court had observed:

“The tenure of …  *shall not be extended.” डॉ. निशिकांत दुबे (गोड्डा): महोदय, पॉइंट ऑफ ऑर्डर है । I want to quote Rule 353. It says:

“No allegation of a defamatory or incriminatory nature shall be made by a member against any person…” Shri… * is not here. आप पोस्ट डायरेक्टर को कह सकते हो । ई.डी. डायरेक्टर का नाम, उनका नाम बार-बार लेना कहीं से उचित नहीं है ।

SHRI N. K. PREMACHANDRAN : Sir, I have not made any allegation.

डॉ. निशिकांत दुबे :आप उनका नाम लेकर नहीं कह सकते हो ।

माननीय सभापति : ठीक है, मैं देख लूँगा । मैं व्यवस्था दे दूँगा । आप बैठिए ।

डॉ. निशिकांत दुबे : उस जजमेंट में कहीं ....*  का नाम नहीं है ।

माननीय सभापति : माननीय सदस्य, कृपया आप नाम का उल्लेख मत कीजिए ।  

SHRI N. K. PREMACHANDRAN : Sir, I cannot understand Nishikant Dubey’s argument because I have not made any allegation against the concerned officer. If the Chair directs, I will not use the name also, there is no problem. But I have not made any allegation against the particular officer. Unnecessarily Dubey ji is making an allegation against me. So, it should not be counted in my time.

          Further, the Supreme Court had said:

“Any extension of tenure granted to persons holding the post of Enforcement Director after attaining the age of superannuation should be for a short period.”           Sir, this is the observation made by the Supreme Court. It has now become clear that the intent of this Ordinance is to invalidate the directive of the Supreme Court, that too for a particular officer. This is a clear case of abuse of the constitutional power envisaged under Article 123 of the Constitution. So, the Government’s action to invalidate the directive of the Supreme Court so as to protect the interest of a particular individual can never be justified and for that purpose, the Parliament cannot be taken for granted. Therefore, we strongly oppose the Ordinance route of legislation.

          My second point is this. Why did the Government not wait for the Winter Session of Parliament? I would like to point out to the Parliamentary Affairs Minister Shri Pralhad Joshi that I am not making any allegation. Normally, the Winter Session of Parliament is summoned either from the second week of November or in the third week of November. This time, the Parliament has been summoned to meet on 29th of November? What is the significance of 29th of November? The information which we gathered is this.

SHRI PRALHAD JOSHI: Mr. Chairman, Sir, I would like to point out to the hon. Member that many times the Winter Session of Parliament has started from the first week of December also. Since he has raised the issue all of a sudden, I do not have the records with me.

But many a time, in the first of December also, Winter Session has started.

SHRI KODIKUNNIL SURESH (MAVELIKKARA): In my parliamentary experience for 30 years,  Winter Session has never started in December.

HON. CHAIRPERSON: Okay.

          Premachandran-ji, please continue.

SHRI PRALHAD JOSHI: I am not saying that regularly it has happened. But many a time, it has happened.

          In the first week of December, you yourself have done it.

HON. CHAIRPESON:  Mr. Pramachandran, please continue.

SHRI N. K. PREMACHANDRAN : Sir, I am not sure about it.  But to my knowledge, the Winter Session of Parliament has never started so late. But it is subject to correction. We will agree if it is not so.

          But my point is this.  On 17th November, the Ordinance was issued.  How can they summon the Parliament on 21st?  A specific question will definitely arise because on  17th, they had promulgated the Ordinance.  It was for what purpose?  It was in order to extend the tenure of a particular officer.  It will hold very bad in the public domain.  I am not saying that it was delayed for this reason. But as far as people are concerned, the doubt arises.

          Regarding this issue also, both CBI and Enforcement Directorate were established on the recommendations of the Santhanam Committee. The CVC also acted on the basis of this Report.

          Sir, in 1997, in ‘Vineet Narain versus Union of India’, the Supreme Court directed the Central Vigilance Commission to take the responsibility of exercising superintendence over the functioning of CBI.  Subsequent to it, CBI was given the statutory status by the Central Vigilance Commission. There is a Central Vigilance Act, 2003. As per that Act, the CVC, which is a Constitutional body, is to conduct inquiries into the offences to have been committed under Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 by certain categories of public servants and officers who are coming under the Central Government or by corporations or cooperative societies or trusts which are owned and controlled by the Government of India, that is, the Central Government.

HON. CHAIRPERSON: Please conclude now.

SHRI N. K. PREMACHANDRAN : Sir, the mover of the Resolution is entitled to have 15 minutes according to the Rule 178.

HON. CHAIRPERSON:  You have already spoken for 15 minutes.

SHRI N. K. PREMACHANDRAN : Moreover, two Bills are being taken up together. So, we are discussing four items together.

HON. CHAIRPERSON: Okay.  Please be brief and conclude.

SHRI N. K. PREMACHANDRAN : Right, Sir.

          Sir, by virtue of the Ordinance, Section 25 of the CVC is amended that ‘the Director of the Enforcement shall continue to hold office for a period of five years including the initial appointment in public interest on the recommendations of the Committee chaired by the CVC.’  This is the new amendment in the Ordinance.

          My point is: what is public interest? ‘Public interest’ has a wider meaning, and it can be interpreted in any way so as to give an extension.

          Therefore, my second submission is that the term ‘public interest’ has to be amended.  It should be re-drafted.

          Sir, thirdly, I have read the ‘Statement of Objects and Reasons of the Bill’. I have made this observation at the time of opposing the introduction of the Bill.  The hon. Minister has also spoken about the UN Convention and Inter-Governmental Organisations and all that. But the ‘Statement of Objects and Reasons of the Bill’ does not correlate with the contents of the Bill.  That is a technical objection, which I am raising.

          Fourthly,  I do agree that there is no problem in prescribing five years tenure for Enforcement Directorate and CBI.  If it is done in such a way, it would be applicable to all.  Mr. Minister, you are arguing that it is limited to five years.  Formally, it was not less than two years, and it can be extended, extended and extended.  But now, you are limiting it to five years.  You may make the tenure from two years to five years; make it a fixed tenure.  So, this way, all the officers would be getting five years of tenure. 

          But as per the new amendment, only those officers, or in which you are interested in, will be getting extension.  That is my point. Arbitrarily and without having any guidelines, you are extending it.  There is a Committee set-up.  Who are the Members of that Committee?

 I have no time to explain all these things.  But it is absolutely bureaucratic Executive Committee acting on the whims and fancies of the political executive of the Government. Definitely the Political Executive will decide, who shall  be given extension, and who shall not be given  extension.

          Sir, by virtue of this amendment, extension, after two years  term, will be done according to the whims and fancies of the political executive of the Government.  That means, political class, that too, selectively, will make this amendment.  But this against the directive of the Supreme Court.  It is  challenging the extension of the concerned officials.

          Now, I would come to my last point.  The National Police Commission is there.  The National Police Commission also has laid down the guidelines and principles in which, it has specifically stated that ‘the tenure of the highest officers in hierarchy of these investigating agencies shall not be extended.  It should be confined to  two years.’           That has been upheld by the Supreme Court also.  Since there no time, I am not going to read all the recommendations of the National Police Commission. But again, it is also being violated.  In these recommendations also, the Government cannot justify the extension of the tenure.

          Therefore, I strongly oppose this Ordinance no. 9-91 and also fixing of the tenure – two years may be amended to five years.  That may be made applicable to all.  Then, definitely, we will also be supportive because the discretionary powers of the Government will be lost if it is being given to all the officers.  That is not being done. 

          On the basis of all these reasons, once again, I would like to say that by virtue of Article 123, this type of Ordinance cannot be promulgated.  This is taking away the right of the Parliament’s supremacy in the legislative domain.  That cannot be accepted.  Hence, I strongly oppose the Ordinance as well as both the Bills and move a Statutory Resolution.

 With these words, I conclude. Thank you very much, Sir.                                  

SHRI MANISH TEWARI : Mr. Chairperson, Sir, I move the Statutory Resolution for disapproval of the Ordinance which was promulgated to amend both the Central Vigilance Commission Act as well as the Delhi Police Special Establishment Act.  I also rise to oppose both the Bills which have been moved by the hon. Minister in order to replace these Ordinances. 

          The reason why I am opposing these two Bills is primarily because these Bills are arbitrary; they are capricious; and they are a colourable exercise of power.  I will demonstrate that not only these Bills or when they are enacted into law fall foul of the Supreme Court’s Judgment in the Jain Hawala Case but there are larger issues also with regard to the very legality of the Central Bureau of Investigation as also the Delhi Police Special Establishment which investigates or which has the anti-corruption remit.

Mr. Chairperson, Sir, any democracy is as strong or as weak as the institutions which support it.  I say this with regret and a great sense of responsibility that unfortunately over the past seven-and-a-half years, this Government has made every attempt to dismantle the system of checks and balances which are intrinsic to our Constitutional scheme. The Bills which have been moved by the Minister on the Floor of the House today are yet another milestone in that direction. 

The reason why I say that these Bills fall foul of the Supreme Court’s Judgement in the Jain Hawala case is primarily because of a judgment.  I would like to read just two paragraphs from that Judgment. Para 16 of this judgment explains as to why the tenue of two years was fixed by the Supreme Court and why this entire intent to increase it year by year for five years is completely an arbitrary exercise of this power. What did the Supreme Court say in the Jain Hawala Case? 

15.00 hrs It says:

“No doubt, the overall control of the agencies and responsibility of their functioning has to be with the Executive, but then a scheme, giving the needed insulation from extraneous influences even of the controlling Executive, is imperative.”          Therefore, the entire intention of the Jain Hawala judgment was to insulate the Central Bureau of Investigation and also the Enforcement Directorate from the influence of the controlling Executive, which is the Government. But these Bills seek to do precisely the opposite. They seek to subordinate what the Supreme Court had contemplated to be independent organisations, autonomous organisations as being completely and absolutely subservient to the Government.

Let me also read another paragraph, that is para 48, from that judgment. It says:

“ In view of the common perception shared by everyone including the Government of India and the Independent Review Committee of the need for insulation of the CBI from extraneous influence of any kind, it is imperative that some action is urgently taken to prevent the continuance of this situation with a view to ensure proper implementation of the rule of law. This is the need of equality guaranteed in the Constitution. The right to equality in a situation like this is that of the Indian polity and not merely of a few individuals. The powers conferred on this Court by the Constitution are ample to remedy this defect and to ensure enforcement of the concept of equality.”          Then, the Supreme Court went on to give directions that the Director of the CBI will have a fixed tenure of minimum of two years, and similarly, the Director of the Enforcement Directorate will also have a fixed tenure of minimum of two years.

                   Mr. Chairperson Sir, now, the question is, why it is two years. The reason why they specified a fixed tenure of two years was to ensure that the Heads of these two organisations are insulated from any kind of Governmental interference, and moreover, the hierarchy of these organisations do not get disturbed. Also, it was to ensure that the people, who are eminently qualified to hold these positions also get a chance to hold these positions by increasing the tenure from two to five years, and that too, drip by drip, that is, one year at a time.  You are basically dangling a carrot before those officers.

         आप उनको यह कह रहे हैं कि हम जो करवाना चाहते हैं, वह आप करते रहो और एक्स्टेंशन लेते रहो । यह जो धारणा है कि चाहे सी.बी.आई. हो, चाहे इन्‍फोर्समेंट डायरेक्टरेट हो, चाहे आयकर विभाग हो, विपक्ष को प्रताड़ित करने के लिए, ये इस सरकार के अग्रिम संगठन हैं । यह विधेयक, जो आज इस सदन के समक्ष आया है, उस धारणा को और मजबूत करता है । यह बहुत ही दुर्भाग्यपूर्ण बात है । मैं माननीय मंत्री जी से यह निवेदन करना चाहूँगा कि इस धारणा को आप और सुदृढ़ मत बनाइए । इन संगठनों का जो दुरुपयोग है, उसके ऊपर आज अमलीजामा पहनाया जा रहा है । उच्चतम न्यायालय का मेनडेट था कि दो साल का एक फिक्स्ड टेन्योर होना चाहिए, उसको आप बरकरार रखिए ।

          चेयरपर्सन सर, इसके साथ-साथ मैं एक और बात भी कहना चाहता हूँ । There is a larger issue with regard to the very legality of the Central Bureau of Investigation. It is because when this House sat as a Constituent Assembly, it never contemplated that there should be or there would be a Central Police Force. Let me read out what Dr. Baba Saheb Ambedkar, the Founder of the Indian Constitution, the Head of the Drafting Committee, had to say about a Central Police Organisation. He was replying in the Constituent Assembly to the apprehension expressed by a Member with regard to the fact that whether the scheme of the Constitution contemplated a Central Police Force. He was talking about Entry 8, List I of the Constitution of India which talks about the Central Bureau of Intelligence and Investigation. This is what he said:

“The point of the matter is, the word ‘investigation’ here does not permit and will not permit the making of an investigation into a crime because that matter under the Criminal Procedure Code is left exclusively to a Police Officer. Police is exclusively a State subject; it has no place in the Union List. The word ‘investigation’, therefore, is intended to cover general enquiry for the purpose of finding out what is going on. This investigation is not an investigation preparatory to the filing of a charge against an offender which only a Police Officer under the Criminal Procedure Code can do.” इसका तात्पर्य यह है कि जब भारतीय संविधान की संरचना हुई तो संविधा के निर्माता इस बात पर बिल्कुल स्पष्‍ट थे कि जिस संविधान की संरचना कर रहे हैं उसमें सैंट्रल ब्यूरो ऑफ इन्वेस्टिगेशन या सैंट्रल पुलिस फोर्स का कोई वर्चस्व नहीं है, उसका कोई रोल नहीं है । Therefore, at some point in time, Mr. Minister, Sir, even the vires of the National Investigation Agency will come into question because the Constitution makers never ever contemplated a Central investigating agency.

          I would also like to draw the attention of the Minister to the fact that this Central Bureau of Investigation has a very chequered history. It started as the Special Police Establishment in the Department of War in 1941. Subsequently, it was made independent through an Ordinance and it came to be known as the Special Police Establishment War Department. In 1946, another Ordinance was brought where the Special Police Establishment War Department was turned into Delhi Police Special Establishment War Department. In November, 1946, the Delhi Police Special Establishment Act was enacted.

Now, under the Delhi Police Special Establishment Act, a Delhi Police Special Establishment was to be constituted, which was never done. Therefore, there is a very fatal flaw in the very existence of the Delhi Police Establishment which is the premier remit that the CBI uses to investigate its anti-corruption cases. I had pointed this out to the House. In this House in July, 2009, I had pointed it out that one day the CBI’s existence would be struck down and that subsequently happened in 2013.

          Then, on the 1st of April, 1963, the Government decided to pick up the Delhi Police Special Establishment and make it a part of the CBI through an Executive Resolution and that Executive Resolution was never approved by the President of India. Subsequently, a Bench of the Guwahati High Court had, on the 6th of November, 2013, actually struck down the existence of the CBI. Let me point out that judgment. It is Ravinder Kumar vs. Union of India. That Division Bench judgment, Mr. Chairperson, Sir, starts with a very beautiful line. It says: -

“When the people fear the Government, there is tyranny. When the Government fears the people, it is liberty.”      That is what this judgement stresses. I think there cannot be a more poignant commentary on what has happened in this country in the last seven-and-a-half years.

       Let me read out that part of the judgment which held the CBI to be an illegal organisation. On page 88, the Division Bench said: -

“We hereby set aside the impugned judgment order, dated 30.11.2007 passed in Writ Petition” –so and so. “While we decline to hold and declare that Delhi Police Special Establishment Act, 1946 is not a valid piece of legislation, we do hold that the CBI is neither an organ nor a part of the Delhi Police Special Establishment and the CBI cannot be treated as a police force constituted under the DPSE Act.” It further goes on to say: -

“We hereby also set aside and quash the impugned Resolution dated the 1st of April, 1963 whereby the CBI was constituted.”           Subsequently, this judgement was stayed by the Supreme Court. Our Government, the UPA Government had moved to the Supreme Court and the judgement was stayed in November of 2013. But it is regrettable and on the other day we had a discussion in the House on the judiciary. For the past eight years, the Supreme Court has not found the time to actually adjudicate on the legality of the Central Bureau of Investigation. I am surprised that this Government came into office in 2014 and for the last seven and a half years they have never gone and told the Supreme Court that this is an important issue which needs to be adjudicated.

          Mr. Chairperson, Sir, I pointed this out in this House in 2009 also. Presume if the Supreme Court was to agree with the Guwahati High Court judgement, what would be the implication? Every conviction done by the CBI from the 1st of April, 1963 will be set aside. Look at the kind of compensation claims that will come on the Government and no subsequent legislation with retrospective effect would actually by able to save the Government. I am not talking about your Government per se, I am talking about the Government in general. I would like to urge you that given the sheer import of what we are confronting, I think it would be in the interest of the Government to approach the Supreme Court and ensure that the legality of the CBI is adjudicated.

          Now, let me come to the Central Vigilance Commission (Amendment) Resolution. The Central Vigilance Commission also got statutory status as a consequence of the Jain Hawala Judgement. The procedure for appointing the Director and the officials of the Enforcement Directorate find mention in Section 25 of the Central Vigilance Commission Act. In fact, in the Foreign Exchange Management Act, there is but a one Section reference, which is Section 36, that there will be an Enforcement Directorate headed by an Enforcement Director.

           Now, the Enforcement Directorate administers the Foreign Exchange Management Act. It administers the Prevention of Money Laundering Act. But it does not have a legal architecture at all. Therefore, every day their allegations galore and, as lawyers, we hear them all the time how the officers of the Enforcement Directorate misuse and abuse the lack of checks and counter-checks because there is nothing in the manner of a legislation. Now, if the Government is going to bring this particular amendment, whereby you are going to put the Director of the Central Bureau of Investigation and the Director of the Enforcement Directorate on a drip, you are not only undermining the insulation which the Jain Hawala Judgement provided, but down the line there will be implications. If you have a pliant Director at the helm of affairs in hierarchical organisations, there will be a ripple effect down the line. Therefore, the ends of justice will be undermined and there will be subversion.

          Mr. Chairperson, Sir, what we are dealing with here is not an ordinary amendment which the hon. Minister tried to pass off by saying that we are giving a fixed tenure of five years. First of all, it is not a fixed tenure of five years; it is a drip tenure on extension. Secondly, the ripple effect of such a move down the line is going to completely and absolutely undermine the autonomy and the independence of these institutions. Therefore, in conclusion, I would like to request the Government, I would like to request the hon. Minister to please take these two Bills back. Please restore the position to status quo ante. Let the Director of CBI and the Director of Enforcement Directorate have a fixed tenure. You want to have a tenure of five years, there is no difficulty with that. You want to have a fixed tenure of three years, there is absolutely no difficulty with that.

          At the same time, I would request the hon.  Minister to have a fixed tenure so that he is insulated, he is autonomous and he is not at the beck and call of the Government, which is the problem with these two Bills.

          Lastly, Mr. Chairperson, Sir, I would like to request the Minister that there are larger issues about the legality of the CBI. One day, it will come back to haunt us collectively. Please file an application in the Supreme Court and please ask them to once for all determine whether the CBI is a legal organisation or the CBI is an illegal organisation.

          Thank you very much.                                                                               

कर्नल(सेवानिवृत) राज्यवर्धन राठौर (जयपुर ग्रामीण) :सभापति महोदय, आपने मुझे केन्द्रीय सतर्कता आयोग (संशोधन) विधेयक, 2021 और दिल्ली विशेष पुलिस स्थापन (संशोधन) विधेयक, 2021 पर बोलने का अवसर प्रदान किया है, उसके लिए मैं आपको धन्यवाद देता हूं ।

          अभी मैं विपक्ष की बात बड़े ही ध्यान से सुन रहा था । स्टेटस क्वो मेन्टेन करने की बात हो रही थी । स्टेटस क्वो मेन्टेन करना तो बहुत आसान बात है, लेकिन मोदी सरकार स्टेटस क्वो मेन्टेन करने के लिए नहीं आई है, बल्कि वह इस देश में एक बदलाव लाने के लिए आई है । ये पलक झपकते चले जाना, ये हम ह्यूमन्स के लिए है । हम पलक झपकते ही जा सकते हैं, लेकिन इस सदन के अंदर जो कानून बनेंगे, वे सदियों तक रहेंगे, वर्षों तक रहेंगे और वे देश का वर्तमान और देश का भविष्य संवारने की ताकत रखते हैं । इस सदन के अंदर जितने भी लोग बैठे हुए हैं, वे इस देश की आवाज हैं, वे देश के लोगों के जनप्रतिनिधि हैं । My request to the Opposition is do not look for just one or two years, for the blink of an eye. My request to them is to see the long-term benefits for the whole country.

अभी मनीष जी ने जिस तरह से बोला कि ये तो अब आपकी सरकार के नुमाइंदे हो जाएंगे । मुझे तो लगता है कि इन्होंने यह मान लिया है कि इनकी सरकार कभी आएगी ही नहीं, क्योंकि हम जो कानून बना रहे हैं, वे कानून लंबे समय के लिए हैं । हो सकता है कि बाद में कोई दूसरी सरकार आए, तो उसके लिए भी ये कानून होंगे । ये कानून किसलिए बनाए जा रहे हैं? ये किसी सरकार के हित के लिए नहीं बन रहे हैं, बल्कि ये देश की जनता के हित के लिए बनाए जा रहे हैं ।

          कुछ अपराध व्यक्तियों के खिलाफ होते हैं, लेकिन कुछ अपराध पूरे देश के खिलाफ होते   हैं । जो अपराध पूरे देश के खिलाफ हों, उनके लिए कौन लड़ेगा? उनके लिए जनता की चुनी हुई सरकार लड़ेगी । इसीलिए इस सिस्टम को एफिशियंट और इफेक्टिव बनाने की जरूरत है । इसीलिए स्टेटस क्वो नहीं हो सकता है । बैंकों से हजारों-करोड़ रुपये चोरी हो जाएं, तो वे कहीं न कहीं जनता की जेब से गए हैं । उसके लिए कौन लड़ेगा? कॉमनवेल्थ गेम्स के अंदर चोरी हो, तो पूरी दुनिया में देश की बदनामी होगी । उसमें क्रिमिनल्स कौन ढूंढ़ेगा? इन्फ्रास्ट्रक्चर का पैसा, रोड, बिजली, इन सबकी चोरी हो, पुलवामा जैसा हमला हो, यह किसी व्यक्ति विशेष के लिए नहीं, बल्कि यह पूरे देश के खिलाफ एक क्राइम है । इस देश की जनता का पैसा और उसकी आवाज को दबाया नहीं जा सकता है, लेकिन कानूनों में उलझाया जा सकता है ।

          अभी विपक्ष कानून की बात कर रहा था । उन्होंने अपनी पूरी बात रखने के बाद मंत्री जी से कहा कि यह आपके लिए हिदायत है, ज़रा ध्यान रखिएगा, क्योंकि ये व्हाइट कॉलर क्राइम है, ये छोटी-मोटी चोरी नहीं है । व्हाइट कॉलर क्राइम से डरिए, क्योंकि बहुत बड़े-बड़े लोग लड़ने के लिए आएंगे, क्योंकि अभी कई लोग घबरा रहे हैं । इस सिस्टम को एफिशियंट बनाया जा रहा है, इससे बहुत से लोग पकड़े जाएंगे, जो अभी तक खुले आम घूमते हैं ।

          मैं भी ज्यादा डिटेल में नहीं जाऊंगा । केन्द्रीय सतर्कता आयोग (संशोधन) विधेयक, 2021 और दिल्ली विशेष पुलिस स्थापन (संशोधन) विधेयक, 2021, मैं इन दोनों बिलों के समर्थन में बोलने के लिए खड़ा हुआ हूं । इन कानूनों को बनाने की जरूरत क्यों पड़ी? फाइनेंशियल और लीगल सिस्टम को जो लोग सब्वर्ट करते हैं, वे इस क्राइम में शामिल होते हैं । ये ऐसे लोग नहीं हैं, जिनको कानून की समझ नहीं है । ये ऐसे लोग हैं, जिनको समझ से ज्यादा समझ है और जिन लोगों को समझ से ज्यादा समझ है, उनके लिए सिस्टम को भी स्मार्ट होना पड़ेगा । ये जेब कतरे वाली छोटी चोरियां नहीं हैं । हजारों-करोड़ रुपये की जो चोरी होती है, उसको देश के अंदर बिजनेस बोला जाता है । ये बिजनेस है । तेज दिमाग है, इसलिए बिजनेस है ।

इस कानून को बनाते वक्त काफी अड़चनें आएंगी, जो जाहिर है, दिखाई दे रही हैं । ड्रग्स, टेरेरिज्म, मानव तस्करी, ऑर्गेनाइज राइट्स, गन रनिंग, इन्साइडर ट्रेडिंग, पौंजी स्कीम्स, फ्रॉड्स, बेटिंग सिंडिकेट, इन सबके अंदर कहीं न कहीं मनी लॉन्ड्रिंग शामिल होती है ।   अगर जड़ को पकड़ लिया जाए तो संभव है कि ये जितने भी ऑर्गेनाइज्ड क्राइम्स हैं, जो दुनिया भर में होते हैं, वे कम हो जाएंगे । ये ऐसे क्राइम्स हैं, जो किसी देश की बाउंड्री की अहमियत को नहीं समझते, बल्कि उस बाउंड्री का इस्तेमाल करते हैं । वह देश जो कमजोर कड़ी होता है, उस देश के अन्दर घुसकर फायदा उठाते हैं । कानून सीमित हो जाता है, लेकिन ये जो क्रिमिनल्स हैं, इनकी कोई सीमा नहीं होती है । इनको पकड़ने के लिए सिस्टम को एफिशिएंट बनाना पड़ेगा । इन सबके इंटरनेशनल रेमिफिकेशन्स हैं । ऐसा नहीं है कि आपने बोला, हमने बोला और मिलकर कोई एक छोटा सा कानून बना लिया, जिससे आप भी खुश और हम भी खुश । यह ऐसे नहीं चल सकता है । आज दुनिया के अन्दर जो क्राइम्स हो रहे हैं, वे एक-दूसरे देश से कनेक्टेड हैं ।

जैसा कि मैंने थोड़ी देर पहले कहा कि वे किसी देश की बाउंड्री को अहमियत नहीं देते इसलिए जरूरी है कि हम ऐसे कानून बनाएं, जो दुनिया के दूसरे देश भी समझे और हमारे कानूनों को इज्जत दें । हमें उस क्वालिटी का कानून बनाना है, हमें अपना ऐसा स्टैण्डर्ड रेज़ करना है कि हम उनको इंफॉर्मेशन दे सकें और वे हमें इंफॉर्मेशन दे सकें । हम पूरी दुनिया के अन्दर एक हिस्सा हैं और जिस तरह से हम कम्युनिटी के अन्दर रहते हैं, हमें उस कम्युनिटी का हिस्सा बनकर रहना है । हमें कमजोर कड़ी नहीं बनना है । इंटरनेशनल गुडविल या इलविल हमारे ऊपर निर्भर है । अगर हम क्राइम सिंडिकेट्स को अपने देश के अन्दर पनपने देंगे तो हम कमजोर कानूनों से प्रॉसिक्यूशन नहीं कर पाएंगे, फिर हम कमजोर कड़ी बन जाएंगे और यह दूसरे देशों में हमारे देश के लिए इलविल होगी । इन सब चीजों के लिए क्या करना चाहिए? जो व्यक्ति उस एस्टैब्लिशमेंट को लीड कर रहा हो, उसके अंदर डिप्लोमेसी होनी चाहिए, उसका रेपो होना चाहिए । जब वह दूसरे देश में जाए तो वहां बात कर सके, इंफॉर्मेशन को एक्सचेंज कर सके । उसमें एक्सपीरियंस और नॉलेज की जरूरत है । दुनिया के अन्दर इस क्राइम को लड़ने के लिए एक इंटरनेशनल एक्शन टास्क फोर्स बनाई गई है, फाइनेंशियल एक्शन टास्क फोर्स बनाई गई है । इस इंटरनेशनल एक्शन टास्क फोर्स में अलग-अलग रिकमेंडेशन्स हैं, स्टैण्डर्ड दिए हुए हैं कि मनी लॉन्ड्रिंग टेरर क्राइम को किस तरह से काबू किया जाए । इसके अन्दर 200देश मैम्बर्स हैं । भारत भी उसका एक सदस्य है ।

इस टास्क फोर्स का काम हमें अलग-अलग एनालिसिस करके देना है, जैसे सिस्टम का एनालिसिस है, टेक्निकल कंप्लायंसेज हैं । 10 साल बाद वर्ष 2022-23में भारत का इवैल्यूएशन होगा । इसमें जरूरी है कि भारत अपनी टेक्निकल कंप्लायंस का स्टैण्डर्ड और सिस्टम के एनालिसिस को बेहतर करे ताकि हमारी कैपेसिटी और हमारे रिसोर्सेज़ फाइनेंशियल क्राइम की इंवेस्टिगेशन के लिए बेहतर हो सकें । हमें यह तय करना है कि क्या हम अपने सिस्टम को बेहतर बनाना चाहते हैं या नहीं चाहते हैं? It is very simple. Do we want to fight white-collar crime or do we not want to fight white-collar crime? अभी थोड़ी देर पहले विपक्ष ने कहा कि साहब पांच साल के लिए पर्मानेंट कर दीजिए । क्या विपक्ष को कोटा सिस्टम की आदत है? क्या परफॉर्मेंस की कोई मैरिट नहीं है? I am not surprised. They have no merit for performance. It is not a post that is available to everyone in the cadre. There is a criteria for selection to this post, and therefore, performance is extremely important. उन्होंने कहा कि इंडिपेंडेंस नहीं है । इसका पूरा सिस्टम है कि किस तरह से सलेक्शन होना है । दो साल के लिए जो सलेक्शन हो रहा है, वह इंडिपेंडेंट है और जैसे ही दो साल के बाद तीन महीने या छ:महीने का एक्सटेंशन मिल जाता है तो वही कमेटी अब डिपेंडेंट हो जाती है । यह कौन सा तर्क हुआ? पहले दो साल इंडिपेंडेंट और उसके बाद अगर 6 महीने का एक्सटेंशन हो तो डिपेंडेंट हो जाती है । सिस्टम को एफिशिएंट बनाने के लिए नॉलेज और एक्सपीरियंस की जरूरत होती है । इस सदन में कितना एक्सपीरियंस है? आप बार-बार चुनाव लड़ते हैं । यहां पर अधीर रंजन जी हैं, प्रेमचन्द्रन जी हैं और मनीष जी बैठे हैं तो आपका कितना एक्सपीरियंस है? मनीष जी, शायद आपका एक्सपीरियंस 10 साल का है । यहां मुलायम सिंह जी बैठे हैं, उनको35साल का एक्सपीरियंस है ।

   

SHRI N. K. PREMACHANDRAN : We are elected, they are selected.

COL. (RETD.) RAJYAVARDHAN RATHORE : I will come to that. Premachandran Ji, the point I am making is about collective wisdom. Here, we exchange our wisdom to arrive at something that is common to us all, and that is what I am talking about. I am not talking about selection or election. I am talking about collective wisdom.

          सर, इस सदन के अंदर, मैंने लिस्ट देखी है, 65 लोगों तक जाते-जाते एक हजार साल का विजडम हो गया । अगर सदन के सारे एक्सपीरियंस को देखा जाए तो इस सदन को 8 हजार साल का एक्सपीरियंस है । लेकिन आप डबल स्टैंडर्ड देखिए । … (व्यवधान)

माननीय सभापति: सौगत बाबू, बैठिए । इन हजार वर्षों में आपका बहुत बड़ा कंट्रीब्यूशन है ।

                                                    … (व्यवधान)             

कर्नल (सेवानिवृत) राज्यवर्धन राठौर: प्रो. सौगत राय जी का इस सदन में चौथा टर्म है, इसलिए यहां पर आपका 20 साल का एक्सपीरियंस है । मैं यही कह रहा हूं कि कलेक्टिव एक्सपीरियंस बहुत ज्यादा है । … (व्यवधान). He is part of the collective experience.

डॉ. निशिकांत दुबे:वे वर्ष 1977 में लोक सभा में चुनकर आए थे । … (व्यवधान)

माननीय सभापति : ठीक है ।

कर्नल (सेवानिवृत) राज्यवर्धन राठौर: सभापति जी, मैं जो प्वाइंट कह रहा हूं, यहां कलेक्टिव विजडम का सभी स्वागत करते हैं, लेकिन यही कलेक्टिव विजडम अगर एनफोर्समेंट डायरेक्टोरेट में देखा जाए तो 30 साल से कम का एक्सपीरियंस है । Now you want the Enforcement Directorate to fight all the white collar crimes, and not allowing them for a better collective wisdom is double standards of this House. Therefore, I stand here to say that this Bill brings in that requisite strength to our Departments to fight all the crimes that are there in the country to make the country strong.

          With these words, I conclude my speech.

SHRI A. RAJA (NILGIRIS): Sir, thank you for giving me this opportunity. I have heard the arguments from both the sides, and a very brief introduction by the hon. Minister, my friend. He used only two sentences – ‘in the interest of the justice we are bringing this Bill’, and ‘not enhancing the tenure of the CBI Director and ED, instead we are reducing it, a very beautiful argument!           I recall my memories. I was interviewed by a High Court Judge for my admission for post-Graduation in Law College. He asked me one question, “Mr. Raja, you completed your law, I want to ask you a very basic question. You know in the Constitution, separation of power is there. But one person is exercising all the powers sometimes, that is Executive, Legislature and Judiciary.” I was little shaky for one minute, then I immediately told him that it is the President of India. The reason is, he is having power to promulgate Ordinances in the capacity of legislature, he has the power of judiciary to pardon the people who are convicted or he can even reduce the sentence though he is executive head. So, such a powerful office is the office of the President of India. But the Constitution makers never believed that the BJP Government will misuse even that office. … (Interruptions). I got surprised as a student of law that this Bill is brought to undermine even the President’s office ignoring all constitutional values.

Mr. Premachandran was very clear and categorical. I do not want to repeat it. In the case of Common Cause and Vineet Narain, the apex court settled a very clear legal position that the extension should not be done permanently. Even if it is necessary, it should be done for a short while.  For extraneous consideration, it cannot be done. The warnings were given by the Supreme Court to the Government to not do the extension. Now, it is being done by the Government through illegal means. You are defaming the Supreme Court. The judgements pronounced by the Supreme Court is the law of the land, not only for this Parliament. This Parliament gave such ample powers to the Supreme Court. If anything is ruled by the Supreme Court, it becomes the law, even though it is not legislated here. That is the constitutional position. But the constitutional position which was envisaged in this House was brutally destroyed by this Government and the hon. Minister.

          My dear friend, Hon’ble Minister this is not fair on your part. You may not be here and I may not be here after 50-100 years, but the record will speak that my friend, the Minister for Personnel Dr. Jitendra, has done injustice not only to the common people, but to the Supreme Court of India.

          Having said this, I oppose the Bill on four grounds. The first ground is that this Amendment is an absolute contrast to the judicial precedents, which were widely expressed by Shri Premachandran and my dear senior colleague, Shri Manish. The second ground is that it destroys the institutional integrity. The third ground is that legal and administrative arrangements under which the CBI is functioning is going to meet complete anomaly. The fourth ground is that I may be permitted to give a few instances where the independence of CBI and ED were in question at present.

          In the Vinit Narayan case, relying on the recommendation of the Expert Committee, initially it was decided that the CBI Chief can be selected by the CVC, Home Secretary and the Secretary (Personnel). Thereafter, the Lokpal came into existence. As per the Lokpal, after due deliberation in the Parliament, the density of the Selection Committee was tightend. It was not only a little bit enlarged, but it was almost completely reconstituted where the Chief Justice of India was there with the Leader of Opposition and it was headed by the Prime Minister. What type of importance and significance was attached to the Committee when the Leader of Opposition and the Chief Justice of India are in the Committee?

          Now, there is a Committee and they are going to select a person. On the other hand, bypassing the Committee you are keeping somebody in your mind and for that person’s sake you are amending this law by ignoring your own Prime Minister, ignoring the LoP, and ignoring the Chief Justice of India. So, this is not only a little bit legal and technical mistake and it is also complete abuse of power, and a total mockery of our administrative, political and parliamentary system.

          By virtue of the Lokpal Act, 2014 and the consequent Amendment to the Delhi Special Police Establishment Act, the institutional and administrative mechanism between the CVC and CBI were made absolutely dependent and coexisting to ensure the independence of these two agencies, namely, ED and CBI. As a result of the Lokpal, CVC and Delhi Special Police Act came not only nearer, but it is dependent on each other to give fair criminal investigation and justice. Has this happened because of this Amendment?

          I want to submit that I wish to elaborate the four points on which I oppose the Bills. First of all, the Ordinance falls foul of the judgement passed by the apex court in the matter of common cause and Vinit Narayan where the Supreme Court directed that the tenure of the incumbent Director of ED cannot be extended further. I need not quote the judgement, which I have with me as my two learned friends have already quoted the judgement.

Knowing full well that such a categorical observation was made by the Supreme Court, the Government wants to have a third chamber of the Supreme Court through the President route. You cannot exercise the judicial power, but you want to do it. How will it sustain before the court?

In another judgement, it is observed by the Supreme Court that minimum period of service ensures security of tenure and would reduce the chances of external influences and extraneous pressures. The words used by the Supreme Court are ‘external influences and extraneous pressures’. I think that in order to defeat it the judgement was given. Now, you are under ‘external influences and extraneous pressures’, and you want to do it.

The second point is institutional integrity, which is the keystone and must be considered seriously while we are taking such decisions. Repeated extensions or enhancing the tenure will not only be irrational, but also open the possibilities of political interferences and even material considerations, which cannot be ignored.

We cannot forget the ugly incidence -- even I can say the diabolical drama -- which happened in the great institution of CBI where the Supreme Court had intervened. In 2019, the then Director of CBI -- I do not want to name him -- was forcibly and physically removed from his office at midnight. … (Interruptions) I have not heard about such an incident in the entire world.

          We are following the Anglo-Saxon jurisprudence. Therefore, the Supreme Court intervened, and he was permitted at least two days to retire by reinstatement - when the Director of the CBI was forcibly and physically thrown out by the Government. Now, the Government is bringing a law. And now, the Government wanted to have a fair investigation; the Government wanted to have a fair man. Who will believe? Then, why the order was passed by the Supreme Court.   When we have such a bad experience in the country, who would believe the amendment, which provides five-year tenure to the Directors of CBI and ED, is brought to enhance the performance of the agencies. The concept of extension of tenure has not been deliberated anywhere within the Government or in the Selection Committee.

          In the absence of such deliberations, am I not entitled to say that the Government want to keep the incumbent Directors of ED and CBI on probation with a tight leash for a hidden quid pro quo?  I repeat – I want to say that the Government want to keep the incumbent Directors of ED and CBI on probation with a tight leash for a hidden quid pro quo.

          We cannot ignore one more legal angle. You are keeping a person on pigeonhole theory. A hole is there, you want to put a pigeon inside. In law, it is called a pigeonhole theory. The Government is planning to appoint a person for the post of Director of CBI or ED; and the Government is giving him five-year tenure. Had it not been five years, another man having a seniority is entitled for the post within two years or one year or six months, after superannuation, would have a chance of becoming Director? Now, his name is cut? This violates Article 14 which is equality before law. My learned friend, hon. Minister is saying that no, we are cutting the tenure of Director of the CBI. With folded hands, I would like to ask, in the past history, how many Directors of CBI and ED completed a total of five-year period without any interruption or superannuation? Can the Minister give one instance? No. When such an incident is not at all in existence, the Government wanted to provide an interpretation. Even the Supreme Court would not do like this. A senior lawyer can’t do like this. This is why, I say that you have a hidden agenda in mind. … (Interruptions)

          Sir, there are three Acts governing the functioning of the CBI – the CVC Act, 2003, the Delhi Special Police Establishment Act, 1946, the Lokpal Act, 2013. These three Acts simultaneously have superintendence over the CBI. These Acts have two sets of independent Selection Committees for the ED and the CBI. Even for superintendence over the ED and the CBI, as per the Delhi Special Police Establishment Act, the CVC is supposed to have superintendence over the powers of the CBI. At the same time, the Lokpal too has a similar power. The only thing is, these two  organisations are having the superintendence powers over the CBI and the ED, when the matter is referred to them. Unless and until the matter is not referred to them, the entire power is vested with the Government. Ultimately, who is running the CBI? Who is running the ED? Selection is over. Who is having the superintendence power, with limited purpose, on reference, over other institutions, the CVC and the Lokpal?  In the absence of this specific reference, every advice is given by the Government to these institutions to superintendent and maintain. Who is really behind the CBI and ED? … (Interruptions) It is the Government. By law, it is still a riddle. Unless and until, the riddle is removed, the CBI will be continuing as a … (Interruptions) ...*of the Government. Sir, this should be removed.

          Now, I come to the instances where the independence of the CBI and the ED is in question. This is my fifth term. Even earlier, I was part of student politics in DK, the mother of the DMK. But I have not come across an incident where the ED, Income-Tax and CBI officers, even before the retirement and after the retirement, joining the ruling party. Now, they are welcomed with celebrations.

          This is one side. On the other side, there are instances where the ED and CBI raids were conducted at the time of elections. I am expressing my own pain. Just five days before the assembly elections, which were to be done in a single phase, the Income Tax raid was conducted at the residence of my beloved leader, the current Chief Minister, Shri M. K. Stalin’s daughter. What kind of message does the Government want to convey? Sir, one former Chief Minister of Maharashtra, I do not want to take his name, was involved in land-grabbing case. ED and CBI both were investigating. He joined the BJP, then not only the case was out of the investigation, but he was also rewarded with a Rajya Sabha seat. Names of Deputy Chief Minister of Maharashtra and the learned leader, Shri Sharad Pawar are also there. I can give a long list of names.

For all these reasons, I am saying the amendment is motivated. In conclusion, a deliberate attempt has been made by the Government by way of these amendments to keep the Opposition under pressure through the incumbent directors who will give loyal returns to meet the political goals.

SHRI KALYAN BANERJEE (SREERAMPUR): Sir, I oppose the Central Vigilance Commission (Amendment) Bill, 2021 and the Delhi Special Police Establishment (Amendment) Bill, 2021.

          One of the reasons stated by the hon. Minister is that, for this post, a tenure of five years is required. In our entire country, wherever an investigating agency is there, wherever top police officers are there and top income tax officers are there, their tenure in a sensitive post should not be more than two to three years. It is an established principle in this country and in the service jurisprudence also. How can we extend it then? In a sensitive post, it should not be done so that influence is not there. I am not only talking about the political influence, but also about otherwise influence. It should not be done about a sensitive post. He should be transferred from that place. That is a concept which is established.

          Mr. Raja has already spoken on this point but I would like to say that, at the time, when the names came before the Committee, consisting of the hon. Prime Minister, the hon. Chief Justice of India and the Leader of the Opposition, for consideration, for what duration were they considered? Only for two years. Had it been five years, they could have considered other names. In fact, the hon. CJI rejected one name. However, he has been posted as Commissioner of Police, Delhi. This is a by-passing way. Extension, over and over again, is an abuse of the process of power. It remains within discretion and a discretion cannot be exercised in such a fashion and in such a manner. That is why I am opposing the Bill.

          Very recently, in August, 2021, a Division Bench of Madras High Court, in the case of Ramanathapuram District vs. State of Tamil Nadu so and so, in paragraph 10, stated: “Taking into consideration the Vineet Narain vs. Union of India case, the Hawala case, the hon. Supreme Court observed that CBI is a caged parrot speaking in the master’s voice.

          The said observation of hon. Supreme Court was fortified by the statement made by the CBI Director before the hon. Supreme Court in coal allocation case that a former Law Minister meddled with the statement of the CBI filed before the hon. Supreme Court. Sir, I am quoting just two relevant parts of that judgment. I must say that the Madras High Court had really risen to the occasion. Nobody has ever said this and I salute them. Actually, it was the voice of the people, the voice of the Opposition that was given a stamp of approval by the Madras High Court.

Sir, paragraph 18(ii) of that judgment says that CBI shall be made more independent like the Election Commission of India and the Comptroller and Auditor General of India. The Central Government shall make CBI independent with functional autonomy and without administrative control of the Government. This was the direction given by the Madras High Court. This had not been challenged before the Supreme Court. So, this is the law of the land now and CBI cannot remain under the administrative control of the Central Government.

Sir, cases after cases have established how CBI has misused and abused its powers. Which are the cases which have seen abuse of power mostly? Power has been abused in cases where political leaders belonging to Opposition parties are named. CBI is running after them, of course under the directions of its master.

          Sir, governments will come and governments will go. One ruling party will come and the other ruling party will go. But CBI has to remain autonomous. It should be controlled neither by the Prime Minister nor by the Home Minister. This has been the voice of the people for long and now it has been supported by the hon. Madras High Court itself, and it has to be implemented.

          Sir, CBI is acting in pursuance of the directions of the Minister who belongs to a political party. There are a number of cases of which reference has been given by Mr. Raja and I will give some references too. It does not matter who has committed an offence. He should face the consequences. Law must take its own course. But by misusing power, by abusing power, do not curb the voice of the Opposition! Do not pick them up in the middle of the night just before elections! Sir, the Central Government’s CBI and the Central Government’s ED become more effective at the time of general elections. That is because the party in power at the Central wants to win them over to its side, not arrest them.

 

          Sir, without making any preliminary inquiry, in terms of the Constitution Bench judgment on Namita Devi case, political leaders are harassed and arrested by CBI throughout the country. This statement belongs to the Opposition parties. I will not take the name of any political party. Leaders of almost every Opposition party who speak against the Ruling Party are arrested. They are victimised. Political personalities are taken in for interrogation by CBI and ED.

          For how many hours they are taken in for interrogation? They are taken in for interrogation for nine to eleven hours, day in, day out, every day.  Can you imagine it?  Do you think that CBI persons require, to interrogate persons, for nine to ten hours, day in, day out?  What about the efficiency of the CBI officers?  Are they godsend? No.  They belong to all State Cadres.  From there, they are taken.  Under whose directions they are taken?  Time has even come now that when a lawyer fights a case against CBI, he is also made a party in the proceedings.  What is this?  What is CBI doing?  Where are you taking this country?  Why is the Opposition being harassed in this way?  Why is a lawyer’s voice also gagged? Why?  It is because he is speaking against you.  He is making an argument against you.  You have to go against them also.  You have to run against them.  Every telephone is tapped.  There is not a single lawyer, who is dealing with criminal cases against CBI, whose telephone is not tapped.  See, everything is tapped.

          Powers are being abused.  Political cases are pending for years together.  I do not mind to say that so many criticisms have been made regarding Saradha, Rose Valley, etc., etc.  When was this case instituted?  This case was instituted in terms of the order of the Supreme Court in the year 2013.  Eight years have gone by; only charge-sheet has been filed.  Trial has not been commenced.  Is this CBI?  Our leaders have been arrested.  My leader has been arrested and kept in the judicial custody for eight months.  He was ill.  Bail was not granted because CBI had opposed it.  He has got bail from the Orissa High Court.  I do not mind.  Why have you not concluded the trial.  The question is whether a sword of Damocles will be hung upon the person year after year, decade after decade and he will be going with the allegation that he has committed a crime.  You cannot prove it.  Is it not injustice?  Is it not a violation of Article 21 of the Constitution of India?  If I have committed a crime, arrest me; file a charge-sheet; conclude the trial within a reasonable period of time.  CBI has failed to do it.

          I would like to tell you about two cases based on my experience.  I did one case, namely Rizwanur murder case.  CBI was directed to conclude the investigation by the High Court which was affirmed by the Supreme Court.  Persons were arrested.  I was appearing for the victim.  How many years have gone by from 2007 to 2021?  Sir, 14 years have gone by.  CBI could not start commencement of the trial.  In another case, the matter has been taken up before the Supreme Court.  When I was the Chairman of the Standing Committee on Coal and Steel, all the Members except one person – now the person is a Minister – had given consent to Section 3 that all coal blocks right from 1994 which have been illegally allotted should be scrapped.  The country has not earned any revenue.  Therefore, it should be put in auction.  Thirdly, there should be CBI investigation.

          The then Government did not accept the Report.  It is up to the Government to accept the Report or not.  Ultimately, after one year the Supreme Court spoke on the same line.  What has happened to that trial?  Nothing has been done in that case.  The CBI has not done anything.

          I would like to tell the House the number of cases pending with the CBI.  The Central Vigilance Commission has claimed that the Central Bureau of Investigation has been slow in investigating certain cases due to several reasons.  According to CVC’s Annual Report, 2020, at the end of December 2019, investigation was pending in 744 CBI cases for more than a year, out of which 678 cases were related to the Prevention of Corruption Act.  It was found that about 25 corruption investigation cases are pending in CBI for more than five years.  Overall, 1,239 investigations and inquiries were pending in CBI till December 2019.

          The CVC says and I quote:

“The Commission is concerned about the slow progress of disposal of the large number of cases pending trials in different courts for long periods, at times for over twenty years.  Such inordinate delays in investigation defeats the very purpose of efficient vigilance administration, and are impediment to the fight against corruption.”          After the Supreme Court asked them to bring on record its success rate, they brought certain cases on record.

          Another worrying trend for the CBI, as shown in the CVC Annual Report, pertains to pendency of its cases in courts.  As of December 2019, 6,226 Prevention of Corruption Act cases probed by the CBI were pending trial in various courts across the country.  Some more cases were pending for more than 20 years.  When it comes to appeals and revisions filed by the agencies and accused persons in various courts, Supreme Court and Additional Sessions Courts, a staggering 11,380 appeals/revisions are pending in courts.

          Sir, according to official statistics, the CBI has a conviction rate of around 70 per cent. 

15.58 hrs                       (Shrimati Rama Devi in the Chair) मैडम, हमें बोलने के लिए थोड़ा टाइम दे दीजिएगा ।

The Government data presented in Parliament in 2018 claimed that its conviction rate dipped to 66.8 per cent in 2017 from 70.8 per cent in 2010.

 

While, in 2012, the then Vigilance Commissioner – I am not taking the name – pointed out that an internal study by the CBI had shown that its conviction rate was a shocking 3.96 per cent.  He told a gathering of Lokayuktas that the CBI has analysed 264 corruption cases over five years concerning 698 accused, of whom 486 were Central and State officials, while 212 were private persons.

Madam, I know, there are other speakers.  I will not take much time and will conclude by saying that under the Act, the power of investigating the cases is divided between the CBI and the States.  Now, the CBI is also entering into the cases where the consent under the Delhi Special Police Establishment Act has not been given by the State.  Even in the category of cases where the power has been withdrawn by the State, the CBI is making an investigation.  I am not making reference to a very important case since it is pending in the court.  It is sub judice.  I hope it will be decided by the Supreme Court very shortly.  I may tell you that the CBI is abusing its power.

Madam, I am just concluding.  If a person at the top position, left with two or three years of service, cannot discharge his duty, cannot finish the trial in time, always abuses the power, and acts only in terms of the ‘Master’s’ voice – which has been quoted by the Madras High Court – his tenure should not be extended by five years.

I will request the hon. Minister to implement the judgment of the hon. Madras High Court which had been delivered in the month of August, 2021.

          Madam Chairperson, I am grateful to you for giving me the opportunity to speak.

16.00 hrs डॉ. निशिकांत दुबे : मैडम, केवल एक मिनट दे दीजिए । श्री ए राजा ने कहा है कि कोई उदाहरण दे दीजिए, जिसमें डायरेक्टर, सीबीआई और सीवीसी को चार या पाँच साल का टेन्योर मिला हो । मैं इस हाउस की जानकारी के लिए बताना चाहता हूं कि विनीत नारायण जजमेंट के बाद श्री कर्नेल सिंह लगभग चार साल तक डायरेक्टर, ईडी रहे, राजन कटोच साढ़े तीन साल रहे और पीसी शर्मा भी लगभग साढ़े तीन साल तक बिना नियम कानून के डायरेक्टर, सीबीआई रहे । यह मैं केवल हाउस की जानकारी में लाना चाहता हूं ।

माननीय सभापति : बहुत अच्छा बोलें ।

श्री तालारी रंगैय्या ।

SHRI TALARI RANGAIAH (ANANTAPUR): Hon. Chairperson, Madam, thank you very much for giving me this opportunity to speak on the Central Vigilance Commission (Amendment) Bill, 2021.

On behalf of YSRCP, I would like to say that I support the Bill.

          I start with a famous quote from Kautilya’s Arthashastra:

“Just as it is impossible to know when a swimming fish is drinking water, so it is impossible to find out when a government servant is stealing public money.”               Kautilya foresaw this a thousand year back. Kautilya was one of the greatest political thinkers India has ever produced. After liberalisation, globalisation, and privatisation, corruption has become rampant in India. The nexus of corruption and crime, benami properties, black money, white-collar crimes, extortions, international financial frauds, human trafficking, drugs, smuggling, financial terrorism, etc., pose a serious threat not only to common people’s lives and livelihoods, but also, to the internal national security.

          The single most important role of any modern State is to avoid ‘Matsya Nyaya’, where the big fish consumes the smaller one. In our country, day-by-day, the rich are becoming richer and poor are becoming poorer. Wealth is being amassed through money laundering, hawala rackets, extortion, crime, and corruption, which are unchecked and unregulated. Today, many political thinkers and social scientists take the view that poverty and inequality will lead to social disorder in the near future. Every complication breeds corruption and because of unchecked corruption, economic crimes lead to violation of social and economic rights of the people.

          The Indian Constitution guarantees social and economic rights of the people. Dr. B.R. Ambedkar wrote, ‘one man, one vote, one value’ -- we are politically equal but we are unequal, socially and economically, even today. Policymakers and regulating and executive agencies of this country have to work together to reduce inequality. India is the fastest growing economy when it comes to a few people entering the list of richest in the world.

          The Bill extends the tenure of Director of the Enforcement Directorate. It has become eminent due to the nature of cases that the ED is dealing with. Thus, the extension of the tenure has become necessary, in the present scenario, where the Enforcement Directorate has been handling such sensitive cases. The cases are at such crucial stages that not extending the tenure would neither have been in national interest nor in the interest of administering justice. Personal integrity, individual knowledge, experience, information, public relations, and diplomacy are more important than institutional knowledge and information.

          The Government has taken some strong steps to deal with economic offences and in plugging the legal loopholes.

 

Both the present Amendment and the 2019 PMLA Amendments are steps in the same direction. The 2019 Amendment expanded the scope of proceeds of crime under Section 2 to empower the agency to act against even those properties which may directly or indirectly be derived or obtained as a result of any criminal activity relatable to the scheduled offence.

          The Amendment further made PMLA offences cognisable and non- bailable. ED officers are now empowered to arrest an accused without warrant, subject to certain conditions. Therefore, this Bill is another step to improve and streamline the functioning of the Enforcement Directorate which is currently dealing with some of the most high profile and sensitive cases.

          With this, I support the Bill.     

Thank you, Madam.

 

श्री विनायक भाउराव राऊत (रत्नागिरी-सिंधुदुर्ग): सभापति महोदया, सेंट्रल विजिलेंस कमीशन बिल और दिल्ली स्पेशल पुलिस स्टेबलिशमेंट बिल, इन दोनों बिलों का विरोध करने के लिए मैं खड़ा हुआ हॅूं । वैसे तो राज्यवर्धन सिंह जी के विचार सुनने के बाद ऐसा लग रहा था कि कितने प्रभावी विचार उन्होंने रखे हैं । लेकिन आज की राजनीति में असलियत में क्या हो रहा है?

सभापति महोदया, केंद्रीय सतर्कता आयोग, यानी सेंट्रल विजिलेंस कमीशन का निर्माण जब किया गया, तब उसका उद्देश्य यह था कि Central Vigilance Commission is considered as apex vigilance institution which is free of control from any executive. ऐसा उसके निर्माण के वक्त लिखा गया था । लेकिन आज सीबीआई हो, एनसीबी हो, ईडी हो, राजनीति करने वाले लोग इन तीनों एजेंसियों का जितना दुरुपयोग करते हैं, उतना दुरुपयोग स्वतंत्र भारत में पहले कभी नहीं हुआ था ।

          सभापति महोदया, वैसे तो अभी महाराष्ट्र के सारे लोगों को अच्छी तरह से इनकी पहचान हो चुकी है । सीबीआई, एनसीबी, ईडी, इन तीनों एजेंसियों का पिछले छह महीनों से मुकाम मुंबई है और मिला तो थोड़ा महाराष्ट्र है । तीनों एजेंसियों के लोग मुंबई में आ कर बैठे हैं । पूरे परिवार के साथ इंजॉय कर रहे हैं । उन्होंने दिल्ली छोड़ दी है, यहां का पॉल्यूशन उनको सूट नहीं हो रहा है, इसलिए अच्छी हवा खाने के लिए वहां आ कर बैठे हैं ।

सभापति महोदया, उनका क्या तरीका चल रहा है? बिहार का चुनाव था । एक सुशांत सिंह नाम का अच्छा अभिनेता था । उसने कई कारणों से खुदखुशी की थी । उनके पिता जी की मांग पर महाराष्ट्र सरकार ने उनकी खुदखुशी के बारे में जांच बिठाई, एसआईटी का निर्माण किया । लेकिन दिल्ली वालों ने सोचा कि नहीं, महाराष्ट्र की जो सीआईडी और एसआईटी है, उनकी तरफ से इंक्वायरी होने वाली नहीं है । उन्होंने तुरंत ही वहां पर सीबीआई को भेज दिया । महाराष्ट्र की पुलिस सक्षम होने के बावजूद भी दिल्ली की सीबीआई वहां गई । ठीक है, इंक्वायरी शुरू की, परंतु आखिर निकला क्या? एक वर्ष हो गया, लेकिन खोदा पहाड़ और निकला चूहा, मतलब कुछ भी नहीं निकला । सुशांत सिंह की खुदखुशी का एक कारण बना कर बिहार के चुनाव का मकसद हासिल करने का काम इस राजनीति में जब हुआ, तब ऐसी एजेंसी को इंक्वायरी की फ्रीडम मिलनी चाहिए, उनके कतर्व्य का पालन करने के लिए । लेकिन आज की स्थिति में ऐसा नहीं हो रहा है ।

सभापति महोदया, आज की परिस्थिति ऐसी है कि महाविकास अघाड़ी सरकार के कई मंत्रियों के पास ईडी हर दिन जाती है । ईडी के जाने के बाद, सीबीआई वाले जाते हैं । सीबीआई के जाने के बाद एनसीबी जाती है । महाराष्ट्र के पूर्व गृह मंत्री … * के खिलाफ इल्ज़ाम एक पुलिस कमिश्नर ने लगाया । वे मुंबई से दिल्ली आए, दिल्ली से मुंबई गए और लिखित में इल्ज़ाम दिया कि ... * साहब ने हमें इतना-इतना पैसा इक्ट्ठा करने के लिए बोला था । उसके बाद तुरंत ईडी अनिल देशमुख साहब के पास पहुंची । सारी खोजबीन की, खेती में गए, घर में गए, परिवारों के घर में गए, परंतु पाया कुछ नहीं । लेकिन दुर्भाग्य से ....   * जैसे पूर्व होम मिनिस्टर आज छह मास हो गए हैं, ईडी की कोर्ट में उनको बिठा कर रखा गया है ।         … (व्यवधान) एक बात ऐसी है कि … * के ऊपर जिन्होंने इल्ज़ाम लगाया, आरोप लगाया, उनको सुप्रीम कोर्ट ने फरार घोषित कर दिया, लेकिन उसको अरेस्ट नहीं किया । ....  *को अरेस्ट करके रखा ।… (व्यवधान)

श्री प्रहलाद जोशी: भारत के सुप्रीम कोर्ट ने उनको संरक्षण दिया । … (व्यवधान)

श्री विनायक भाउराव राऊत : मुम्बई का पुलिस कमिश्नर… (व्यवधान) उन्होंने कोर्ट में बताया कि अभी हमारे पास कोई सबूत नहीं है । हमारे पास प्रूफ नहीं है, ऐसा उन्होंने कोर्ट में बताया और ई.डी. के पास लिखित में दिया ।… (व्यवधान) …*  ने लिखित में दिया कि हमारे पास अभी कोई ज्यादा जानकारी नहीं है । उन्होंने कोर्ट में कहा ।…(व्यवधान)

माननीय सभापति : विनायक जी, आप चेयर को संबोधित करके बोलिए ।

श्री विनायक भाउराव राऊत: सभापति महोदया, जो गड़बड़ी करते हैं, जिन्होंने भ्रष्टाचार किया   है ।… (व्यवधान) जिन्होंने लोगों को लूट कर संपत्ति पाई हैं, उनके खिलाफ कार्रवाई करने की आवश्यकता है और यह करनी भी चाहिए । जैसा कि अभी हमारे साथियों ने बताया कि कल तक जिनके ऊपर इल्जाम लगता रहता था, एक दिन भारतीय जनता पार्टी में प्रवेश करने के बाद वे साधू बन जाते हैं । आज भी दुर्भाग्य से इस केन्द्रीय मंत्रिमंडल में, कल का जो आरोपी था, वह आज यहाँ साधू बनकर बैठा है ।…(व्यवधान)

          सभापति महोदय, हमारे महाराष्ट्र के एक राजनीतिक नेता, विपक्षी दल के एक नेता ने 22 हजार करोड़ रुपये की चोरी की थी ।… (व्यवधान) उसके पीछे सारी एजेंसीज़ लगीं । उन्होंने सोचा कि दिल्ली में चला जाए । आज वह भारतीय जनता पार्टी में शामिल हो गया और संत बन गया, साधू बन गया । कल का चोर आज साधू बन गया, 22 हजार करोड़ रुपये की चोरी करने वाला ।… (व्यवधान)

          अगर आप बोलेंगे तो मैं नाम पढूँगा ।… (व्यवधान) जो चोरी करने वाले लोग थे । एक दर्जन करप्ट प्रैक्टिस करने वाले लोग थे, वे भारतीय जनता पार्टी में प्रवेश करने के बाद साधू-संत बन   गए ।… (व्यवधान) महा विकास आघाडी के जो प्रमाणिकता और ईमानदारी से काम करने वाले लोग हैं, हर दिन हर एक के पास ई.डी. की इन्क्वायरी होती है ।… (व्यवधान) इसे हम समझ सकते हैं । अगर ई.डी. तथा विजिलेंस विभाग खुद उनके पास इन्क्वायरी करने के लिए जाता हैं तो हम उसे समझ सकते हैं ।… (व्यवधान) लेकिन, मुम्बई में भारतीय जनता पार्टी के एक नेता बोल देते हैं कि परसों इनके पास ई.डी. की रेड हो जाएगी, परसों ई.डी. वहाँ जाती है । वह बोल देते हैं कि अभी यह छह महीने तक बाहर नहीं आने वाले हैं और उनको छह महीने तक बेल नहीं मिलती है ।… (व्यवधान) क्या मुम्बई में भारतीय जनता पार्टी के एक नेता के कहने पर ई.डी. का कार्यकाल चल रहा है, सी.बी.आई. उनके माध्यम से काम कर रही है? अभी परसों भी एक मंत्री को आठ-आठ घंटे तक बैठाकर उनकी इन्क्वायरी की गई ।… (व्यवधान) दुर्भाग्य से कोरोना के कार्यकाल में इस देश को लूटने वाले कितने लोग परदेश में गए । देश को लूटने वाले जो एक दर्जन बड़े चोर थे, वे देश छोड़कर परदेश में जा चुके हैं । उनके पास ई.डी. नहीं गई । उनके पास सी.बी.आई. नहीं गई । अभी नारकोटिक्स आ गया । अभी वहाँ एक जोनल ऑफिसर काम कर रहा है । वह जोनल डायरेक्टर   है । मैं उसका नाम नहीं ले रहा हूँ । वह एक दिन वहाँ गए ।… (व्यवधान) …*  का बेटा, जो… *   है ।…(व्यवधान) मैं उनका नाम नहीं ले रहा हूँ ।… (व्यवधान) अच्छा, ठीक है, मैं उनका नाम नहीं लेता हूँ । एक अभिनेता का जो बेटा है, जब उसके क्रूज के ऊपर रेड की गई । वहाँ कुछ मिला या नहीं मिला, हमें नहीं मालूम, लेकिन एक बात है कि जब … * केस में 25 करोड़ रुपये की माँग की गई । ऐसा मैं नहीं बोल रहा हूँ । उस केस में एन.सी.बी. के जो आई विटनेस रखे गए थे, उन्होंने कहा कि … * को छोड़ने के लिए 25 करोड़ रुपये की माँग एन.सी.बी. के जोनल डायरेक्टर ने की । उसके आगे जाकर उन्होंने बताया कि एक …  * नाम का आई विटनेस ने यह कहा ।… (व्यवधान) वह आई विटनेस है ।…(व्यवधान)

माननीय सभापति: उनका नाम निकाल दीजिए ।

… ( व्यवधान)

श्री विनायक भाउराव राऊत : ठीक है, उसको छोड़ दीजिए ।… (व्यवधान)  दो-तीन आई विटनैस ने कहा कि हमारे पास 25 ब्लैंक पेपर पर एनसीबी के जोनल अफसर ने जबरदस्ती सिग्नेचर लिए कि अगर सिग्नेचर नहीं करेंगे तो आपको जेल में भेजेंगे । यह कहां का तरीका है?

          महाराष्ट्र कोआपरेटिव सैक्टर का एक राज्य है । आदरणीय स्वर्गीय गोपीनाथ मुंडे जी के कार्यकाल में शुगर फैक्ट्री को कोआपरेटिव सैक्टर में अच्छा बढ़ावा मिला । आदरणीय शरद पवार साहब ने अपना पूरा जीवन इस कोआपरेटिव सैक्टर को बढ़ावा देने के लिए अर्पित किया । क्या केंद्र सरकार ने ये सारे कोऑपरेटिव सैक्टर जैसे शुगर इंडस्ट्रीज़ आदि को बर्बाद करने का ठेका सीबीआई और ईडी के माध्यम से लिया है? कितनी शुगर फैक्ट्रियां बर्बाद करेंगे? कितने कोऑपरेटिव सैक्टर बर्बाद करेंगे? नारकोटिक्स की बात करते हैं । गुजरात में अडानी पोर्ट में 21,000करोड़ रुपये के ड्रग्स मिले, उसकी जांच नहीं हुई, सीबीआई नहीं गई, एनसीबी को वहां रास्ता नहीं मिला । … (व्यवधान)

 गुजरात में ईडी के अफसर कैसे काम करते हैं? आप देखिए । गुजरात में ड्रग्स मिलते हैं, चाहे अडानी पोर्ट हो या अन्य जगह हो, द्वारका में 380 करोड़ रुपये के ड्रग्स मिले हैं । वहां के लोगों को छोड़ने के लिए ईडी अफसर ने पांच लाख रुपये की मांग की । ये ईडी के अधिकारी हैं । भारतीय जनता पार्टी ने उनकी एपाइंटमेंट की, ऐसा मैं नहीं बोलूंगा, लेकिन उनके ऊपर ध्यान देना चाहिए ।  आप उनके ऊपर विश्वास रखकर महाराष्ट्र के महा विकास आघाडी सरकार को परेशान कर रहे   हैं । ईडी के अधिकारी गुजरात में जाकर लोगों को सताते हैं, परेशान करते हैं, इसलिए गुजरात में पिछले दो वर्षों में हजारों लोगों ने परदेस में जाकर व्यवसाय करना पसंद किया ।

एनसीबी का मुम्बई और महाराष्ट्र में जो आचार चल रहा है, उनके ऊपर कोई कंट्रोल है या नहीं, मुझे मालूम नहीं है, लेकिन वे केंद्र सरकार का नाम बदनाम कर रहे हैं । अमित शाह जी का नाम बदनाम कर रहे हैं । उनके नाम पर पैसा कमाने का धंधा करने के लिए ईडी के लोग हैं, एनसीबी के लोग हैं ।

मैं आपको बताना चाहता हूं कि कुर्ला के एक साधारण आदमी के घर में ईडी ने रेड की, जो कुछ था, जब्त कर लिया । वह आदमी हमारे यहां के मिनिस्टर का रिलेटिव था, उसे ईडी कोर्ट में हाजिर करना था । वहां कुछ भी न मिलने के बाद भी उन्होंने अपने असिस्टेंट अफसर को बाहर भेजा, वहां से दो डिब्बे लेकर आया और घर में रखा और बोला कि यह नारकोटिक्स आपके पास है । उनकी बहू ने वीडियो शूटिंग की और बताया कि यह आपके लोग लेकर आ रहे हैं, हमारे घर का नहीं है, लेकिन उसकी बात नहीं सुनी । अगर कुछ भी न मिले तो भी ईडी कोर्ट में एक बार आना पड़ता है । महाराष्ट्र में ईडी, एनसीबी और सीबीआई लोगों को बिठाकर परेशान करती है, कोऑपरेटिव सैक्टर को परेशान करती है, शुगर इंडस्ट्री को परेशान करती है, महा विकास आघाडी के शासनकर्ताओं को परेशान करती है, इसे रोकने का काम करें ।

नौकरशाही का जो मकसद है, वह सही तरीके से अमल में आना चाहिए । लोकशाही में राज करना सबका अधिकार है और इस हिसाब से महाराष्ट्र में महा विकास आघाडी सरकार काम कर रही है । अगर कुछ गलत हो तो जरूर सज़ा दीजिए, लेकिन अननैसेसरी निरपराध लोगों को फंसाने का काम न करें, यही मेरी मांग है । धन्यवाद ।

श्री राजीव रंजन सिंह ‘ललन’(मुंगेर): सभापति महोदया, सेंट्रल विजिलेंस कमीशन बिल और दिल्ली स्पेशल पुलिस एस्टैबलिशमेंट एक्ट बिल, इन दोनों अमेंडमेंट पर एक साथ विचार हो रहा   है । मैंने कई लोगों की बात सुनी और मुझे ऐसा लगता है कि इस बिल पर बहस की कोई गुंजाइश नहीं थी । क्योंकि, माननीय सुप्रीम कोर्ट ने विनीत नारायण के मामले में दो साल का कार्यकाल दोनों का तय कर दिया । उसके साथ-साथ इनकी जांच में चाहे वह सीबीआई हो, सेंट्रल विजिलेंस कमीशन हो या ईडी हो, ईडी का तो बिल ही नहीं है, लेकिन लोग ईडी पर भी चर्चा कर रहे हैं । सुप्रीम कोर्ट ने सब के लिए गाइडलाइन जारी कर दी है और वह बहुत विस्तृत जजमेंट है । विनीत नारायण केस में माननीय चीफ जस्टिस जे.एस.वर्मा साहब का जजमेंट है । अब इस विषय पर कि दो साल हो या पांच साल हो, क्या बहस हो सकती है? सुप्रीम कोर्ट ने दो साल कहा है और सरकार ने कहा कि चूंकि आपकी इंडिपेंडेंस को सुप्रीम कोर्ट ने बरकरार रखा है, इसलिए हम दो साल की जगह पांच साल करते हैं । इसमें बहस की कहां गुंजाइश है? असल में जब इंडिपेंडेंट जांच होती है, जब‍ निष्पक्ष जांच होती है तो जो भी पकड़े जाते हैं, वे कहते हैं कि वे प्रभावित हैं । हमारे यहां बिहार में भी ऐसा हुआ है, यहां राज कुमार बाबू बैठे हुए हैं । ये वहां के गृह सचिव हुआ करते   थे । एक आदमी पकड़े गए थे, अभी कल्याण बनर्जी जी चर्चा कर रहे थे कि कनविक्शन रेट 3.69  है । हमारे यहां जो सीबीआई की जांच हुई थी, चारा घोटला जो बहुत ही चर्चित घोटाला रहा, उसका कनविक्शन रेट 99.9 परसेंट है । … (व्यवधान) ये जांच की बात नहीं है, केस में कोई भी रहे । उस समय एक अक्यूज्ड थे, वे जब जेल चले गए तो उन्होंने गेस्ट हाउस को ही अपना जेल बना लिया । अपना जेल खुद ही डिसाइड कर लिया । जब सुप्रीम कोर्ट ने कहा कि आप 12 घंटे के अंदर जेल जाइए, तो उस समय राज कुमार बाबू गृह सचिव थे, उनको8घंटे में ही शिफ्ट कर  दिया । इसलिए, इस बात पर चर्चा बेकार है । इस बिल पर बहस की कोई गुंजाइश नहीं थी । लोग बिना मतलब हाय तौबा मचा रहे हैं । अगर इंडिपेंडेंट जांच में कहीं कोई प्रभावित होता है, अगर कोई किसी को जबरदस्ती फंसाता है तो उसके लिए न्यायालय उपलब्ध है । आप लोग न्यायालय का दरवाजा खटखटाइए । सब लोग न्यायालय में जाते रहते हैं । यदि आपके पास साक्ष्य है, क्योंकि बिना साक्ष्य के कोई किसी को गिरफ्तार नहीं कर सकता है, सीबीआई और ईडी तो बिना साक्ष्य के गिरफ्तार नहीं करती है । वह विस्तृत जांच करती है । लोगों की बात सुनने के बाद मुझे लगा कि लोग अपनी-अपनी पीड़ा को इस अमेंडमेंट में उजागर कर रहे हैं । इसलिए, मैंने सोचा कि दो-तीन मिनट में अपनी बात कहूं । मेरे एक अन्य साथी को भी बोलना है । वे विस्तृत चर्चा करेंगे । लेकिन, मुझे ऐसा लगता है कि इस बिल में कुछ नहीं है । इस बिल में सुप्रीम कोर्ट ने दो साल का कार्यकाल तय किया, सरकार ने उसको बढ़ाकर पांच साल कर दिया । सरकार ने यह नहीं कहा आप सीधे पांच साल के लिए चले आइए । सरकार ने यह कहा है कि हर एक साल बाद आपके काम की समीक्षा होगी । यदि आप सही ढंग से काम कर रहे हैं तो हर एक साल के बाद अगले एक साल के लिए आपको बढ़ोतरी मिलेगी । मुझे लगता है कि इस बिल में बहस की कोई  गुंजाइश नहीं है । मैं उनके इंडिपेंडेंस के लिए दोनों बिल का भरपूर समर्थन करता हूं ।

 

श्री भर्तृहरि महताब (कटक): धन्यवाद सभापति महोदया, स्टेटचुरी रिजॉल्यूशन में मैंने नोटिस दिया था । एक इम्प्रेशन शायद किसी के मन में होगा कि मैं इसके विरोध में, जो प्रेमचन्द्रन जी और बाकी लोगों ने कहा है, उसको रिपीट करूं, लेकिन मेरा इरादा ऐसा नहीं है । सरकार जो ऑर्डिनेंस का रूट ले रही है, मैं उसके खिलाफ थोड़ी बात कहूंगा । उसके बाद हमारे सामने जो दो बिल्स लाए गए हैं, मैं उनके ऊपर अपना वक्तव्य रखूंगा ।

          The Central Vigilance Commission (Amendment) Ordinance, 2021 was promulgated on 14th November to extend the tenure of Director of Enforcement Directorate up to a period of five years from the present two years. The Bill was introduced in Lok Sabha on 3rd of this month. What was the tearing hurry to bring an Ordinance for this purpose? What was the hurry when the Parliament was to meet in the last week of November, within two weeks’ time? The extraordinary provision that is provided in our Constitution for promulgation of Ordinances was supposed to be used in an extraordinary situation. What was the extraordinary circumstances that compelled this Government which could not wait for two, if not three, weeks?

          Madam, on the recommendation of Santhanam Committee, the CBI was established in 1964. The Committee had recommended for the establishment of Central Vigilance Commission to advise the Union Government in the domain of vigilance, Subsequently, the Supreme Court, in the judgement of Vineet Narayan and Others versus the Union of India in 1997 directed the Government to give the responsibility of exercising superintendence over the CBI’s functioning to the CVC. In 1998, Union Government conferred statutory status to the CVC and also to exercise power over the superintendence of CBI. The CVC Act came into being in 2003. A JPC was formed in between. I happened to be a Member of that Joint Committee and had participated in its deliberations. For academic purpose, I may say that I had a Note of Dissent on one count; one can see the record.

          The Bill has two provisions. The first one says that the period be extended up to one year at a time and the second one is that no such extension shall be granted after the completion of a period of five years in total, including the period mentioned in the initial appointment. Of course, extension of service can be done on the recommendation of the Committee and reasons are to be recorded in writing. What could be the reason? It is said, ‘in public interest’. Is not it too wide? The Minister can reply how it can be explained other than in ‘public interest’. Yes, we know that the incumbent was due to retire on November 17th, if not 18th, and he got an extension, and after the promulgation of the Ordinance, he has been granted a year’s extension also. The matter covering the Director of Enforcement Directorate is a bit tricky. Since the ED comes under the Finance Ministry and the Director reports directly to the Finance Secretary, an anomaly will arise when the Finance Secretary is appointed for two years and the ED Director can work up to five years.

 

          Madam, before that, I would like to say something about Article 123 of the Constitution relating to the promulgation of the Ordinance. Article 123 of the Constitution allows the Centre and State Governments to frame laws through Ordinances. But the Constitution makers envisaged a much-restrained use of this practice. The Supreme Court has repeatedly affirmed the constitutional principles that the primary power to frame law rests with Parliament and not with the Executive. In the D.C. Wadhwa case in 1986, the Court clarified that the power to promulgate an Ordinance is essentially a power to be used to meet an extraordinary situation and it cannot be perverted to serve political ends. However, in past years, the Centre as well as several State Governments have increasingly been succumbing to the temptation of bypassing the Parliamentary route to make law. 

          The first NDA Government averaged 9.6 Ordinances a year, and in its 10 years of office, UPA promulgated over seven Ordinances per year. In comparison, in its seventh year, the current Government averages close to 11 Ordinances a year.

          Madam, I would come to the issue that I am raising here for the attention of the hon. Minister.  Many Members before me, who have spoken, have said that ‘two years, and why staggered another one-one year’?  The Common Cause which had gone to the Supreme Court, had categorically mentioned about this.  Most of us, who have participated in this deliberation, have only quoted what the Common Cause petition had stated.  Even in the Bill, the hon. Minister has categorically stated what is there in the law. The law says: “A Director of Enforcement shall continue to hold office for a period of not less than two years.”  But ‘not less than two years’ does not mean, it has to be two years alone from the date on which he assumes office.  What did the Supreme say?  The Supreme Court said:

“Prescription of a minimum period of two years is to ensure that the Director of Enforcement is not transferred or shifted from the said post during the course of investigation of serious offenses. There is no ambiguity in Section 25(d) of the CVC Act and the words ‘not less than two years’ simply mean a minimum of two years. There is no scope for reading the words to mean not more than two years.” Despite this pronouncement by the Supreme Court, Madam, why are we bringing this Bill?  In a way, we are confirming, yes, it is two years and one-one year each.  If I understand Mr. Rajyavardhan Singh Rathore’s intervention, that means, the Government is going to review the work of  ED after two years and then only, wants to give extension.  If that is so, it will lead to a number of other issues.

How come this fixed term of two years came into being?  We know the case handled by ED has stood the scrutiny of courts.  Enforcement Directorate had sprung into action in sensitive and high profile cases. Be it the case in Maharashtra or in Kerala gold smuggling case or even be it the Augusta Westland Deal, ED has been a step ahead of CBI or NIA.   About fugitives like Vijay Mallya or Nirav Modi, cases are also being pursued.  There is justification, no doubt.  But why is this leash  there? Does it not affect the independence of CVC that was contemplated in 1997 Judgment of the Supreme Court in the Vineet Narain & Others versus Union of India case?

          Madam, I have to speak on the other Bill also. I would just take another two to three minutes.  Please allow me.

          The Delhi Special Police Establishment (Amendment) Bill, 2021 provides for amendment to Section 4B so as to insert two provisions.  The first provision enables the Government to recommend the extension of tenure of the Director, CBI for one year at a time and for a maximum period of five years, and secondly such extensions may be granted in public interest with reasons recorded, in writing on recommendations of the Committee as  constituted under the Act.

          The Government may explain the reason to bring an Ordinance. But would  it not have been ideal to have approached the Supreme Court before doing so and hold a discussion on the floor of the Parliament?

माननीय सभापति : माननीय सदस्य, आपको बोलते हुए 10 मिनट हो गए हैं । प्लीज, समाप्त कीजिए ।

 

श्री भर्तृहरि महताब: मैडम, मुझे दो-तीन मिनट और दे दीजिए । I would complete it. I have something important to say relating to the CBI.  The CBI and even the ED are sensitive organisations. Giving the Director peaceful extension a year at a time, may hamper the  independence  of the agency.

          FBI Director has a 10-year tenure.  Why can’t the tenure here be four years if not five years in one go?  At least, the Director will have the opportunity to pursue cases longer and take them to the logical conclusion.  I do not buy the theory that by splitting the extended tenure in three parts will compromise the autonomy of the agency.  As far as the question of the agency being compromised is concerned, it will depend upon the person who is heading. A lot of things have been said about political vindictiveness.

          Mr. R.K. Raghavan, former CBI Director and a distinguished police officer has recently said, “ केवल पांच या दस प्रतिशत केस पोलिटिकल केसेज होते हैं, बाकी सारे केसेज दूसरे करप्शन के केसेज होते हैं ।“ He said and I quote: “Prior to my appointment, the Government was arbitrary and capricious in choosing the Director. It was not rare to see temporary appointments given to favour some individuals. Seniority was often ignored in appointments and Directors were removed frequently.”… (Interruptions)

          मैडम,मैं लॉजिकली बिल के ऊपर बोल रहा हूं ।

माननीयसभापति: श्रीमती सुप्रिया सदानंद सुले जी  ।

श्री भर्तृहरि महताब: मैडम, मुझे कम्प्लीट करने दीजिए ।…(व्यवधान)

माननीय सभापति :हो गया ।

श्री भर्तृहरि महताब : मैडम, हुआ नहीं है ।

माननीय सभापति :बहुत जानकारी हो गई ।

… (व्यवधान)

SHRI BHARTRUHARI MAHTAB: Henceforth, if I am disturbed like this, I cannot complete.  I am speaking on certain things. … (Interruptions)मैडम, मुझे कम्पलीट कर लेने दीजिए ।…(व्यवधान)

 

माननीय सभापति : आपको बोलते हुए 12मिनट हो गए हैं । आपकी स्पीड तेज नहीं थी ।

श्री भर्तृहरि महताब : मैडम, क्या आप कह रही हैं कि मैं और पार्टिसिपेट न करूं?

माननीय सभापति : नहीं,आप बैठिए । अब दूसरा कोई पार्टिसिपेट करे ।

श्री भर्तृहरि महताब: मैं बिल्कुल पार्टिसिपेट न करूं?

माननीय सभापति :करिए, लेकिन टाइम का भी ध्यान रखिए ।

श्री भर्तृहरि महताब: मैडम, मैं आपसे क्वेश्चन नहीं कर रहा हूं, लेकिन मैं भी चेयर पर बैठता हूं और मुझे मालूम है कि किस तरह टाइम एलॉट होता है । … (व्यवधान)

माननीय सभापति :ठीक है,आपके 12मिनट हो गए हैं ।

          आपको और कितना टाइम चाहिए?

श्री भर्तृहरि महताब : मैडम, मुझे  दो मिनट और चाहिए ।

माननीय सभापति :ठीक है,आप बोलिए ।

SHRI BHARTRUHARI MAHTAB: He said: “Seniority was often ignored in appointments and Directors were removed frequently. In 1987, C.M. Radhakrishnan Nair was appointed as the Director. This decision was rescinded within days to give an extension to the man holding the post, Mohan Katre. Could there be anything more demoralising to the officer concerned and to the elite organisation?”           I am of the opinion that a two-year tenure for a CBI head is too short for any officer to make an impact on the organisation. It is preposterous to probe the intentions of this major move to give a five-year tenure to the head of CBI. Why do we have to suspect the bona fides of the Government until we have evidence to prove that the decision was motivated by dishonest intentions? No Government is a saint, but to question the intentions behind an administrative decision right after it is made seems unfair. We will have to wait for a few years to gauge the impact of the change in tenure rules. Any blatantly dishonest interference in the working of the organisation is bound to raise the heckles of those who believe in and carry out straightforward investigations. 

          With these words, I conclude.

SHRIMATI SUPRIYA SADANAND SULE (BARAMATI): Madam, I stand to speak on the Central Vigilance Commission Bill and the Delhi Special Police Establishment Bill.  I stand here, really, to oppose this Bill. 

I was listening to the hon. Minister’s opening speech.  The Statement and the objectives of the speech, which the hon. Minister delivered, were maintaining people’s faith in the institution, promoting good-governance, rule of law, transparency and accountability.  He talked about FATS and said that standard, integrity and skill were the intentions. Now, my humble question to the Minister is this.  Just by changing one tenure, how are you going to address all these issues?  I request you to kindly clarify it.  As far as this whole Bill is concerned, everybody is saying that it is only about a small thing; it is a small Bill; and what is there to discuss. If there is nothing to discuss, then, why are we discussing this Bill? How is it going to happen that so many things will be done just by one tenure?  I mean, it is just like a magic pill.  What is so great about this magic pill? 

Like everybody says, if the intention is so clear, then what is the hurry? You could have waited for the Parliament to begin. So, I would like to say that this desperate hurry smacks of something really fishy. I see no reason for this Ordinance in the way it was brought up. 

          My second question to the hon. Minister is this. According to Para 6 of the Statement of Objectives, India’s position requires significant enhancement of capacity and resources. So, I would like to know, by this one change of position, how your capacity and resources are going to be changed. Beyond what you are talking, there is something called crypto, darknet, etc. Who is going to talk about that? The hon. Minister has not talked about anything except increasing the number of years. I really do not know where this Bill is going.

Then, there is another mention which even Rajyavardhanji talked about. In Para 7, it is said:

“Investigation of such crimes requires two investigation agencies with robust processes.” Where is the robust process in this? Actually, what you are saying is that you have to talk about this Bill with a smile. It is with a smile because the argument that the hon. Treasury Members are making is really funny.

I have another question to ask you. Enabling provisions ensure continuity of tenure. Our learned hon. Member, Nishikant Dubeyji said that there were three people, तीन साल से ज्यादा एक्सटेंशन मिले । अगर मेरी इन्फॉर्मेशन सही न हो तो आप उसे करेक्ट कर सकते हैं कि तीनों ही नॉन कांग्रेसी सरकारों में हुई थीं । So, we have always followed the two-years formula which was given. We have not changed any rules; we have followed the rules. I see no reason why this two plus one plus one has been done. On what merit will this extension behave in? Will it be subject to the case? As we all know, as far as CBI and ED are concerned, the logical end is in only one per cent cases. एक परसेंट से कम ही लोगों की सक्सेस रेट है । आप दो साल के बाद ऐसा क्या क्राइटेरिया लगाएंगे कि उस हिसाब से उसको एक साल, दो साल, तीन साल मिलेंगे?

The hon. learned Minister said that अमेरिका और बड़े-बड़े देशों में ऐसा होता है कि बड़े टेन्योर लगते हैं । But let me correct, अगर पांच साल का हो तो एक बार ही पांच साल में देते हैं । टू प्लस वन प्लस वन, ये बहुत सारा कन्फ्यूजिंग है । So, I want a specific answer to what the criteria will be for plus one year extensions.

          The other question which I want to ask the hon. Minister is this. I would actually like to take that point from Rautji. राउत जी … * जी के बारे में बोल रहे थे । उन्होंने ऐसा कहा कि उनके यहां ईडी, सीबीआई वाले सारे लोग चले गए । वह एक चीज़ भूल गए थे, उसे हमारे यहां विक्रम बोलते हैं । It is almost like a record. His house and his family were raided, not once, twice or thrice but seven times in a year. … (Interruptions) Imagine, you raid one family seven times. So, what did you miss in the first, second, third, fourth, fifth and sixth raids that you had to go there a seventh time? It is like giving an exam seven times and still failing. It is because all the allegations were made against … * and his family. Not only have they spared the person concerned but they are even attacking families now. Even talking about … *, whose daughter-in-law happens to be a part of this House, his son-in-law is in jail. It is fine; I understand that there is an inquiry. But why is his daughter being called, his wife, who is a senior citizen being called? My humble question is, what is CBI and ED doing? What have women got to do with this? If you want to make a political attack, आप सामने से कीजिए, फैमिलीज के पीछे क्यों पड़े हैं? It is really shameful to see how families are attacked, and purely for political reasons. I thank Mr. Raut to stand up for what it is. But apart from Anil Deshmukh’s case and Khadse’s case, there are many other cases that I can sound to you. … (Interruptions) What he talked about the Cabinet Ministers in the Centre today is this – *(उनके पास जादू की पुड़िया है ।) हमारे साथ महाविकास आघाड़ी का होगा, आप कौन सा जादू करते हैं, पता नहीं है, लेकिन उनके सारे केसेज़ डायल्यूट हो जाते हैं । So, I really do not know what magic pill you have. It really worries me that this extension is connected to some magic pill. That is why, one will get one year extension. I do not know; I really expect you to give me a very honest reply.

          I have one more humble question. This is on record, and I will place it on the Table. There are two Members of Parliament from the BJP from Maharashtra – one is from Sangli and the other is from Phaltan. The third one is our colleague, Mr. Harshvardhan Patil, who unfortunately lost this time, and I did not want to quote him as he is not the Member of this House. मैडम, हमारे पास उनकी वीडियो रिकॉर्डिंग है, जो मीडिया में भी चली है कि** This is what your Member of Parliament is saying. This is just shocking. For all the great work that you did, you praise the hon. Prime Minister which is complimentary. He is not only your Prime Minister, he is India’s Prime Minister.

 

          If India goes up in ease of doing business, we are all proud because the investments come to all our States. It is for the betterment of our people. But then, are the ED and the CBI only used against the Opposition-ruled States or the people who fight against you? You think about it logically. Your own MPs are saying like this about the ED and CBI, and that is the case. If all of us, who are in the Opposition, get these love letters from the ED and CBI and whoever is on your side, the magic Bill just dilutes those love letters and they just disappear, then, where is the honesty? If you are really taking the high moral ground, the least you can do is, make sure it is a robust system. Your Member of Parliament was saying about the global practice.  What did he say? He was saying that there was something called, Action Task Force which needs a tenure. What Action Task Force intervention is there in this Bill, besides the tenure? He was asking for collective wisdom. We are giving you collective wisdom. We are all telling you, do not do it. That is the collective wisdom. You are counting year after year from this side. We are saying there is so much collective wisdom. Please take it. Take this feedback because this is not going to end here.

          I have no reason why this Ordinance has come. What other interventions are you making? The whole Bill is so confusing. It is going to be completely one-sided. It is not making you look transparent. As a matter of fact, it is making you look vindictive as a Government and I would not blame any Secretary for that. What can he do? It is his job. He is the most vulnerable person, if you ask me. You are setting a bad precedent that unless you are loyal to the king, you are not going to get a promotion. So, how do you make this an independent institution?

          I grew up in India not knowing who were the Heads of the ED and CBI. मुझे पता नहीं था कि  ईडी कौन है, क्या है, लेकिन आज इनके चर्चे रोज होते हैं । क्योंकि ये किसी के घर में चले जाते हैं, किसी के बीवी, बच्चों को ले कर पता नहीं कहां-कहां जाते हैं? देश में यह नया कल्चर आया है । I think we really need to introspect.

I would like to ask you that in all these several interventions what rule you have followed. You have not followed any rule and you are doing everything just to hurt a cross-section. I appreciate what Mr. Mahtab said. Maybe, it is a small number of people who are politicians and rest are not. But the cases of politicians are so high profile that they are flashing on every channel. I want to know one thing. You claim that the ED and CBI are the top-most authorities in this country. How does then everything get leaked to the media? They seem to know more about it than everybody else in the audience. We hear about the ED and CBI and all the raids.

          There is one more thing. I do not want to name them. Some are even sitting here. Some of them were your allies.  All your former allies have cases. When they were your allies, there were no cases against them. But the minute they left you, all the cases have started. They have had raids. Their colleagues have had raids. I just urge you, please stop this vindictive business. If you really want the collective wisdom of this House, let us put a robust system. We will walk the talk. We will support you to have a clean India, which is very efficient, which has zero corruption to do ease of business. We appreciate your intervention but not at the cost of any political bullying. We will stand up for it. Maha Vikas Aghadi has stood for it. You never thought we would complete months. We have completed two years under the leadership of Uddhav Thackeray. We will not only complete five years but we will complete 25 years and show that Maharashtra will be one of the top performing States in this country, which will provide good governance and there will be no corruption. Thank you.

श्री अधीर रंजन चौधरी (बहरामपुर): मैडम, मुझे मालूम है कि आज समय का बड़ा अभाव है । मैं भी अपना वक्तव्य ज्यादा देर तक नहीं दूंगा ।

You see, the fact is that already Mr. Minister, I understand your stomach is now brimming with the legal interpretation of the concerned legislation. I do not want to burden you with more sumptuous doses that have already been offered by my esteemed colleagues to you.

          I have got some sort of outlandish points but bereft of any lucid arguments from your end, which is really perturbing myself.  You have cited during your initiation that the practices of FATF and other European Union countries should be adopted.

          मुझे लगता है कि जब मोदी जी आपसे ‘वोकल फॉर लोकल’के बारे में कहते हैं, तब आपके बदलते रवैये को देखते हुए मुझे लगता है कि आप कहते हैं ‘लोकल फॉर ग्लोबल’ । यह हमारे देश का इंस्टिट्यूशन है । The premier investigative institution, which is named after CBI by your persistent endeavour, has been turning into a retaliatory investigative institution. There lies the intent of this legislation. You have said, “Just see our intent.” I resolutely say that certainly your intent is ominous. Ominous in the sense that you are worshiping through this Bill the culture of subserviency. Instead of efficiency and competency, through this legislation you are giving precedent to the culture of subserviency. When subserviency prevails, certainly the competency and efficiency will be undermined. If it is so, then the entire edifice of premier investigative agency will be affected. There is no denying of it.

          You have been bolstered by your colleague, who is my colleague also, Mr. Rajyavardhan Rathore ji. To make it more convenient for him and the Government, I would refer to one quotation from Shri Yashovardhan Azad. Instead of Rajyavardhan, I am quoting Yashovardhan Azad, who is currently the Central Information Commissioner and has been an IPS officer for 40 years. I quote, “This move will render the chiefs of the important investigative agencies to the status of daily wage earners. It will demoralize younger talent and undermine the autonomy and independence of the agencies. That the Ordinances were brought just before a Parliament Session means, they were not meant to be a move to reform and streamline the functioning of the agencies but designed for particular individuals. I am most disappointed.”           यह मैं नहीं कहता हूं, यह एक आईपीएस ऑफिसर, जो सेंट्रल इन्फॉर्मेशन कमिश्नर जैसे ऊंचे पद पर हैं, वे ऑफिसर यह बता रहे हैं । That is why I am saying that you are worshiping the culture of subserviency. The person, who will be capitulating pusillanimously to the dictates of the Government, will be rewarded and who, by the sweat of the brow, has achieved some sorts of competency, will be punished. This should not be so is my argument.

          Again, I would quote, Shri Neeraj Kumar, the former Commissioner of Delhi Police. He said:

“I am surprised. I hope this does not lead to other agency Heads seeking similar extensions. Should that happen, it would not be in the best interest of the human resource management down the line.”           Everybody knows that the person who is being revered by you is overseeing multiple cases of alleged money laundering against Opposition leaders. Already our colleagues have referred to it.

          You are resorting to such Ordinances that have been opposed overwhelmingly by all the Opposition party leaders in the House. During introduction, I have also taken strong exception to this kind of legislative document because it is violative of Article 123 of our Constitution. Certainly, it is our duty to oppose this kind of retrogressive legislation being initiated from your end.

          You are talking about public interest.

          जितेन्द्र जी, आपकी हंसी गायब हो गई? … (व्यवधान) क्या आपकी हंसी बंद हो गई? … (व्यवधान) आप उस समय हंस रहे थे, अब हंसी गायब हो गई? … (व्यवधान)      

          The Union Government has hastily passed an Ordinance in the name of public interest. But if it truly wanted to amend the CVC Act, 2003 in the public interest, it should have framed measures to address the CVC malfunctioning.

          The current Bill does nothing to improve or strengthen it.  Thus, the problem will persist and possibly worsen. For instance, in the year 2021, only two monthly performance reports for January and February have been published. There are long-pending vacancies also. Furthermore, the post of Central Vigilance Commissioner was         vacant from June to September, 2021. Even between 2019 and 2021, the Commission was without a Central Vigilance Commissioner for nearly a year and then an impromptu arrangement of appointing an actual Central Vigilance Commissioner was adopted.

          Both the posts of Vigilance Commissioner are currently still vacant. One of these posts has been vacant since October, 2020. A group of former judges, ex-bureaucrats and activists demanded that the vacant post should be filled immediately, stating that the Union Government had effectively paralysed the Central Vigilance Commission. Moreover, apart from the circular of May, 2021 that requested applications for the position of Central Vigilance Commissioner, no other details were made available in the public domain. The names of the members of the search committee as well as the specifics of the applications submitted in response to this circular were kept under wraps. If appointments are not made in a timely way, ensuring transparency, the objective of establishing an autonomous organisation like the Central Vigilance Commission is defeated.

          I would like to again flag your attention to what an IPS officer – I do not want to name him – said. He said that ‘the Government can tell the ED Chief that today you have done good work, let us see if you can keep this up tomorrow’. A senior civil servant pointed out that this is not the first instance of the Government’s pick and choose policy. The policy is basically contingent upon pick and choose according to the whims and fancies of the Government.

          Regarding heads of the investigating agencies, when the issue of appointing the Commissioner of Delhi Police came up, the Government gave an affidavit in the court saying that the current crop of officers in the Arunachal Pradesh, Goa, Mizoram Union Territory Cadre, from where the Commissioner of Delhi Police is usually picked, had no suitable person, which is why they had been compelled to bring an officer from outside the Cadre for the job. I would like to know from the hon. Minister whether it is true, whether it is substantiated by him and whether it is vindicated by his argument. Does the hon. Minister think that this is the righteous way to induct this kind of officers into the high offices?

          I would also like to know from the hon. Minister the present status of the success rate of the cases being investigated by the CBI – number of cases, success rate of investigative agency, rate of conviction in such cases. If the hon. Minister has at his disposal this information, I would request him to share it with us.

          Like the other day when this legislation was being introduced, again, I am raising the same issue that the Ordinance was issued on November 14, 2021, merely three days prior to the date of expiry of tenure of the Director of Enforcement, Mr. Mishra. I would like to flag his attention to another aspect.

The Union Government amended the Fundamental Rule 56 which states that ‘No government employee above the age of 60 can continue to work unless he is a specialist in medical or scientific field, an eminent scientist of international stature, the Defence Secretary, the Home Secretary or the Director of the Intelligence Bureau’. The Director of the CBI and the Director of the ED were granted these exceptions.

          Not only this issue, I would like to flag the attention of the entire House to yet another move where the Central Government issued a gazette notification concerning extension of the tenure of the Defence Secretary, Home Secretary, Director of Intelligence Bureau and Secretary of Research and Analysis Wing for two years.

17.00 hrs           It did this through a Gazette notification, amending Fundamental Rules, 1922, rule 56, in clause (d), for 5th proviso allowing for the extension of service of the Defence Secretary, Home Secretary, Director of IB, Secretary of Research and Analysis Wing, and the Directors of Central Bureau of Investigation and the Enforcement Directorate, if the Government considers the extension to be in public interest for such periods as it may deem proper on a case-to-case basis.

          These are the most salient features which need to be elaborated by the hon. Minister. According to the Fundamental Rules, Government can give extension to chiefs of central agencies for a period it may deem fit. The total extension will be for a period of two years. New rules allow officers to serve till 64 years of age against 62 years. It will be on a case-to-case basis, and will not apply uniformly. क्या आपको यह नहीं लगता कि इसमें हमारे काबिल ऑफिसर्स वंचित होते जा रहे हैं, इसलिए मैं आपका ध्यान आकर्षित करते हुए कहना चाहूंगा कि आप दोबारा इस विषय पर सोचें, क्योंकि यह हमारी प्रीमियर इन्वेस्टिगेटिव एजेंसी है ।

माननीय सभापति : माननीय सदस्य, अगर आपकी स्पीच का मैटर ज्यादा लंबा है, तो आप उसे सभा पटल पर रख दीजिए ।

श्री अधीर रंजन चौधरी : मैंडम, मेरी बात बस खत्म होने वाली है ।

Over the years, the Central Bureau of Investigation has emerged as a premier investigation agency. In the last 75 years, the organisation has evolved from an anti-corruption agency to multi-faceted, multi-disciplinary central police law enforcement agency with capability, credibility and legal mandate to investigate and prosecute offences anywhere in India. As on date, offences under 69 existing central and 80 State Acts and 231 offences under the Indian Penal Code have been notified by the Central Government under section 3 of the DSPE Act.

अंत में, मैं एक ही बात कहना चाहता हूं कि you should not tinker with this premier investigative agency only to serve the narrow and parochial interest of this present dispensation. With this suggestion, I am opposing vehemently the twin Bills which have been brought together for passing and also suggest you to think over it twice because if you think twice, it will ultimately be beneficial for the country.Thank you.

 

डॉ. सत्यपाल सिंह (बागपत): आदरणीय महोदया, मैं आपका धन्यवाद करता हूं और सबसे पहले मैं यह कहना चाहता हूं कि मैं इन दोनों बिलों – `दिल्ली स्पेशलपुलिस एस्टैब्लिशमंटबिल- 2021`,  जो सीबीआई से संबंधित है और‘सेंट्रल विजिलेंस कमीशन अमेंडमेंट बिल’ के समर्थन में बोलने के लिए खड़ा हुआ हूं । मेरा यह सौभाग्य है कि मैंने सीबीआई में वर्षों तक काम किया है । चूंकि सीबीआई में मैंने पिछले बहुत वर्षों तक काम किया था, इसलिए मैं सीबीआई के अधिकारियों और डायरेक्टर को बधाई देना चाहता हूं । हमारे कुछ मित्रों ने सीबीआई के काम के बारे में और उनके कन्विक्शन रेट के बारे में अभी बोला । मेरे पास कुछ रिकॉर्ड्स हैं । सीबीआई का जो कन्विक्शन रेट है, वह लगभग 60 से70 परसेंट के आसपास है, जबकि दूसरी पुलिस सर्विसेज का कन्विक्शन रेट26 से30 परसेंट के आसपास रहता है ।

          महोदया, यही कारण है कि हम सीबीआई के लिए कहते हैं कि वह देश की प्रीमियर इन्वेस्टिगेटिंग एजेंसी है । इसी वजह से मैं उनका अभिनन्दन करता हूं । वर्ष-2013 में जब मैं मुंबई का पुलिस कमिश्नर था, तब मुझे भारत सरकार के एक डेलीगेशन में अमेरिका जाने का मौका   मिला । वहां हम लोग एफबीआई के डायरेक्टर से मिले और मुझे याद है कि एफबीआई के डायरेक्टर का नाम मिस्टर रॉबर्ट मुलर था । बातचीत करने से मालूम चला कि वह पिछले 12 वर्षों से एफबीआई के डायरेक्टर के पद पर काम कर रहे थे । मुझे आश्चर्य हुआ, क्योंकि हमारे यहां सीबीआई या ईडी के डायरेक्टर का कार्यकाल दो वर्ष है ।

हमारे कई मित्रों ने उसके बारे में बोला है । आज इस देश के सामने या दुनिया के सामने जो चैलेंजेज हैं, देश के सामने चाहे भ्रष्टाचार का मुद्दा रहा हो, आतंकवाद हो, मनी लॉन्ड्रिंग का मुद्दा हो या जितने भी क्राइम्स हैं, सब अल्टीमेटली मनी लॉन्ड्रिंग पर जाकर खत्म हो जाते हैं । इन सब चैलेंजेज का ठीक से मुकाबला करने के लिए मैं भारत सरकार विशेष रूप से मोदी सरकार का इसलिए अभिनन्दन करना चाहता हूँ कि पिछले 7 वर्षों में उन्होंने जिस प्रकार के कानून बनाए, चाहे काले धन की बात हो, उससे संबंधित वर्ष 2015में कानून बना । उसके बाद बेनामी लेनदेन से संबंधित कानून लगभग 30 वर्षों के बाद, जो यूपीए सरकार में पहले कभी बना ही नहीं, बनकर वह कभी भी नोटिफाई नहीं हुआ, वर्ष2016में वह मोदी सरकार ने बनाया । प्रिवेंशन ऑफ करप्शन एक्ट वर्ष 2018 में बना । मैं मोदी सरकार का इसलिए अभिनन्दन करना चाहता हूँ कि यह एक ऐसी सरकार है, जिसके प्रधान मंत्री के ऊपर, जिसके किसी भी मंत्री के ऊपर पिछले 7 वर्षों में कोई भ्रष्टाचार का आरोप नहीं लगा पाये । ऐसी सरकार के ऊपर, उसकी इंटेंशन के ऊपर शक करना, मुझे लगता है कि यह अपने आपको धोखा देना है । सब लोगों को यह बात मालूम है कि पिछले 7 वर्षों के अंदर जिस प्रकार से बिचौलिये और दलाल खत्म किए गए हैं, 134 सर्विसेज को डीबीटी में परिवर्तित किया गया, इस देश का सवा लाख करोड़ रुपया बचाया गया । इस सरकार के आने के पहले जो घोटाले होते थे, जो सिंडिकेट चलते थे, वे धीरे-धीरे बंद हो गए और इसीलिए मुझे लगता है कि आज माननीय मंत्री जी जो यह बिल लेकर आए हैं, यह बहुत अच्छा है । बिल के ऊपर जैसे कई लोगों ने बताया कि बात केवल टेन्योर की है । चाहे हमारे इंटरनेशनल कमिटमेंट हों, चाहे यूनाइटेड नेशंस का भ्रष्टाचार के खिलाफ कन्वेंशन की बात हो या एफएटीएफ, जिसे फाइनेन्शियल एक्शन टास्क फोर्स कहते हैं, केवल बात इतनी नहीं है कि हम केवल विदेशी लोगों के कहने से काम कर रहे हैं, भ्रष्टाचार खत्म करना हमारा, मोदी सरकार का कोई नारा नहीं है, यह इस देश का एक संकल्प है कि इस देश से हमें भ्रष्टाचार को खत्म करना है, काले धन को खत्म करना है ।

          महोदया, मोदी सरकार में सत्ता का कोई लोभ नहीं है । यहाँ तो सेवा का बोध है । सेवा के बोध से यह सरकार काम कर रही है । यहाँ लोगों के दिमागों को जाति और मजहब में बाँटकर, उलझाकर चुनाव जीतना नहीं है । यहाँ लोगों की समस्याओं को सुलझाकर उनके दिलों को जीतना है । उनके जीवन को सुगम बनाना है, जिसे हम ‘ईज ऑफ लिविंग’कहते हैं और उसके हिसाब से हम काम कर रहे हैं । यहाँ परिवार के लिए देश को कोई गिरवी नहीं रखना है । यहाँ तो देश का गौरव बढ़ाने के लिए काम हो रहा है । जितने भी कानून बन रहे हैं,वे देश का गौरव बढ़ाने के लिए और इस देश से भ्रष्टाचार और काले धन को खत्म करने के लिए बनाए जा रहे हैं । हमारी पार्टी के चाहे कार्यकर्ता हों या हमारी सरकार के मंत्री हों, सब एक संकल्प ‘वयं राष्ट्रे जागृयाम पुरोहिता:’ लेते हैं । हम तो जागने वाले लोग हैं, इस देश को जगाने वाले लोग हैं, पूरे जग को संदेश देने वाले लोग हैं कि हमारे लिए राष्ट्र पहले है, पार्टी हमारी बाद में हैं और हम उसके भी बाद में हैं । हम इस बात को लेकर चलते हैं । इन बिलों का जो लक्ष्य है, भ्रष्टाचार और काले धन के खिलाफ जो लड़ाई, मुहिम जारी है, उसको गति देना है । अच्छे अधिकारियों को सर्विस में, जो टेन्योर की बात है, जो हम पदावधि की बात करते हैं, उनको कुछ स्थायित्व देना है ताकि हम कुछ लाँग टर्म नीति बना सकें । अगर लोगों को यह लगे कि हम दो साल रहेंगे, पाँच साल रहेंगे तो वे कोई अच्छी लाँग टर्म नीति बना सकते हैं ।

          महोदया, मैं अपने अनुभव से कुछ टेन्योर की बातें बताना चाहता हूँ । कई लोगों ने बताया । विनीत नारायण ने कहा कि दो साल का टेन्योर होना चाहिए । सुप्रीम कोर्ट ने यह कहा है कि दो साल से कम नहीं होना चाहिए । टेन्योर दो साल से कम नहीं होना चाहिए, दो साल से ऊपर टेन्योर हो सकता है ।

यह कहीं नहीं लिखा । वर्ष 2006 में प्रकाश सिंह के केस में, जो पुलिस रिफॉर्म के बारे में है, उसमें सुप्रीम कोर्ट की डायरेक्शन हुई । उसके अंदर यह हुआ कि नॉट लेस देन टू ईयर्स । कम से कम दो साल का टेन्योर तो देना ही चाहिए । उसके ऊपर हो सकता है । यह लिमिट या सीमा कहीं थी नहीं ।…(व्यवधान) मैडम, ऐसे भी उदाहरण हैं, मुझे याद आ रहा है कि यूपीए के जमाने में, कांग्रेस के जमाने में ऐसा हुआ कि सीबीआई के एक डायरेक्टर को पसंद नहीं किया । एक प्रधान मंत्री बने और उन्होंने दस दिन के अंदर उनको ट्रांसफर का ऑर्डर दे दिया और उनको ऑफिस में आने नहीं दिया । वह बिहार में कहीं टूर पर थे । वह बिहार में या जहां पर भी टूर पर थे, उनको ऑर्डर जाकर दे दीजिए कि आपका ट्रांसफर हो गया और आज से आप डायरेक्टर नहीं रहे हो । ऐसे बहुत केस हैं ।… (व्यवधान) नाम तो मुझे मालूम है कि आरडी सिंह थे । नाम लेने की जरूरत नहीं है । उन्हीं के जमाने में पाँच साल का टेन्योर दिया गया । मेरे पास सारे नाम हैं । नाम देने की जरूरत नहीं है । किसी को 6 साल का टेन्योर दिया गया, किसी को पाँच वर्ष का और किसी को चार साल का, इस प्रकार अलग-अलग टेन्योर दिया गया । जिस सरकार की सबका विकास करने की बात हो, संकल्प हो, सब को साथ लेने की बात हो, वहां इस बात की जरूरत है कि हमारे देश के अधिकारी कैसे हों? आज कई लोग कह रहे हैं कि यह दो का तीन और एक-एक साल क्यों बना रहे हैं? देखिए, हम लोग भारतीय संस्कृति में विश्वास करते हैं । भारतीय संस्कृति यह कहती है, मैं तो भारतीय संस्कृति का पुजारी हूं, मैं वेदों का पुजारी हूं । हमारे यहां वैदिक पर आधारित राष्ट्रीय प्रार्थना है, जहां कहा जाता है कि “आ ब्रह्मन् ब्राह्मणो ब्रह्मवर्चसी जायतम्” अपने देश को गौरव के स्थान पर पहुंचाना हो, उसके सारे अधिकारी, उसके सारे बुद्धिजीवी ऊँचे और उदात्त चरित्र के होने चाहिए । वे योग्यता के धनी होने चाहिए । यह हमारी प्रार्थना है, यह हमारी वैदिक राष्ट्रीय प्रार्थना है । जरूरत इस बात है कि सीबीआई और ईडी के जो प्रमुख, डायरेक्टर हैं, वह किस तरह से सेल्फ कॉन्फिडेंस हो सकते हैं, कैसे साहसी हो सकें और कैसे कम्पीटेंट हो सकें । देखिए, हमारी सरकार कोई एग्जिक्यूटिव ऑर्डर लेकर नहीं आई है । हमारी सरकार इस संसद के सामने आई है । कॉन्स्टीट्यूशन का आर्टिकल 309यह कहता है कि हमारी पार्लियामेंट किसी भी सर्विस के बारे में बिल पास कर सकती है, कानून बना सकती है । हम इसको संसद में लेकर आए हैं । जैसे मैं कह रहा था और कई लोगों ने इस बात को कहा, ऐसे भी कुछ उदाहरण हैं, रवनीत जी को शायद याद होगा, उनकी सरकार के जमाने में सीबीआई में एक स्पेशल डायरेक्टर थे, उनका ऑर्डर इश्यू हो गया । राइटिंग में ऑर्डर इश्यू हुआ । कैबिनेट सेक्रेटरी ने उनको फोन पर बधाई दे दी । अगले दिन उनका दावत का समारोह हुआ । लेकिन अगले दिन सवेरे ऑर्डर किसी दूसरे का था और ऑर्डर किसका था- जिसने परिवार के एक व्यक्ति के लिए हिमाचल प्रदेश में एक अच्छा मकान बनवाया  था । मेरे पास नाम भी है । बाहर से लेकर आ गए, स्पेशल डायरेक्टर का ऑर्डर इश्यू हुआ… (व्यवधान) मैडम, अभी तो टाइम बाकी है । मैडम, मैं नाम कहां बोल रहा हूं । ऐसा भी नहीं होना चाहिए कि ऐसे अधिकारी सीबीआई के डायरेक्टर बना दिए जाएं, जिनके खिलाफ बाद में सीबीआई जाँच करने लगे । यह भी कांग्रेस के जमाने में हुआ है । … (व्यवधान) मेरे पास नाम भी है, मैं नाम लेना नहीं चाहता हूं । मेरे पुराने कुलीग रहे हैं । इसलिए मैं नाम नहीं लेना चाहता हूं । हमें ऐसे अधिकारी नहीं चाहिए ।… (व्यवधान) कल्याण जी, आपका नम्बर आ चुका है । आप पहले बोल चुके हो । अब मुझे बोलने दीजिए प्लीज ।… (व्यवधान) कल्याण जी, आप मेरा समय ले रहे हो ।… (व्यवधान)

माननीय सभापति : मैं आपको एक मिनट का और टाइम दे रही हूं ।

डॉ. सत्यपाल सिंह : मैडम, एक मिनट से बात नहीं बनेगी । हमें ऐसे अधिकारी भी नहीं चाहिए कि बोफोर्स केस के इनवेस्टिगेशन में, मैं उस समय सीबीआई में था और मुझे डिटेल भी मालूम है कि बोफोर्स केस के इनवेस्टिगेशन को करने नहीं दिया गया । उस समय की सरकार ने क्यों नहीं करने दिया, सबको यह बात मालूम है । भोपाल ट्रैजडी में यूनियन कार्बाइड के सीईओ, वारन एंडरसन को भागने में किसने मदद की थी? क्योंकि उस सरकार ने इस प्रकार के अधिकारी यहां पर रखे हुए   थे । ऐसे भी अधिकारी थे, इस देश के माननीय पूर्व प्रधान मंत्री श्री वी.पी. सिंह के बेटे के खिलाफ केस किया, उनका अकाउंट टैक्स हैवन में है, यह भी काम किया गया था । हमको ऐसे अधिकारी नहीं चाहिए । इसलिए यह जो सिलेक्शन हो रहा है, सीबीआई के डायरेक्टर का सिलेक्शन कौन करता है? इस देश के प्रधान मंत्री, ऐसा प्रधान मंत्री जिसके लिए लोग कहते हैं कि वे दुनिया का महानतम नेता है । ऐसा नेता, जिसने भ्रष्टाचार न करने का संकल्प लिया है । ऐसे नेता के ऊपर शक करना कि उनकी अध्यक्षता में जो कमिटी बनेगी, वह गलत आदमी का सिलेक्शन करेगी । … (व्यवधान) मैं आपको यील्ड नहीं रहा हॅूं । …(व्यवधान) मैं यह कह रहा हॅूं कि वे इस देश से भ्रष्टाचार को जड़ से खत्म करने के लिए कमिटिड हैं । … (व्यवधान) मैडम, बस दो मिनट और  लूंगा । हमारे प्रधान मंत्री के ऊपर शक करना ऐसा ही है, जैसे गंगाजल को खारा बोल देना । हमारे चीफ जस्टिस ऑफ इंडिया उस कमिटी के सदस्य हैं । चीफ जस्टिस के ऊपर डाउट करना तो ज्यूडिशरी का अपमान है । उसको कंटेंप्ट ऑफ कोर्ट भी माना जा सकता है । … (व्यवधान) हमारे अपोज़िशन के लीडर उस कमिटी में रहते हैं । …(व्यवधान)

माननीय सभापति : अब आपका समय पूरा हो गया है । आप एक लाइन बोल कर अपनी बात समाप्त कीजिए ।

… ( व्यवधान)

डॉ. सत्यपाल सिंह: मैडम, एक लाइन में नहीं होगा । आपकी परमिशन से मैं यह कह रहा हॅूं कि हमारे यहां हज़ारों वर्षों की परंपरा है और उस परंपरा में सब लोगों ने कौटिल्य का नाम सुना है । कौटिल्य ने अर्थशास्त्र लिखा है । कौटिल्य ने लिखा है कि जो लोग सरकार के पैसे से संबंधित हैं या पैसे का व्यवहार आता है, अगर किसी की जीभ पर शहद रखा जाए, मधु रखा जाए या विष रखा जाए तो जीभ तो उसको चखेगी ही । इसी तरह से जैसे पानी में रहने वाली मछली कब पानी पीती है, कितना पानी पीती है, इसका पता कर पाना बड़ा कठिन है । इसी तरह से अधिकारी ऐसे हों कि जो भ्रष्टाचार से रहित रहें, भ्रष्टाचार को खत्म करें, इसका पता लगाना बड़ा कठिन काम है । इसलिए ऐसे अधिकारियों का अगर हमको सिलेक्शन करना है तो चार टेस्ट्स उन्होंने बताए हैं । यह सबके लिए जानने की बात है कि कैसे-कैसे टेस्ट्स किए जाएं । एक धर्मोपदा टेस्ट है कि आदमी कितना पवित्र है । टेस्ट ऑफ पॉयसनेस, जिसको हम फाइनेंशियल इंटीग्रिटी बोलते हैं, उसकी ईमानदारी का टेस्ट । टेस्ट ऑफ फीयर – वह काम करने में डरेगा तो नहीं, जिसको भयोपदा कहते हैं । और चौथा टेस्ट है कामोपदा टेस्ट, यानी लस्ट, ऐसा तो नहीं है कि किसी दूसरे के चक्कर में ही पड़ जाए । इन सब बातों को कहें कि उसकी जाति, उसका कुल, उसका स्थान, उसका व्यय, कहां शादी की है, कैसे उसके संबंध है, उसकी प्रॉपर्टी कितनी है, उसका चरित्र कैसा है, इन सब बातों पर उसका टेस्ट होना चाहिए । राऊत जी कह रहे थे, सुप्रिया सूले मैडम भी बोल रहीं थीं कि आरोप हमारे अधिकारियों पर न लग सकें, न ईडी डायरेक्टर पर लग सकें, न सीबीआई डायरेक्टर पर लग सकें, इसलिए ऐसे अधिकारियों का बनना तलवार की धार पर चलने के बराबर है । … (व्यवधान)

 

माननीय सभापति : अब आपका समय पूरा हो गया है । दूसरे सदस्य को भी समय देना है ।

डॉ. सत्यपाल सिंह : मैडम, मैं एक मिनट में अपनी बात खत्म कर रहा हॅूं । दूसरा कोई वह बात बोलेगा ही नहीं, जो मैं बोल रहा हॅूं । मैं रिपीट करता ही नहीं हॅूं ।

          मैडम, उन्होंने यह कहा था, यह बड़े सुनने की बात है ।

    नरपति-हित-कर्ता द्वेष्यतां याति लोके, जनपद-हितकर्ता त्यज्यते पार्थिवेन्द्रै ।

 इति महति विरोधे विर्तमाने समाने,        नृपति-जन:पदानां दुर्लभ: कार्य अधिकारी ।

जो केवल मात्र पोलिटिकल मास्टर के लिए काम करता हो, उसको पब्लिक भी पसंद नहीं करती । जो केवल पब्लिक के लिए काम करता हो, उसको पोलिटिकल मास्टर पसंद नहीं करते । हमें इन दोनों का बैलेंस बनाने वाला अधिकारी चाहिए, जो दोनों के लिए बैलेंस बनाकर काम करें । जिसके लिए लोक हित और राष्ट्र हित सर्वोपरि हो, ऐसे हमें अधिकारी चाहिए ।

          महोदया, हमारा विश्वास है कि यह जो बिल है, मुझे नहीं लगता है कि इस पर किसी को कोई आपत्ति होनी चाहिए । इसे हमें सर्वसम्मति से पास करना चाहिए, ताकि हमारी ई.डी. एवं सी.बी.आई. इतनी अच्छी बन सकें कि हम भ्रष्टाचार को जड़ से खत्म कर सकें । हम आतंकवाद का मुकाबला कर सकें और इस देश तथा समाज का हित कर सकें ।

          बहुत-बहुत धन्यवाद ।

   

ADV. A.M. ARIFF (ALAPPUZHA): I rise to oppose the Central Vigilance Commission (Amendment) Bill, 2021 and the Delhi Special Police (Amendment) Bill, 2021. These two Bills are against the concept of central vigilance, the principle of Lokayukta and various Supreme Court judgments that have already been quoted by the senior hon. Members like Shri N. K. Premachandran, Shri Manish Tewari and others.

          The court had already directed not to extend the tenure of ED Director, especially, of … * . It is a violation of the order of the Supreme Court. There are many petitions before the hon. Supreme Court challenging the ordinance and demanding judicial scrutiny. There is no defensible reason to promulgate the Ordinance. Moreover, the Ordinance was promulgated merely fifteen days before the Parliament Session was started.

          Today is a very memorable day. 9th December, 1946 was the day when the Constituent Assembly met for the first time. The Constituent Assembly had discussed the power of the President to promulgate the Ordinance at length on 23rd May, 1949, and doyens like Shri H. V. Kamath, Pandit H. N. Kunzru and Prof. K. T. Shah enlightened this discussion.

          Our country is passing through nothing but a period of ‘Ordinance Raj’ with important legislations brought in using the extraordinary powers of the executive to bypass the legislature.

          Even while recognising it as a negation of rule of law, our founding fathers reached a consensus on promulgation of Ordinance under extraordinary circumstances, wherein, a law needs to be promulgated when both the Houses are not in session.

          In the last seven years, after coming to power in 2014, the BJP Government has brought in eighty Ordinances bypassing Parliament. No other Government has such a dubious record.

          Coming to the Bill, the Bill is for extending the tenure of the Directors of ED and CBI respectively. ED has got an election duty. Whenever there is an election announcement in the States, it has nothing to do but to tarnish the image of the State Governments and the political leaders of the Opposition parties by hook or by crook. If there is an allegation against a political leader except a leader of BJP, ED appears and tells him that there are so many allegations against him and he has two choices. The first choice is that if the case is registered against him, he will be punished and his wealth will be ceased, he will have to go to jail for the rest of his life. The second choice they give is that, if he joins BJP, he can save his assets and he can enjoy the rest of his life. That is why ED is called the agency on election duty. That is why several political leaders have turned to BJP.

          In our State, that was clearly seen before the last assembly elections in Kerala where ED would appear before the media on a daily basis to enlighten the public and make new and false revelations against the Government.

          In addition to ED, there are four Central agencies also which have played to the tune of the Central Government. They are: Customs, CBI, C&AG and NIA. What was the end result? The people of the State of Kerala could not be deceived by the ED. The people of Kerala elected the incumbent LDF government with an overwhelming majority revising the political history of the State.

          Madam, the proposal for amendment falls foul of the judgment passed by the hon. Supreme Court in the matter of Common Cause Vs. Union of India in Writ Petition No.1374 of 2020 in which it had specifically directed that the tenure of the incumbent Director, ED, …*  which was set to expire in November 2021, cannot be extended further. The Supreme Court judgment in the said case was clear and absolute insofar as that an extension could be granted was upheld but an embargo was placed on further extension. This conclusion was based on a public interest understanding of the fact that frequent extensions created a perception, whether right or wrong, that the civil servant concerned is under pressure from the Government to secure their extension, to be precise the Government adopts a carrot and stick policy towards its civil servants stating that the reward of carrots will be given for playing to the tunes of the Government.

 

          Sir, a healthy revolving of officers is critical to the exercise of powers and dispensation of functions conferred upon such officers. There should be no apprehension that extension of tenure of key appointments are dependent on the will, whims and fancies of the Government, as the same is also violative of Articles 14 and 21 of the Constitution of India insofar as other offices, similarly ranked, do not have this privilege and process of criminal investigation by these two agencies is feared to be less independent and more open to political pressure on account of these changes.

          Therefore, I vehemently oppose these two Bills which are against the conscience of democratically and constitutionally conscious people of this country. Thank you.

श्री रितेश पाण्डेय :  माननीय सभापति जी, आपने मुझे बहुजन समाज पार्टी और बहन कुमारी मायावती जी के वक्तव्य को यहां रखने का अवसर दिया है, इसके लिए मैं आपका आभारी हूं । आपने मुझे केंद्रीय सतर्कता आयोग (संशोधन) विधेयक, 2021 और दिल्ली विशेष पुलिस स्थापन (संशोधन) विधेयक पर बोलने का अवसर दिया है, मैं इसके लिए आपका बहुत आभारी हूं ।

          इन दोनों ऑर्डिनेंसिज़ में डायरेक्टर ऑफ एन्फोर्समेंट के टेन्योर को बढ़ाने, सीबीआई डायरेक्टर के टेन्योर को दो साल से बढ़ाकर पांच साल करने की लिमिट दी गई है और दो साल बाद प्रति वर्ष बढ़ाने का कारण देना होगा और तीन साल एड करके पांच साल किया जा सकता है ।

अब मैं इनके उद्देश्यों को पढ़ना चाहता हूं । इसमें उद्देश्य और कारण का कथन साफ लिखा हुआ है- भ्रष्टाचार, कालाधन और अंतर्राष्ट्रीय वित्तीय अपराधों का खतरा, आतंकवाद से पेचीदा संबध और अन्य दंडनीय अपराध राष्ट्रीय सुरक्षा और हमारे देश कीवित्तीय प्रणाली की स्थिरता को गंभीर संकट उत्पन्न करते हैं । इसके अतिरिक्त सार्वजनिक जीवन में भ्रष्टाचार में प्राय: ऐसे लोगों के आर्थिक और सामाजिक अधिकारों के उल्लंघन के रूप में परिणाम होना स्वाभाविक है, जिनके अधिकारों का उल्लंघन किया जाता है ।

हमारे देश में नोटबंदी लागू हो तो भ्रष्टाचार और काले धन का सहारा लिया जाता है । हमारे देश में यूएपीए लाया गया हो, तो देशद्रोह, कालाधन और भ्रष्टाचार का सहारा लिया जाता है । सरकारी कर्मचारियों के सामने उनको प्रलोभन देने के लिए हमारे देश में अब ये दो बिल लाए जा रहे हैं, ताकि वे अपने गुरु के अंगूठे के नीचे रहने का काम करें । इसके लिए ये दो बिल लाने का काम किया जा रहा है ।यह अत्यंत दु:खद है । इससे सीधे संस्थानों की स्वायत्तता का जो सवाल है, वह भी पूरी तरह से खत्म होने का काम होता है । सर्वोच्च न्यायालय ने जैन हवाला केस में इस चीज को पूरी तरह से संबोधित करने का काम किया था । उन्होंने अपने ऑर्डर में सीबीआई और ईडी का टेन्योर मैक्सिमम दो साल तक सुनिश्चित करने का काम किया था ताकि उनको बीच में किसी जगह से बदलने का काम न किया जाए । बाद में, सरकार ने एक केस में इसको बढ़ाने का काम किया है, मैं उस पर बाद में आऊंगा, लेकिन यह सीधे-सीधे हमारे देश के संस्थानों की स्वायत्तता को खत्म करने का काम करता है, जो लोकतंत्र के लिए एक बड़ा खतरा है । जब हम अपनी स्वतंत्र संस्थाओं को पूरी तरह से सरकार की गिरफ्त में देने का काम करते हैं, तो उससे धीरे-धीरे लोकतंत्र मरने का काम होता है, जो आज हमें हर जगह देखने का मिल रहा है । यह पूरी तरह से एक व्यापक बीमारी की तरह फैलता चला जा रहा है । यह लोकतंत्र के लिए बहुत बड़ा खतरा है । इसलिए, इसको एक लार्जर डिबेट पर ले जाने की जरूरत है । आखिर, हम आगे आने वाली पीढ़ी को क्या देकर जा रहे हैं? उनके सामने कौन-सी मिसाल रखने का काम कर रहे हैं कि सारी की सारी चीजें, सारी की सारी पॉवर्स एक जगह पर केंद्रित होने का काम करेंगी? चाहे वह सुप्रीम कोर्ट हो, न्यायालय हो या कार्यपालिका हो, क्या सभी को पूरी तरह से एक ही संस्थान के अंतर्गत पूरी तरह से सीमित कर दिया जाएगा? क्या यही हम अपने देश को सौंपना चाहते हैं? मेरा मानना है कि एक जानकार और उसके साथ-साथ जिम्मेदार विपक्ष के होते हुए हमें इसका विरोध करना चाहिए । मैं यहां पर आदरणीय राहत इंदौरी जी का एक शेर पढ़ना चाहूंगा-

                   इस बार ज़मीन में धुंआ बोया है,                    फल नहीं आएंगे अब,                    शाखों पर बम बनेंगे ।

          इस तरह से इन कानूनों को लाकर हम फल की अपेक्षा नहीं कर सकते हैं । हम लोग यहां पर बम डालने का काम कर रहे हैं । आगे जाकर हमारा लोकतंत्र पूरी तरह से विस्फोटक हो   जाएगा ।

माननीय सभापति : अब आपका समय पूरा हो गया है ।

   

श्री रितेश पाण्डेय : मैडम, मैं खत्म करने वाला हूं । मुझे दो मिनट का और समय दिया जाए । मुझे पूरी उम्मीद है कि मेरी पार्टी से अभी एक और व्यक्ति बोलेंगे ।… (व्यवधान) इसी के साथ-साथ, अभी…  *   जी का जो अपाइंटमेंट हुआ था, मैं यहां पर …   * जी का नाम ले रहा हूं, उसमें भी अगर हम देखेंगे तो ये जो ऑर्डिनेंस आया है, यह उसी समय लाया गया, जब उनके अपाइंटमेंट को बढ़ाने की जरूरत पड़ी । ऑर्डिनेंस आने के मात्र दो दिन बाद उनके अपाइंटमेंट को कानूनी व्यवस्थाओं को दबाते हुए बदला गया । यह पूरी तरह से एक इल्लीगल कार्य है । अंत में, मैं यही कहना चाहूंगा कि पिछले 7 सालों में देश में जो संस्थाएं और कार्यालय हैं, वे पूरी तरह से अपने कर्तव्यों का निर्वहन इसलिए नहीं कर पा रही हैं क्योंकि उनके ऊपर पूरी तरह से सत्ता का दबाव   है । हमें इसका पुरजोर विरोध करके यह सुनिश्चित करना है कि हमारे संस्थान पूरी तरह से इंडिपेंडेंट हों, पूरी तरह से स्वतंत्र हों ताकि हमारा देश एक अच्छी डेमोक्रेटिक वैल्यूज के साथ आगे बढ़ सके । आपने मुझे बोलने का अवसर दिया, बहुत-बहुत धन्यवाद ।

   

SHRI BENNY BEHANAN (CHALAKUDY): Thank you, Madam.  I oppose the two Bills, namely the Central Vigilance Commission (Amendment) Bill, 2021 and the Delhi Special Police Establishment (Amendment) Bill, 2021.

          The Government has the version that the Bills are a major step to strengthen the top leadership of CBI and ED by fixing their tenures.  The apprehension arises that the Government wants to have its own favoured officials to be there to execute their political agenda smoothly.  The fact that this very Government had to remove a previous CBI Director overnight since they feared an adverse report on a Defence deal in front of the Supreme Court makes this movement suspicious.

          Corruption has been increasing by leaps and bounds in the country.  On top of it, the use of black money and unabated increase in financial crimes have also been increasingly posing a great threat to the stability and the financial system of the country.      In order to realise the economic and the social rights of the people and also to maintain their faith in the institution of the Government, it is of paramount importance that corruption and financial crimes are effectively tackled in a time-bound manner. It was to tackle the twin menace of corruption and black money in the country that the investigation agencies such as the CBI and the Enforcement Directorate were created in the country. While the CBI was created with the sole motive to deal with the issue of corruption in the country, the ED has the sole jurisdiction of investigating into the offences of money laundering in the country.

          Of late, persons and groups are involved in money laundering and corruption. Exposing the unholy nexus of crime and corruption through the investigative activities of the ED and CBI, has become all the more complex. Moreover, it is of paramount importance that the heads of these two agencies and the senior officers of the above-mentioned two investigating agencies, are provided with functional freedom and autonomy to work with the sole motive of rooting out corruption and black money in the country. If this objective has to be achieved, the heads of the two agencies should be absolutely insulated from political interference exerted by the political executive. Tinkering with the tenures of the heads of the two investigating agencies, appointing officers who dance to the tune of the political masters at the whims and fancies of the political executive will only result in a situation wherein the core issue of fight against corruption and black money becomes a mere illusion and on the other hand, the investigating agencies become a tool in the hands of the political masters in settling political scores.

          It is by keeping in mind this possibility that the hon. Supreme Court in the landmark Vineet Narain Case in 1998 clearly pronounced that the investigating agency needs paramount insulation against extraneous influence. In the famous case, which came to be known as the Jain Hawala Case, the hon. Supreme Court stated that the tenure of the Directors of the CBI and ED should be fixed as two years so that the agencies are totally insulated from political interference. The extension of the tenure of Director of the ED should be given only in rare and exceptional cases and that too, only for a short period.

          The two Bills presented in the parliament, which allow the extension of the tenure of the Chiefs of the CBI and ED from the existing two years to five years thereby enabling the Government to extend the tenure of the heads of these investigating agencies thrice for a period of one year, totally violates, in letter and spirit, the abovementioned judgment of the hon. Supreme Court which ensured fixed tenure for the heads of the CBI and ED, mainly aimed at insulating them from undue political interference.

          To strengthen the institutional bodies like CBI and ED, it must augment their credibility and standing before the people and the courts, which adjudicate the cases which are brought by these agencies. But in some cases, the CBI had made mistakes. For example, appeals filed by the CBI, which are pending before the hon. Supreme Court, have been adjourned more than 24 times during the last three years. It may be recalled that the appeals against acquitting Shri Pinarayi Vijayan, now the hon. Chief Minister, have been adjourned by the hon. Supreme Court.

It is noted that the CBI is inordinately delaying to bring the case before the hon. Supreme Court. To prove the credibility of the CBI, the CBI should take measures to pressurise their advocates or their counsels to present the case before the hon. Supreme Court and take a decision on that.

          In this context, to fix tenure of the head of the investigative agencies such as ED and CBI, I raise my strong dissent against fixing their tenure in a piecemeal manner, which would ultimately result in these agencies transforming themselves into mere political tools for settling scores against the Leaders of Opposition.

           In this way, the very agencies like CBI and ED are used politically to silence upon and get people on board with the ruling political party for their sake. So, the content of the Bill is to extend the tenure but in practice, this Bill is going to be used by the Ruling Party to suppress the Opposition and their voices.

          Again, I oppose the Bill.

 

PROF. SOUGATA RAY (DUM DUM): Pranam Madam, with all the force at my command, I oppose these two Ordinances – The Central Vigilance Commission (Amendment) Ordinance, 2021 and the Delhi Special Police Establishment (Amendment) Ordinance, 2021.  They are amending Section 25 of the Central Vigilance Commission Act and  Section 4B of the Delhi Special Police Establishment Act. The Government of today has always been following the Ordinance route from the first day.  When Shri Narendra Modi became Prime Minister, he brought an Ordinance so that Shri Nripendra Misra, former Chairman of TRAI could be appointed as his private secretary.  He has followed this Ordinance route since 2014 and he has taken the step now again and he has taken the step to favour his favourite officers. It is sad that ED and CBI are two arms of the Prime Minister or of the present Government. What was so important about …*  ?  He was to retire on 17th November, 2021.  Three days before his retirement, one Ordinance was brought which said that the Government had the power to extend the tenure of the ED chief to five years and the CBI chief to five years.  This was done in a manner which is like dangling a carrot before a… *  that you will get two years now.  If you work for me, I will give you another year. If you still work for me, I will give you another year. If you still work for me, I will give you another year. I have never seen such a malafide legislation in my life, dangling carrots before the … * who heads the CBI and the ED. This is utterly violative of all principles of the Constitution and as you know Madam, the Supreme Court Bench headed by Justice L N Rao passed an Order underlining the extension of tenure should be done only in rare and exceptional cases. He said that you just cannot go on giving extensions. The Government has brought this Ordinance to circumvent the Supreme Court Judgement.  Is this the way our democracy will function? सुप्रीम कोर्ट ऑर्डर देगा और उसको बायपास करने के लिए कानून लाया जाएगा । ये बोलते हैं कि हमारी 303सीट्स है तो हम कुछ भी करेंगे । मैडम, यह303की संख्या उल्टी भी हो सकती है ।  This is an example of the dictatorial attitude of the Government. If I may say so that while calling this law very bad, I want to bring certain points to your notice.  

`        One is that the CBI and ED have both been accused of catering to the political interests of the ruling party. Not one Opposition party has been left out of their grip -- the Congress party, TMC, NCP, Shiv Sena, National Conference, DMK, Socialist Party. Cases have been lodged against members of these Parties. The moment somebody joins the BJP, all his/her cases are forgotten … (Interruptions)

डॉ. निशिकांत दुबे: श्री ए.राजा के ऊपर किसने केस किया था?… (व्यवधान)

प्रो. सौगत राय : अगर श्री ए. राजा के ऊपर गलती से केस किया गया ।… (व्यवधान) सुनिए, श्री ए.राजा के ऊपर अगर किसी ने केस किया तो गलती की । यह बात मैं इस हाउस में बोल रहा हूं । …(व्यवधान)

SHRIMATI SUPRIYA SADANAND SULE : Two wrongs do not make a right     प्रो. सौगत राय : मैं जानता हूं । … (व्यवधान)

Madam, he is a great votary of Shri … *  Director, CBI and …* Director, ED. He is maintaining close relations with them. It does not matter. This House is not for making personal relations. Hon. Member, Shri A. Raja showed the courage. He did not apply for bail till all other people in his case were released. He is a top lawyer. After all other people were released, he applied and got bail. Shri Raja said that he had given licences on `first-come-first-serve’ basis to help the poor people. I think, Shri A. Raja vindicated himself and ultimately, he was acquitted. श्री ए. राजा के बारे में किसी ने कोई गलती की तो वह पावर के बाहर है, आप अभी गलती कर रहे हैं, आप भी पावर के बाहर चले जाएंगे ।… (व्यवधान) मुझे यही कहना है ।

माननीय सभापति : सौगत दादा, इधर एड्रेस करके बोलिए । जितना बोलना है, चेयर को एड्रेस करके बोलए, उधर मत बोलिए ।

प्रो. सौगत राय : मैडम, फिर भी मैं बोलूंगा कि यह जो हुआ है, वह खराब हुआ है । ये दोनों संगठन टोटली स्पॉइल किए गए हैं । ईडी को प्रिवेंशन ऑफ मनी लाँड्रिंग एक्ट और फॉरेन एक्सचेंज मैनेजमेंट एक्ट देखना है, लेकिन वह उस काम को नहीं करता, सरकार के निर्देश पर लोगों के पीछे पड़ जाता है । पश्चिम बंगाल में कितने लोगों के खिलाफ सीबीआई और ईडी ने केस किया, लेकिन क्या आप लोग जीत पाए? हारकर भूत हो गए । आपके होम मिनिस्टर ने वहां जाकर बोला – अगली बार दो सौ पार  । बीजेपी के सब     …*  लोग कूदकर पश्चिम बंगाल पहुंच गए, लेकिन क्या हुआ? आप हार गए । … (व्यवधान) आपको100सीट्स भी नहीं मिलीं ।…(व्यवधान)

माननीय सभापति : दादा, इधर एड्रेस करके बोलिए ।

प्रो. सौगत राय : यही हमेशा आपका होने वाला है । सुशील बाबू, आप भी आए थे पश्चिम बंगाल में, क्या हुआ आप लोगों का? हारकर भूत हो गए । … (व्यवधान) आप ज्यादा मत बोलिए । … (व्यवधान)

माननीय सभापति : आपको जो बोलना है, सब्जेक्ट पर बोलिए ।

प्रो. सौगत राय :  श्री ए.राजा जेल गए । क्या हुआ? श्री ए.राजा की पार्टी तमिलनाडु में जीत गई, डीएमके विक्टोरियस हुआ, बीजेपी और उसका एलाई एआईडीएमके हार गए । इस तरह से चलता नहीं है । … (व्यवधान)

मैडम, मैं दुखी हूं इसलिए कि डॉ. जितेन्द्र सिंह जी अच्छे आदमी हैं, लेकिन आज अच्छा आदमी खराब कानून ला रहा है । मेरा दुख इस बात को लेकर है कि एक अच्छे आदमी को इस्तेमाल करते हैं । मोदी जी क्यों नहीं आते हैं? ये उनके दफ्तर के हैं, डीओपीटी के हैं, लेकिन मोदी जी पार्लियामेंट में एक बार मुंह भी नहीं दिखाते हैं । उनको हम साल में एक बार देखते हैं, क्यों? He should have faced Parliament. वे पार्लियामेंट को फेस करने से डरते हैं । मोदी जी क्यों नहीं आते हैं? क्या यह बिल पास कराना मिनिस्टर ऑफ स्टेट का काम है? …(व्यवधान)

मैडम, मैं शॉर्ट में बोलूंगा । मेरा उद्देश्य केवल पोलिटिकल अटैक करना था, कानून के बारे में श्री कल्याण बनर्जी ने बताया है । मेरा कहना है कि यह हथियार से चलेगा नहीं, हमने दिखा दिया । बोलते हैं कि इंटरनेशनल कारण के लिए इनको रखना है । आजकल क्राइम इंटरनेशनल है । … * और       …* के नहीं रहने से इंटरनेशनल रिलेशनशिप नहीं चलेगी ।… (व्यवधान)

माननीय सभापति : किसी का नाम मत लीजिए ।

… ( व्यवधान) … * प्रो. सौगत राय : मैं दस बार बोलूंगा ।… (व्यवधान) दस बार बोलूंगा ।… (व्यवधान) किस कानून में आप बोलेंगे कि नाम नहीं बोल सकते हैं? … (व्यवधान) उनका नाम है ऑर्डर में, मैंने दस बार पढ़ा है - 353, … *  और…* को एक्सटेंशन नहीं देना चाहिए । यह मैं कहना चाहता हूं ।

माननीय सभापति  : इसमें से नाम निकाल दीजिए ।

… (व्यवधान) * प्रो. सौगत राय  : मैडम, आप तो बोल रही हैं कि नाम निकाल दीजिए । यह भी … *  है । …(व्यवधान)

माननीय सभापति : आप यह प्रूफ कीजिएगा ।

… ( व्यवधान)

प्रो. सौगत राय  : मैडम, … *… (व्यवधान) हां, मैंने बोला है ।

माननीय सभापति : यह रिकॉर्ड में नहीं जाएगा ।

… (व्यवधान) * प्रो. सौगत राय : मैडम, यह…  * है । … (व्यवधान)

माननीय सभापति : आप सब्जेक्ट पर आइए ।

… ( व्यवधान)

माननीय सभापति : वह रिकॉर्ड में नहीं जाएगा । ऐसे नहीं होता है ।

… (व्यवधान) * माननीय सभापति : उसे रिकॉर्ड से निकाल दिया गया है ।

… (व्यवधान) * प्रो. सौगत राय  : मैडम, … * मेरा अभी दस मिनट का समय नहीं हुआ है । … * … (व्यवधान)

डॉ. निशिकांत दुबे : सभापति महोदया, इन्होंने प्रधान मंत्री जी के बारे में कहा है कि साल में एक बार चेहरा दिखाते हैं । पहले दिन जब पार्लियामेंट शुरू हुई थी, उस दिन भी आए थे । कोई भी ऐसा बुधवार नहीं है, जिस दिन क्वेश्चन डे हो, उस दिन प्रधान मंत्री जी सदन में उपस्थित नहीं रहे हैं । इनके प्रधान मंत्री भले ही नजर नहीं आते थे, लेकिन हमारे प्रधान मंत्री जी हमेशा समय पर आते   हैं ।…(व्यवधान) जहां तक एक्सटेंशन का सवाल है तो … * को कैबिनेट सेक्रेटरी के नाते इन्होंने दो साल के टेन्योर के बाद भी बिना नियम-कानून के चार साल तक नौकरी दी । यह इस तरह की पार्टी के लोग हैं । इन्होंने चेयर के ऊपर टिप्पणी की है । इनको माफी मांगनी चाहिए । …(व्यवधान)

प्रो. सौगत राय  : मैं इस कानून के खिलाफ हूं ।

श्री बृजेन्द्र सिंह (हिसार) :सभापति महोदया, आपका बहुत-बहुत धन्यवाद, क्योंकि आपने मुझे इन दो अमेंडमेंट्स बिल्स पर बोलने का मौका दिया है । बैकबेंचर को थोड़ा ही टाइम मिलता है और जब तक उसका नंबर आता है, तब तक जो भी कहा जाना चाहिए होता है, सब कुछ कहा जा चुका होता है । मुझे जो समय मिला है तो मैं कोशिश करूंगा कि मैं अपनी बात आप सबके समक्ष रख सकूं ।

          मैडम, सीधी सी बात यह है कि आज हम इन अमेंडमेंट बिल्स पर डिस्कस कर रहे हैं, यहां हम कैसे पहुंचे? एक सीरिज है, बंच ऑफ जजमेंट्स है, चाहे वह विनीत नारायण केस हो या प्रकाश सिंह वर्सेज यूनियन ऑफ इण्डिया के दो केसेज़ हों और एक केस और था, जिसमें सुप्रीम कोर्ट ने अपने ही आदेश में थोड़ी सी क्लेरिफिकेशन दी । इसमें चाहे सुब्रह्मण्यम केस हो और उसके बाद वर्ष2019 का आलोक वर्मा का भी केस है ।… (व्यवधान)

श्री कल्याण बनर्जी (श्रीरामपुर) :मैडम, निशिकांत दुबे जी इधर आकर क्यों बैठते हैं, उनकी सीट उधर है । जब हम लोग बोलते हैं तो निशिकांत दुबे जी इधर आकर बैठ जाते हैं । … (व्यवधान)

माननीय सभापति : आप बैठ जाइए । अब वे दादा के बगल में बैठ गए हैं ।

… ( व्यवधान)

माननीय सभापति : निशिकांत जी, आप अपनी जगह पर जाइए ।

श्री बृजेन्द्र सिंह  : मैडम, एक कॉमन कॉज वर्सेज यूनियन ऑफ इण्डिया का केस था, उसका जजमेंट सितंबर, 2021 में आया । मैं इस चीज़ को दुर्भाग्य मानता हूं कि किस संस्था के प्रमुखों की क्या ड्यूरेशन होनी चाहिए, उनका कितना टेन्योर होना चाहिए, इसकी डायरेक्शंस ज्यूडिशियरी से आए, बजाय इसके कि उसकी इनिशिएशन और उसके ऊपर संसद फैसला ले । यह एक तरह का फैशन बन गया है कि किसी भी तरह से एक्जिक्यूटिव की जो शक्तियां है, एक्जिक्यूटिव का जो रोल है, उसको शनै: शनै: कम किया जा सके । बड़े दुर्भाग्य की बात है कि हम यह नहीं देख पा रहे हैं कि इससे सबसे ज्यादा हनन डेमोक्रेसी में पार्लियामेंट की सुप्रिमेसी का है । मैं आपके सामने एक उदाहरण पेश करना चाहूंगा । वह अमेरिका की एफबीई एजेंसी के डायरेक्टर का है । ऐडगर हूवर 48 साल तक एफबीआई के डायरेक्टर रहे ।

वहां यह स्थिति थी कि उससे राष्ट्रपति डरते थे ।…(व्यवधान) मैं जिस बात पर आ रहा हूं, आप उसे सुन लीजिए । मैं यह कहना चाह रहा हूं कि उसके बाद घटा कर उनकी मियाद 10 साल निर्धारित की गई, लेकिन हमारे यहां खुला खेल था । उसके लिए कोई टेन्योर नहीं था, सरकार के ऊपर निर्भर करता था कि जिसको जितने समय के लिए एक्सटेंशन देनी है, दे दीजिए । उसके लिए कोई नियम-कानून नहीं था । माननीय सुप्रीम कोर्ट के बहुत जजमेंट्स आए हैं । कम से कम दो साल के टेन्योर के संबंध में माननीय सुप्रीम कोर्ट की एक डायरैक्शन है, उसको आगे बढ़ाया जा रहा है । उस टेन्योर को बढ़ा कर पांच साल किया जा रहा है, up to one year at a time.इसमें भी मीन-मेख निकाले जा रहे हैं । इसमें सरकार की नीयत या बदनीयति कहें, उसके बारे में चर्चा की जा रही है । यहां कहा गया है कि यह आर्बिट्रेरी है, institutional integrity compromise हो रही है, इसमेंpolitical interference है । मेरा सीधा-सा सवाल है कि एक वह स्थिति थी, जब कोई टेन्योर ही नहीं होता था, तब तो डेमोक्रेसी खतरे में कभी नहीं थी, लेकिन अब जब टेन्योर्स हैं, तो डेमोक्रेसी खतरे में हो गई और डेमोक्रेसी किन लोगों से खतरे में हो गई, जिनको प्रोफेसर साहब   …* कह रहे थे । मैं भी उसी जमात से आता हूं । यदि आपको अपने अधिकारियों और अपनी राजनीतिक व्यवस्था पर इतना ही विश्वास है, तो उसके बारे में आदमी आगे और क्या बहस कर सकता है?

यह कहा गया कि इसमें आर्बिट्रेरीनेस है । जो कमेटी ओरिजनल अप्वाइंटमेंट करवाती है, रेकमेंड करती है, उसी कमेटी के द्वारा एक्सटेंशन करने का प्रावधान भी इसमें किया गया है । उसमें राइटिंग में रीजन्स देने का प्रावधान किया गया है और उसको पब्लिक इंट्रेस्ट में किया गया है । उसके बावजूद भी यह सोच है कि यह सरकार अपने मन-मुताबिक कर लेगी । क्या चीफ जस्टिस ऑफ इंडिया सरकार के मन-मुताबिक चलते हैं, क्याLeader of the Opposition या leader of the single largest opposition party सरकार के हिसाब से चलते हैं । सभी इसके सदस्य हैं । आप सवालिया निशान सरकार के ऊपर नहीं लगा रहे हैं बल्कि इस इंस्टीट्यूशन पर लगा रहे हैं । जो कमेटी स्थापित की गई है, वह इसके ऊपर क्या जाएगी? जिनको सेलेक्ट करेंगे, क्या वह उन इंसानों को चांद से लेकर आएगी? पूरी दुनिया में एग्जेक्यूटिव का काम किया जाता है, लेकिन यहां पर इसमेंjudiciary and Leader of the Opposition को इंवॉल्व किया गया है, इससे आगे और कहां जाएंगे?

          यदि आप Directorate of Enforcement की भी बात करेंगे तो उसमें भी Central Vigilance Commission कमेटी मेम्बर हैं । सरकार के तीन-तीन सीनियर मोस्ट सेक्रेट्रीज, होम सेक्रेट्री, रेवेन्यू सेक्रेट्री और सेक्रेट्री, डीओपीटी उसके सदस्य हैं । ऐसा नही है कि piecemeal extension सरकार करेगी । यह काम कमेटी को करना है, वही कमेटी जिसने उस व्यक्ति को उपयुक्त पाया था और उस पद को ग्रहण करने के लिए रेकमेंड किया था । ऐसा क्या है कि अगर उसकी टर्म दो सालों तक है, तो वह ठीक है, लेकिन अगर वही कमेटी उसको एक्सेटेंशन देती है, तो वह डाउटफुल इश्यू हो गया । ऐसे कुछ विषयों पर हमें ध्यान देना चाहिए । इस मुद्दे में बार-बार यह चीज निकल कर आई है कि यह निजी कारणों से किया जा रहा है । किसी एक विशेष अधिकारी को एक सीट पर रखने के लिए किया जा रहा है । यह मुद्दा इंस्टीट्यूशनल है । वह व्यक्ति आज है, कल नहीं होगा, दो साल बाद नहीं होगा, लेकिन इंस्टीट्यूशन तो हमेशा के लिए है । निशिकांत दुबे जी ने अभी जिक्र किया है कि एक महीना रिटायरमेंट से पहले कैबिनेट सेक्रेट्री अप्वाइंट हुए और उसके बाद वह तीन सालों तक कैबिनेट सेक्रेट्री रहे । यहां पर यह भी कहा गया कि इसका ripple down effect नीचे वालों पर होता है । जिनका नम्बर इस पोस्ट के लिए लग सकता था, उनका हक मारा जाएगा ।…(व्यवधान)

          एक ऐसे आदमी जिनकी एक माह की सर्विस बची थी, उनको कैबिनेट सेक्रेट्री जैसे पोस्ट पर नियुक्त के लिए बाकियों के राइट्स की तिलांजलि दी जा सकती है, लेकिन यहां पर इनको याद आ रहा है कि नीचे के चार-पांच बैंचों का नुकसान हो जाएगा, पर किसी का नुकसान नहीं होगा । कर्नल राठौड़ ने अपने वक्तव्य में कहा था कि ये selection posts हैं, promotional posts नहीं हैं कि आप उस स्तर पर पहुंच जाएंगे, तो आपका यह बनना निश्चित है । जब मैं एकेडमी में था, तो किसी भले अफसर ने हमें समझाया था कि बेटा, तीन चीजें हैं, जो अंत में डिसाइड करेंगी कि तुम्हें टॉप पोजिशन मिलेगी या नहीं ।

18.00 hrs           पहली चीज़ `लक` है, दूसरी `कॉम्पिटेन्स`है और तीसरी `आपकी डेट ऑफ बर्थ` है द्य यह मौके की बात है कि किसका नंबर लगे या न लगे  । अंत में यह इश्यू आया था कि इसे ऑर्डिनेंस के माध्यम से क्यों लाया जाए? मैं इसे आदरणीय मंत्री जी के लिए छोड़ दूंगा  । मुझे विश्वास है कि वे इसका भरपूर जवाब देंगे । … (व्यवधान)

माननीय सभापति  : आप सबकी राय हो तो सभा का समय एक घंटे के लिए बढ़ाया जाए?

… ( व्यवधान)

अनेक माननीय सदस्य : जी हां । … (व्यवधान)

श्री बृजेन्द्र सिंह  : मैडम, मेरी बात खत्म हो गई है, सिर्फ15सेकेंड्स दे दीजिए । … (व्यवधान) मैं इस संबंध में बेंजामिन फ्रैंकलिन को क्वोट करूंगा ।

     

I quote:

“Remember not only to say the right thing in the right place, but far more difficult still to leave unsaid the wrong thing on the tempting moment.”           Madam, for quite some time, it has become fashionable in our country to belittle and diminish the Executive. I am all for legislative oversight and legal scrutiny on actions of the Executive. But it pains when other institutions try to encroach upon or usurp the role and authority of the Executive and even the Legislature. This is a Bill in the right direction. It does not whittle down the autonomy of these institutions in any way; rather it seeks to strengthen the institutional stability and continuity.

          With these words, I support these two Bills.

SHRI KURUVA GORANTLA MADHAV (HINDUPUR): Madam Chairperson, being the premier investigating agency of India, the Central Bureau of Investigation was originally set up to investigate bribery and governmental corruption. With the ever-increasing nature of serious crimes, CBI has expanded its jurisdiction to investigate breaches of Central laws, multi-State organized crime, multi-agency or international cases with emphasis on economic crimes, and also special crimes and cases of corruption.

18.02 hrs             (Shri N. K. Premachandran in the Chair)           I would like to highlight the positive aspects of the Delhi Special Police Establishment (Amendment) Bill, 2021. This Bill forms a crucial step in the right direction which would ensure the provision of a stable tenure to the Director of CBI as well as it will give a further push towards operational autonomy within the governmental system. The extension of tenure of the Director could be a welcome step to enhance the recruitment policies of the organisation to ensure an unbiased and unfavoured work force. Further, the provision of a statutory status to the agency, similar to that of the Comptroller and Auditor General and the Election Commission, will help maintain the independence of the institution. The Parliamentary Standing Committee recommendations made in 2007 on the promulgation of a separate Act is in tune with the requirement of the time to ensure credibility and impartiality. Long duration of tenure to the Director discourages corrupt people in indulging in anti-social and anti-national activities. It will reduce abuse or misuse or evasive use of authority of wrong doers and make them accountable for their acts and deeds if done unlawfully. It will reduce scope for tampering in the documentary and circumstantial evidence. It will help in developing appropriate and sequential strategies in office and field works.

          The disadvantages in this regard are that if too much power is given to the Director without any checks and balances, it will lead to arbitrary acts and illegal self-enrichment.

          With these words, I thank you.

SHRI ASADUDDIN OWAISI (HYDERABAD): Mr. Chairman, Sir, I thank you for giving me this opportunity.

          Sir, I stand to oppose both these Ordinances and I must say that, in my short political career, I have not seen such an audacious attempt to undermine a judgement of the Supreme Court. These two Ordinances are in contravention of the judgement of the Supreme Court.

          This Government is utterly in contempt of court.  That is para 23 of the Common Cause Judgment, which has been mentioned by you, Mr. Chairman, and also other hon. Members.

          Sir, this is also an issue of independence of investigative authorities.  Fixed tenure cannot be on the basis of whims and desires of the present Prime Minister.  The extension can only be given if the behaviour is good.  Now, this Ordinance creates an in-built mechanism of control in it so that both the Directors must subordinate themselves to the present Government.

          Thirdly, Sir, the CBI  was called as ‘caged parrot’ by an observation of the hon. Supreme Court.  But this Ordinance wants to take away even the vocal cord of the CBI.  This will take away the vocal cord of the CBI,  and the extension of tenure will be given as a ... *    That is what this Ordinance wants to do.

          In a Constitutional democracy, Sir, post cannot be treated as a patronage. They are creating a system where they have encouraged patronage.  In 2013, the then CM, Mr. Modi had called the CBI as ‘the Congress Bureau of Investigation’.  Can the Government say what reforms they have brought in the CBI?

          Sir, instead of reforms, they have brought an Ordinance to increase the CBI and ED dependence on the Government. How many cases were filed by the CBI against their own officials?  There were corruption charges against them.  In the last 10 years,  60 cases were filed against seven  IPS officers who were deputed.  Only four of its officials were convicted in 60 cases.  Out of these 10 years, seven years are of this Government.  This really shows what steps they have taken.  If an investigation is done on the basis of the political masters, then the independence goes away.

          Sir, you know for a fact that every constitutional power is coupled with  duty.  Now, that is an accepted principle of administrative and constitutional law.  But the reality is that the power to investigate has become the power to harass. The ‘duty to victims’ has been replaced with the ‘duty to please their political bosses’.

          I can give an example, Sir.  The CBI was investigating the criminal case on demolition of Babri Masjid.  The court exonerated all the accused.  Why did they not file an appeal?  They did not file an appeal because the CBI officers owe their existence to their ideological political masters.  But they will file an appeal against Shri Raja.  Why?  It is because he is a dalit.

          I will give you another example, Sir.   In the then Andhra Pradesh, the then DGP wrote one letter against a Congress leader, that was signed by a Congress MLA, and posted it to the High Court, and the CBI investigated it.  Now, that person is on a constitutional post.

          I can give you another example.  An MP of Rampur is in jail.  Why? It is because when he was a Minister and he did appointments. But what about his Chief Minister?  They do not want to go against the ex-Chief Minister, but they want to go against the MP of Rampur!            Sir, if they are really interested in the independence of the CBI, they should remove Section 6A of the DSP Act and Section 26 of the CVC Act.  But they do not want to do it.

          Sir, I would give you another example showing how the Government is controlling the CBI.  I would quote about the appointment letter of the present CBI Director and the appointment letter of the then CBI Director in 2019.  Please give me one minute. I want to quote it.

          In the May 2021appointment of the present Director, it says: “…for a period of two years from the date of assumption of assumption of charge of the office or until further order, whichever is earlier.”  The notification says that the ACC approval is based on panel recommended by the Committee.

          Now, in 2019, I will read what it says.   It says: “The Appointments Committee of the Cabinet has, based on the panel recommended by the Committee, constituted as per Section 4 of the DSP Act, approved the appointment of so and so as Director CBI for a period of two years from the date of assumption of the charge of the office.”           But this is not mentioned in the present appointment of May 2021.  Why?  It is again because they want to keep that person on their discretion. If he does not act, remove him.

          Sir, I would conclude by asking the Government that these Ordinances will be stuck down -- this is my opinion --  in NJAC.  They are not reading the writing on the wall.  They passed two farm laws.  People have not accepted them, and they have withdrawn them.  What are they doing?  They came to power because of the Lokpal movement.  What has been the development on Lokpal?  This Government is not reading the writing on the wall.

          I will oppose this Bill.  They are getting carried away in power.  Power is not eternal.  Today, they are in power; tomorrow they will not be there.

          You are making five years.  Tomorrow, if Congress or any other party comes into power, you should not shout or complain because you have created a double-edged sword which will also hit you badly.  You are not going to be there forever.  Very soon you will be coming here insha' Allah. But you are creating such a system of control where every political party uses it. 

          That is why, Sir, I oppose these two Ordinances.  I hope, wisdom will dawn on the Government.  After withdrawing the farm laws, I was expecting that a saner position would be taken by the Prime Minister but this Government is drunk on power and arrogance.  They will face the wrath of the people.  Thank you.

श्री हनुमान बेनीवाल(नागौर): सभापति महोदय, मैं सदन में आज केन्द्रीय सतर्कता आयोग (संशोधन) विधेयक, 2021 और दिल्ली विशेष पुलिस स्थापन (संशोधन) विधेयक, 2021 पर हो रही चर्चा में भाग लेने के लिए आपको धन्यवाद देता हूं । लोकहित में ईडी और सीबीआई के निदेशक का कार्यकाल बढ़ाने के उद्देश्य को लोकहित में बताया गया है । मेरे से पूर्व के विद्वान वक्ताओं, जो विपक्ष में थे, उन्होंने सत्ता-पक्ष पर आरोप लगाए और जो सत्ता-पक्ष में थे, उन्होंने विपक्ष पर आरोप लगाए । यह सही है कि सीबीआई स्वतंत्र एजेंसी है, लेकिन कहीं न कहीं स्वतंत्र एजेंसियों के ऊपर भी किसी की कमान होनी चाहिए । जब स्टेट गवर्नमेंट की बात होती है, तो मैं अपने क्षेत्र के बारे में कुछ बताना चाहता हूं । मेरे साथ एक केंद्रीय मंत्री थे । हमारे ऊपर हमला   हुआ । उस मामले की आज तक एफआईआर लॉज नहीं हो सकी है । अगर दिल्ली में कोई आदमी अपील नहीं करेगा, कहीं नहीं जाएगा तो स्टेट गवर्नमेंट जिसके खिलाफ होगी, उस आदमी को वह रगड़कर रख देगी । अत: सीबीआई को भी बिल्कुल स्वतंत्र नहीं होना चाहिए और इस पर केन्द्र का नियंत्रण रहना चाहिए ।

          महोदय, मैंने तो यह भी कहा था कि कॉलेजियम में हाई कोर्ट और सुप्रीम कोर्ट के न्यायाधीशों के मनोनयन में भी सरकारी हस्तक्षेप होना चाहिए॥ हमारे यहां लोकतंत्र है और सबसे बड़ी विधायिका है । हम लोग यहां बैठे हैं, इसलिए विधायिका सबसे बड़ी है, यह मैसेज पूरे देश में जाना चाहिए । मैं सरकार से एक बात पूछना चाहूंगा कि 3 दिन पहले आप ईडी के डायरेक्टर का कार्यकाल बढ़ाने का अध्यादेश लेकर आ रहे हैं । इसमें कौन-से लोग हैं, मंत्री जी जब जवाब दें तो इसके बारे में जरूर बताएं । मैं मंत्री जी से यह पूछना चाहता हूं कि जब सुप्रीम कोर्ट ने यह कहा कि दुर्लभ मामलों में ही कार्यकाल बढ़ाया जाए, ऐसे में ऐसी कौन-सी स्थिति बन गई और इसे लाना क्यों आवश्यक हुआ, यह माननीय मंत्री जी कृपया बताने का कष्ट करें । विपक्ष के माननीय सदस्यों ने सुप्रीम कोर्ट की भावना का उल्लेख करते हुए इन बिलों का विरोध किया । मैं उन्हें बताना चाहता हूं कि वर्ष-2013में जब यूपीए की सरकार थी, तब कोल फील्ड आवंटन के मामलों की सुनवाई के दौरान सुप्रीम कोर्ट ने उस समय सीबीआई को पिंजरे में बंद तोता बताया था । वे सभी माननीय सदस्य तो अपना भाषण देकर चले गए, अब मैं यह बात किसको सुनाऊं? ओवैसी साहब तो थर्ड फ्रंट में आते हैं ।

          महोदय, इस बात को याद रखना चाहिए । माननीय मंत्री जी ने दिल्ली विशेष पुलिस स्थापन (संशोधन) विधेयक, 2021के बारे में कहा, इस बारे में मैं विस्तार से नहीं जाना चाहता हूं, क्योंकि कई माननीय सदस्यों ने इस बारे में अपनी बात पहले ही कह दी है । मैं आपको यह बताना चाहता हूं कि लोगों का विश्वास सीबीआई जैसी संस्था पर बहुत अधिक है । आज भी स्टेट में जब कोई आंदोलन होता है और हम वहां पहुंचते हैं, तो लोगों की सबसे पहली डिमांड यही होती है कि सीबीआई जांच कराई जाए । यह सही है कि सीबीआई में इतने ज्यादा मामले हो गए हैं, जिस कारण सीबीआई समय पर उन मामलों का खुलासा नहीं कर पा रही है, क्योंकि उनके पास पर्याप्त स्टाफ और तंत्र नहीं होगा, लेकिन आज भी इस देश के आम नागरिक को सीबीआई पर भरोसा है । सीबीआई जांच ही उनका सबसे बड़ा भरोसा है ।

          महोदय, न्याय समय पर न मिलना भी अन्याय ही है । सीबीआई के पास लंबित मामलों की संख्या ज्यादा है, इसलिए उनका निस्तारण जल्द से जल्द कैसे हो, उस पर ध्यान दिया जाए । अगर संसाधनों और स्टाफ की कमी है, तो सरकार उनको पूरा करे । 1 दिसम्बर, 2021 को मेरे सवाल के जवाब में दिए गए सीबीआई के लंबित मामलों की तरफ मैं सदन का ध्यान आकर्षित करना चाहूंगा । इसमें आपने बताया कि 25 नवम्बर, 2021 तक सीबीआई के पास राजस्थान से जुड़े 25 मामलों और अन्य राज्यों से जुड़े 1256 मामलों की जांच लंबित है । मैं इस संदर्भ में मंत्री जी से कहना चाहता हूं कि राजस्थान में बाड़मेर जिले में कमलेश प्रजापत नामक व्यक्ति का फर्जी एनकाउंटर हुआ, जिसमें राजस्थान सरकार के एक पूर्व मंत्री और उनके परिजनों का नाम आया । इसकी जांच सीबीआई कर रही है । उसी पूर्व मंत्री के इशारे पर इससे पहले मेरे तथा कैबिनेट मंत्री, भारत सरकार के ऊपर जानलेवा हमला हुआ था, जिसका जिक्र अभी थोड़ी देर पहले मैंने इस सदन में किया था । कमलेश प्रजापत फर्जी एनकाउंटर की जांच जल्द से जल्द होनी चाहिए, ताकि आरोपी सलाखों के पीछे भेजे जाएं ।  

          महोदय, इसके साथ ही मैं यह भी कहना चाहता हूं कि राजस्थान के पाली जिले के फालना में 23 नवम्बर, 2016 को मनोहर राजपुरोहित नामक छात्र का अपहरण हुआ था । राजस्थान सरकार की जांच एजेंसियां अभी तक उस बालक को ढूंढ पाने में नाकाम रही है । उनके परिजनों की मांग और जनता के दबाव पर राजस्थान सरकार ने इस मामले की जांच सीबीआई से कराने की अनुशंसा भेजी, लेकिन आज तक सीबीआई ने इस मामले में जांच शुरू नहीं की है । राजस्थान उच्च न्यायालय ने इस मामले को लेकर सीबीआई से जवाब तलब किया है । अत: मेरा अनुरोध है कि ऐसे संवेदनशील मामले की जांच त्वरित प्रभाव से शुरू की जाए ।   

          महोदय, इसी प्रकार 21-06-2009 को राजस्थान के चक राजासर (नोहर) में एक हत्याकांड हुआ, जिसमें तीन लालचन्द सुथार, उसकी पत्नी सरोज व सिमरन तथा नीथा (उसकी बेटी) की हत्या हुई । 28-09-2016को सीबीआई ने एफआईआर दर्ज की, लेकिन आज तक कोई नतीजा नहीं निकला मतलब 6 साल हो गए हैं । मैं सरकार से माँग करूँगा कि इसके अंदर सीबीआई जल्दी से जल्दी नतीजा निकाले ।

महोदय, मेरा एक निवेदन और है कि हाल ही में जोधपुर में वाल्मीकि समाज के एक युवक लवली कंडारा को फर्जी एनकाउंटर में मार दिया गया, जो मुख्यमंत्री के इलाके के अंदर आता है । वहाँ बड़ा आन्दोलन हुआ, मैं खुद वहाँ गया और वहाँ सीबीआई जाँच की माँग की गई, क्योंकि उसको 7 या8गोली मारी गयी थीं । गाड़ी के अंदर नजदीक से गोली मारी गयी थी ।

          महोदय, मुझे एक मिनट का समय दीजिए । आप भी सिंगल मेंबर पार्टी हैं । हम भी ऐसे ही   हैं ।

माननीय सभापति : आपने5 मिनट माँगे, लेकिन आपको बोलते हुए 7 मिनट हो गए हैं ।

श्री हनुमान बेनीवाल:आप इतना ध्यान रखिए । मुझे मात्र एक मिनट दीजिए ।

          लवली कंडारा हत्याकांड की सीबीआई जाँच हो । मैं एक बात कहना चाहूँगा कि जब बोफोर्स घोटाला हुआ था, तब हम स्कूल, कॉलेज में पढ़ा करते थे । हाई कोर्ट ने सीबीआई को टेक्निकल ग्राउंड पर उस केस को क्लोज करने की बात कही थी, लेकिन सीबीआई सुप्रीम कोर्ट जाना चाहती थी ।

माननीयसभापति:ओके ।

श्री हनुमान बेनीवाल:सरकार ने सीबीआई को सुप्रीम कोर्ट जाने से रोका ताकि क्वात्रोची का जो पैसा फ्रीज किया, वह पैसा बाहर निकल जाए और उसका अरबों-खरबों रुपया बाहर निकल गया, जो इनका रिश्तेदार था ।,वह पूरी दुनिया जानती है । उस समय पूरे वर्ल्ड के अंदर बोफोर्स घोटाले की गूँज थी । उससे सरकार चली गई, कई मंत्री चले गए ।

माननीय सभापति : धन्यवाद ।

श्री हनुमान बेनीवाल: इन्होंने भी सीबीआई का बहुत दुरुपयोग किया । जिसका मौका लगा, उसने मौके पर चौका लगाया । धन्यवाद ।

माननीय सभापति : बेनीवाल जी, आप सपोर्ट करते हैं या अपोज करते हैं?

श्री हनुमान बेनीवाल: मैं बिल का समर्थन करता हूँ ।

माननीय सभापति : ओके ।

 

*DR. D. RAVIKUMAR (VILUPPURAM): Hon.  Chairman Sir, Vanakkam. I oppose these two Amendment Bills.

The hon. Guwahati High Court had pronounced in its verdict that CBI was an illegally formed institution. After that, immediately a stay was obtained  from the hon. Supreme Court in this regard.  That is the reason why CBI continues to exist in this country. After being termed as an illegal institution by a High Court and thereafter an order of the hon. Supreme Court against that verdict, this Bill, which aims to extend the tenure of the Director of CBI, is being brought here in this august House.

The hon Supreme Court itself, in a case, termed CBI as a ‘caged bird’. Many hon. MPs made a mention about this in this august House.  In Tamil Nadu, parrots are used for fortune telling, which is called as parrot astrology. Parrots will be picking up the fortune cards. Similarly, CBI been made to do the work assigned by the Government.

In 2021 August, the High Court bench headed by Justice Kirubakaran and Justice Pugalendhi, in a verdict said that CBI should be allowed to function independently by the Union Government. Only when CBI functions independently, it can investigate the cases and can prevent crimes.

 

The Reports of National Crimes Records Bureau say that every year the atrocities against the SCs and STs are on the rise. CBI also investigates certain cases related to atrocities against SCs and STs. If we see whether CBI has investigated such cases very seriously or ensured that the culprits are punished, the answer remains a big ‘No’. Therefore, the stark reality is that CBI has become an organization used by the ruling dispensation for carrying out their political agenda.

As per a verdict of the Madras High Court, the CBI should be allowed to function independently. We have several autonomous institutions in India like the Election Commission of India. Similarly, CBI should be made an autonomous Body.

If the Government takes steps in this regard making CBI an independent institution, we will definitely support those initiatives. But this Amendment Bill is aimed to keep CBI under the political control of the Union Government.  That is the reason for which we are opposing this Bill. I therefore urge that CBI should be made to function independently and it should be given an autonomous status. Thank you for this opportunity.

       

श्री दुलाल चन्द्र गोस्वामी (कटिहार): माननीय सभापति महोदय, आज मैं महत्वपूर्ण बिल पर बोलने के लिए खड़ा हुआ हूं । ये बिल हैं– केन्द्रीय सतर्कता आयोग (संशोधन) बिल, 2021 और दिल्ली विशेष पुलिस स्थापन (संशोधन) विधेयक, 2021. महोदय, आखिर इन बिलों को क्यों लाना पड़ा? भारत सरकार इन बिलों को क्यों ला रही है? इन पर लम्बा विचार-विमर्श और बहस हुई है । आज इनकी उपयोगिता को पूरा देश भी महसूस करता है और हम लोग यहां सदन में भी महसूस करते हैं । सरकार जिस पारदर्शिता के साथ इन बिल्स को लाई है, उसको हम सब महसूस कर रहे हैं ।

केंद्र सरकार पिछले महीने 14 नवंबर को प्रवर्तन निदेशालय (ईडी) के प्रमुख के कार्यकाल को बढ़ाने के लिए एक अध्यादेश लाई थी । उस अध्यादेश में राष्ट्रपति महोदय की सहमति भी हो गई, मंजूरी हो गई । अब उस अध्यादेश को इस विधेयक के माध्यम से संसद में पेश किया गया है, जिसका मैं और मेरी पार्टी समर्थन करती है ।

केंद्रीय सतर्कता आयोग (संशोधन) बिल के जरिए ईडी प्रमुख का कार्यकाल पाँच साल का होगा । अभी तक प्रवर्तन निदेशालय (ईडी) के प्रमुख का कार्यकाल दो साल का होता था, लेकिन बिल के पास होने पर प्रमुख का कार्यकाल पांच साल होगा । इस कानून के बनने के बाद दो साल के बाद एक-एक साल का एक्सटेंशन दिया जाएगा । इसमें कौन सी परेशानी है, कौन सी बड़ी बात है? ईडी प्रमुख को चुनने का काम कौन करते हैं? इसका अपॉइंटमेंट कैसे होता है? इस पर भी गौर करने की जरूरत है । इस विधेयक में केन्द्रीय सतर्कता आयोग अधिनियम, 2003 की धारा 25 में एक क्लॉज़ जोड़कर अब पहले के दो साल के कार्यकाल को पांच साल की अवधि तक बढ़ाने का प्रावधान किया गया है ।

सभापति महोदय, वर्ष2006 में ऐसा कुछ नियम भी आया है । प्रकाश सिंह, पूर्व डीजीपी, उत्तर प्रदेश ने सुप्रीम कोर्ट में पुलिस सुधारों को, जो राष्ट्रीय पुलिस आयोग की सिफारिशें थीं, को लागू करने के लिये एक याचिका सुप्रीम कोर्ट में दायर की थी । उसके निस्तारण में सुप्रीम कोर्ट ने यह कहा था कि पुलिस महानिदेशक का कार्यकाल तय होना चाहिए । यदि वे अपनी अधिवर्षता यानी 60 वर्ष की आयु पूरी कर लेते हैं तब भी उन्हें कम से कम दो साल का कार्यकाल मिलना चाहिए । उसी के बाद केंद्रीय पुलिस बलों में जैसे बीएसएफ, सीआरपीएफ और शीर्ष जांच एजेंसियां– सीबीआई, एनआईए के प्रमुखों पर भी यह आदेश लागू होगा । ईडी के निदेशक की नियुक्ति डीजीपी के समकक्ष होने के कारण इनको दो वर्ष की अवधि का विस्तार दिया गया था ।

सभापति महोदय, सीबीआई निदेशक की नियुक्ति कोई सामान्य प्रक्रिया नहीं है कि प्रधान मंत्री जी ने उनका मनोनयन कर दिया और आसानी से हो गया । उनकी नियुक्ति के लिए सुप्रीम कोर्ट के जज, लोक सभा के प्रतिपक्ष के नेता की एक कमेटी होती है और कमेटी के माध्यम से योग्य व्यक्ति की नियुक्ति होती है तो उनको एक्सटेंशन देने में कहीं कोई बात नहीं है । डीपीजी और संवेदनशील जाँच एजेंसियों के प्रमुखों के तयशुदा कार्यकाल रखने के पीछे सुप्रीम कोर्ट की भी मंशा रही है ।

सुप्रीम कोर्ट की मंशा थी कि एक तयशुदा कार्यकाल इनको मिलना चाहिए । … (व्यवधान) थोड़ा सा समय और दीजिए । … (व्यवधान)

HON. CHAIRPERSON : Please conclude. One Member from your party has already spoken.

… ( व्यवधान)

श्री दुलाल चन्द्र गोस्वामी : महोदय, पहले हमारी पार्टी से केवल एक सदस्य ने ही बोला है, अभी छह मिनट का समय पार्टी का बचा है । सुप्रीम कोर्ट की मंशा थी कि एक तयशुदा कार्यकाल इनको मिलना चाहिए । इसमें भारत सरकार की कोई मंशा खराब नहीं है । अगर यह कानून बनने जा रहा है और भारत सरकार अवधि विस्तार कर कर रही है तो यह देश के लिए एक संवैधानिक व्यवस्था हो रही है । इसका प्रयोग आने वाले दिनों में भी निरंतर होता रहेगा । इसके कंटेंट पर भी लोगों ने, चाहे विनीत नारायण केस हो, प्रकाश सिंह केस हो, इसके बारे में भी कई माननीय सदस्य ने कहा  है ।

माननीय सभापति : अब आप अपनी बात समाप्त कीजिए ।

… ( व्यवधान)

श्री दुलाल चन्द्र गोस्वामी : महोदय, मैं अपनी बात समाप्त करने की ओर हॅूं । सभापति महोदय, सरकार की मंशा साफ है और आप बार-बार कह रहे हैं कि समय भी बहुत हो गया है, इसीलिए इस बिल के लागू होने से भ्रष्टाचार, आर्थिक अपराध, काला कानून … (व्यवधान)

माननीय सभापति : धन्यवाद । अब आप कनक्लूड कीजिए ।

          सुश्री सुनीता दुग्गल जी ।

श्री दुलाल चन्द्र गोस्वामी : महोदय, इसके साथ-साथ मैं दोनों बिलों का समर्थन करता हॅूं और सरकार को धन्यवाद देता हॅूं ।

सुश्रीसुनीता दुग्गल (सिरसा): सभापति महोदय, मैं सेंट्रल विजिलेंस कमीशन अमेंडमेंड बिल, 2021 और दिल्ली स्पेशल पुलिस स्टेबलिशमेंट अमेंडमेंट बिल, 2021 के समर्थन में बोलने के लिए यहां पर उपस्थित हुई हॅूं । सर, आपने ही इस बिल की चर्चा पर बोलने की शुरूआत की थी । तब आप हमारे आदरणीय मंत्री जी से कह रहे थे कि वे इस बिल को देख कर स्माइल कर रहे हैं और थोड़ी देर के बाद ही अधीर रंजन जी कह रहे थे कि मंत्री जी अब आप स्माइल नहीं कर रहे   हैं । मैं तो सोच रही थी कि यह कितना मुश्किल काम है कि एक कह रहे हैं कि आप स्माइल कर रहे हैं, दूसरे कह रहे हैं कि आप स्माइल नहीं कर रहे हैं तो वे स्माइल करें कि नहीं करें ।

          महोदय, मुझे ऐसा लगता है कि इस बिल में ऐसा कुछ भी नहीं है कि जिसको हम समर्थन न करें । हालांकि मैं हैरान हो रही थी कि हमारे मनीष तिवारी जी ने जिस तरह से सीबीआई ऑर्गन के ऊपर ही क्वेश्चन मार्क लगा दिया । उन्होंने कहा कि सीबीआई की ज़रूरत ही क्या है । यह तो बहुत टाइम से सुप्रीम कोर्ट भी कह रही है कि सीबीआई को खत्म ही करना चाहिए । हमारे हनुमान जी भी ठीक बात कह रहे थे कि आप कहीं पर भी देखिए, कहीं कोई भी बात राज्य में होती है और वहां सैटिसफेक्शन अगर उनको नहीं होती है । … (व्यवधान) अब यह इनसे पूछिए न कि एक कह रहे हैं कि मंत्री जी स्माइल कीजिए, दूसरे कह रहे हैं कि मंत्री जी आप स्माइल क्यों कर रहे हैं । वे मंत्री जी बेचारे इतनी दिक्कत में आ गए कि हम स्माइल करें कि नहीं करें । …(व्यवधान) तो मैं बता रही थी कि जैसा कि हनुमान जी ने बताया कि जहां कहीं पर भी किसी को थोड़ी सी भी डिससैटिस्फैक्शन होती है तो उनको यह लगता है कि राज्य सरकार ठीक से काम नहीं कर रही है तो हमें सीबीआई से उसकी जांच करवानी चाहिए । सीबीआई की जो ऑथेंटिसिटी है, उसके ऊपर जो ट्रस्ट है, उस पर हम बिल्कुल क्वेश्चन मार्क नहीं लगा सकते हैं ।

          आदरणीय सभापति महोदय, अगर हम पिछला रिकॉर्ड निकाल कर देखें तो मैं बिना नाम लिए आपके बताऊंगी कि सबसे पहले 19.08.1957से लेकर 17.01.1965 तक एक ही डायरेक्टर रहे । उसके बाद दूसरे नंबर पर 24.08.2005 से18.08.2008तक एक डायरेक्टर   रहे । 18.08.2008 से ले कर 29.02.2012 तक एक डायरेक्टर रहे । इन पांच डायरेक्टर्स की मैं बात कर रही हॅूं, जिनका टेन्योर 7-8सालों तक भी रहा है । इनके अलावा 23.03.2012से ले कर 20.08.2015 और20.08.2015से ले कर 27.10.2018 तक भी डायरेक्टर रहे । एक अधिकारी तो ऐसे हैं, ED में स्पेशल डायरेक्टर की कोई पोस्ट नहीं होती है, लेकिन कांग्रेस की सरकार ने उनको स्पेशल डायरेक्टर की पोस्ट दी । उन्हीं अधिकारी को ही हमारी सरकार ने बाद में अंतरिम डायरेक्टर बनाया । उसके बाद उनको फुल फ्लेज्ड डायरेक्टर बना दिया । आपने नोटिस किया होगा कि कांग्रेस ने इतने सालों तक राज किया, जो भी अधिकारी उस समय थे, किसी को भी तब्दील नहीं किया । उन्हीं अधिकारियों से किस तरह से काम लेना है, यह माननीय प्रधान मंत्री जी ने हम सबको कर के दिखाया और प्रधान मंत्री जी बिल्कुल साफ सुथरी बात कहते हैं कि अधिकारी वही हैं, हमें काम कैसे लेना है यह देखना है और अधिकारी भी बहुत अच्छी तरह से समझ जाते हैं । मैं खुद भी एक अधिकारी रही हॅूं । हमारे माननीय सदस्य ब्रिजेन्द्र सिंह जी भी अधिकारी रहे हैं  । मुझे एक बात बहुत ही बुरी लगी । इसका मैं ऑब्जेक्शन करना चाहती हूँ । अभी सौगत राय जी ने क्या कहा? ऑफिसर्स के लिए उन्होंने … *शब्द का इस्तेमाल किया । मुझे लगता है कि हम सभी को उनकी इस बात के लिए ऑब्जेक्शन करना चाहिए । क्योंकि, बहुत मेहनत करने के बाद हमारे ऑफिसर्स का सेलेक्शन होता है और उसके बाद वे देश के लिए काम करते हैं । पुलिस फोर्स भी इसी तरह से काम करती है । उन्होंने हमारे ऊपर व्यंग्य भी किया  । वह कह रहे थे कि बी.जे.पी. के जो 303 सदस्य हैं, यह अब उल्टा होने वाला है । अगर 303उल्टे भी हो जाएंगे तो हम 303 ही रहने वाले हैं । मुझे लग रहा है कि शायद उन्होंने इस बात का ध्यान नहीं दिया होगा ।

          महोदय, मैं यह कहना चाह रही हूँ कि हमें इसके अंदर कोई दिक्कत नहीं होनी चाहिए । जो दो साल का टेन्योर था, उसकोबढ़ायाजानाहै ।हमारे एक ऑनरेबल एम.पी. साहब ऑब्जेक्शन कर रहे थे जैसे कि अकेले प्रधानमंत्री जी इसके अंदर सब कुछ कर रहे हैं, ऐसानहीं है बल्कि पूरी कमेटी है । चाहे हम सी.बी.आई. की बात करें, चाहे सी.वी.सी. की बात करें, दोनों के अंदर बकायदा कमेटी है । सी.वी.सी. के अंदर बहुत सारे ऑफिसर्स हैं । सी.बी.आई. के अंदर आदरणीय प्रधानमंत्री जी है और चीफ जस्टिस है, इसके साथ ही अभी विपक्ष के लीडर भी इसके अंदर है । इसके बावजूद भी इनको दिक्कत है तो मुझे समझ में नहीं आ रहा है कि इससे ज्यादा क्लियर चीज क्या हो सकती है ।… (व्यवधान)

          महोदय, मैं अपनी बात कंक्लूड कर रही हूँ । हमारे आदरणीय सत्यपाल जी ने बताया कि एफ.बी.आई. के एक अधिकारी व डायरेक्टर 48 साल तक रहे । एक अधिकारी रॉबर्ट जी 12 साल तक रहे, जिनका इन्होंने जिक्र किया ।

महोदय, अभी हमारे रितेश जी एक बड़ा अच्छा शेर सुना रहे थे, मैं भी उसका जवाब देकर अपनी बात कंक्लूड करना चाहूँगी । उन्होंने कहा कि  इस बार ज़मीन में धुंआ बोया है, फल नहीं शाखों पर बम लगेंगे ।

          जब से आदरणीय प्रधानमंत्री जी की सरकार आई है, हम सब लोगों की सरकार आई है, बी.जे.पी. की सरकार आई है, तब से आपने देखा होगा कि अब भारत के लोग बम नहीं देख रहे हैं । वह एक समय था, जब जगह-जगह विस्फोट हुआ करते थे । चाहे इंटरनेशनल टेररिज़म का मामला हो, ये सब के सब मामले कैसे हुए? ये सभी मामले ई.डी. और सी.बी.आई. से ही खत्म होंगे ।…(व्यवधान)

     

          महोदय, लास्ट में,मैं एक शेर सुनाकर अपनी बात खत्म करना चाहूँगी ।

सुना है समुद्र को बड़ा गुमान आया है,           वहीं पर ले चलो कश्ती, जहाँ तुफान आया है ।

 

          बहुत-बहुत धन्यवाद ।

*SUSHRI S. JOTHIMANI (KARUR):  Hon.  Chairman Sir, Vanakkam. I oppose the Central Vigilance Commission Amendment Bill. This dangerous Bill has been brought before this august House by the hon. Minister with a smile on his face.

Shri Modi led BJP Government came to power after giving false promises to the people during the poll campaign in the year 2014 that they will be eradicating corruption and black money in the country besides providing a clean governance. Have you fulfilled those promises? No. You gave assurances that all the black money stashed away in Swiss Banks will be brought back to India and you will be depositing Rs. 15 lakh in each of the bank accounts of Indian citizens. Have you eradicated corruption? Have you deposited the money in the accounts of Indian citizens after bringing back that black money from Switzerland? No. What are you doing now? You are just bringing changes or removing all the laws brought by the Congress Government which were aimed to eradicate corruption. From Panama Papers to the recently leaked Pandora Papers, all are aimed to save the money of your corporate friends. Can you deny this with evidence? Definitely not.

 

The UPA Government  provided a clean governance for the welfare of the poor, downtrodden, farmers, and others, making the country the third largest economy of the world. The UPA Government was led by two honest leaders, the then Prime Minister Dr. Manmohan Singh under the guidance of hon. Sonia Gandhi. But you shielded Anna Hazare in the forefront and claimed the then Congress Government to be a corrupt Government. But if that is true, what was the legal action taken against us in the last 7 years? Nothing.

The then Congress Government was untainted and it was the one which actually executed the war against corruption in a full-fledged manner. We brought several legislations to check corruption, bring transparency in governance, and to empower the people like the Right to Information Act. Central Vigilance Commission Act. What is the status of these laws? … (Interruptions)

HON. CHAIRPERSON : Madam Jothimani, Please control your speed. It is not only that I am not able to follow what you are saying; it is also very difficult to translate for them.

… (Interruptions)

SUSHRI S. JOTHIMANI : Yes Sir. What happened to these laws during “Ache Din” days of the rule of hon. Narendra Modi? These laws are lying at your feet on the verge of death. Hon. Narendra Modi has not only made these laws ineffective, but has taken life away from them.

During the first five-year term of its rule, the Modi Government, by using their absolute majority in Parliament ensured that the functioning of all the institutions which were considered as giving head ache to them got paralysed. The most important among them is the Right to Information Act.

In the year 2004, the Congress Government gave this RTI as a powerful tool in the hands of the people to fight against corruption. But after Shri Narendra Modi came to power, he made RTI Act worthless. The Central Information Commissioner played a major role in eradicating corruption. But this post was lying vacant during the first 10 months of BJP Government in 2014.  After bringing amendments to the RTI Act, the powers of the Central Information Commissioner were also snatched away. The CIC was having powers equivalent to that of the Chief Election Commissioner and Central Vigilance Commissioner. Moreover, the tenure of the CIC was also brought down from 5 years to 3 years. Now the Union Government is trying to extend the tenure of CVC to five years. Why has it brought down the tenure of the CIC from 5 years to 3 years? The hon. Minister should clarify this.

It is evident that the tenure of the Director is extended just to keep CVC under its control. If this Government is really against corruption, why is it afraid of a law being used by the people to check corruption? Why is the Government bringing amendments after amendments? You should clarify. Not only that, you have used electoral bonds for … *. During 2018, the percentage of electoral bonds sold by BJP was 75. During 2019-20 it went up to 79%. I wish to state that BJP got approximately Rs. 4500 Crore through electoral bonds.

HON. CHAIRPERSON: Please conclude.

SUSHRI S. JOTHIMANI : Congress and its allies have won in the recent bye-elections. BJP has lost almost everywhere. It shows that BJP has lost its credibility. That is why you want to dilute the laws like RTI Act and CVC Act. You want to bring them under your control. Your action is not in the interest of our nation or the people.  I therefore oppose this Amendment Bill.

Thank you.

     

कुंवर दानिश अली (अमरोहा): माननीय सभापति जी, आपने मुझे केंद्रीय सतर्कता आयोग (संशोधन) विधेयक, 2021 और दिल्ली विशेष पुलिस स्थापन (संशोधन) विधेयक, 2021 पर बोलने का अवसर दिया है, मैं इसके लिए बहुत आभारी हूं ।

          महोदय, बुलेट ट्रेन तो हिन्दुस्तान में चली नहीं, लेकिन आज हमने सदन में देखा कि हमारी एक महिला साथी ने दिखा दिया कि बुलेट ट्रेन की स्पीड से अगर आप समय कम करने की घंटी भी बजाएं तो भी अपनी पूरी बात बहुत कम समय में कही जा सकती है । I compliment Jothimani Ji.

       मैं आपके माध्यम से इतना ही कहना चाहता हूं कि यह सरकार, ऑर्डिनेंस की सरकार, पहले दिन से है । वर्ष 2014 में माननीय मोदी जी ने शपथ ग्रहण की तो सबसे पहला काम अगर इनकी कैबिनेट ने किया तो वह ऑर्डिनेंस लाने का किया । आपको कोई अफसर प्रिंसिपल सैक्रेट्री बनाने के लिए रूल चेंज करने के लिए ऑर्डिनेंस लाना पड़ा ।

आज दो अमेंडमेंट बिल आए हैं, क्या जरूरत है? कोर्ट ने कहा कि दो साल का फिक्स टेन्योर होगा । आप वर्ष 2019 में राइट टू इन्फार्मेशन एक्ट में अमेंडमेंट लाए और इन्फार्मेशन कमिश्नर के पांच साल के टेन्योर को घटाकर तीन साल किया । डायरेक्टर सीबीआई, डायरेक्टर ईडी, मैं यहां किसी अफसर का नाम नहीं लेना चाहता हूं । मैं जानता हूं, हमारे एग्जीक्यूटिव सिस्टम में, जिसकी सरकार होती है, जो ऊपर बैठा होता है, उसकी बात सुननी पड़ती है ।  मैं यह नहीं कह सकता - जिसकी लाठी उसकी भैंस । मैं इतना ही कह रहा हूं क्या जरूरत थी? क्या आपको और अफसरों पर भरोसा नहीं है?  क्या कुछ स्पेशिएलिटी है कि यही दो अफसर, एक्स या वाई होंगे? आप देश को कहां ले जा रहे हैं?

इस बिल की संरचना है -  हम भ्रष्टाचार, कालाधन और अंतर्राष्ट्रीय वित्तीय अपराधों का खतरा, आतंकवाद से पेचीदा संबध और अन्य दंडनीय अपराध राष्ट्रीय सुरक्षा और हमारे देश की वित्तीय प्रणाली की स्थिरता को गंभीर संकट उत्पन्न करते हैं । दुनिया ने देखा कि कैसे नोटबंदी में आपने भ्रष्टाचार किया ।

          कितना कैश था? आप रोज प्रेस कांफ्रेंस करते थे कि साहब कैश खत्म करना है, लेकिन आज दुगुना कैश है … (व्यवधान) सभापति महोदय, मुझे आपका संरक्षण चाहिए ।

HON. CHAIRPERSON :  If you are speaking on the Bill, time will be permitted. There is no time.

… (Interruptions)

कुंवर दानिश अली : मैं उसी पर बोल रहा हूं । मैं आपके माध्यम से सिर्फ इतना कहना चाहता हूं कि जब आपने ऐलान किया कि नोटबंदी करनी है, किसलिए? आपने कहा था कि भ्रष्टाचार खत्म करना है, कालाधन खत्म करना है और आपने कहा था कि आतंकवाद खत्म करना है । मैं पूछना चाहता हूं कि कितना विदेशी बैंकों से कालाधन वापस आया? मैं पूछना चाहता हूं कि कितना आतंकवाद खत्म हुआ? आपने कहा था कि कैशलेश इकोनॉमी होगी । कैशलेश इकोनॉमी कहां हुई? … (व्यवधान) आज मार्केट में दुगुना कैश फ्लो हो रहा है । आप जो यहां बताते हैं, उसको आप इम्प्लीमेंट नहीं करते हैं ।

18.41 hrs                                   (Hon. Speaker in the Chair)           अध्यक्ष महोदय, मैं आपका सरंक्षण चाहता हूं ।

माननीय अध्यक्ष : आपका समय हो गया । अब कम्प्लीट कीजिए ।

कुंवर दानिश अली : कम से कम आप तो मुझे संरक्षित कीजिए । … (व्यवधान) मैं इन दोनों बिलों का विरोध करता हूं । ये बिल वापस होने चाहिए ।

 

کنوردانشعلی (امروہہ):جناب،چیرمینصاحب،آپنےمجھےسینٹرلوِجیلینسکمیشنامینڈمینٹبِلاوردہلیاسپیشلپولساسٹیبلِشمینٹامینڈمینٹبِل پربولنےکاموقعدیااسکےلئےمیںآپکاشکرگزارہوں۔           جناب،بُلٹٹرینتو ہندوستانمیںچلینہیں،لیکنآجہم نےایوانمیںدیکھاکہ ہماریایکخاتونساتھینے دکھادیاکہ بُلٹٹرین کی اسپیڈسے اگرآپوقتکم کرنےکی گھنٹیبھیبجائیںتو بھیاپنیپوریباتبہتکم وقتمیںکہیجا سکتیہے ۔Compliment Jothimani ji           میںآپکے ذریعہسے اتناہی کہناچاہتاہوںکہ یہسرکارآرڈینینسکی سرکار،پہلےدن سےہے۔سال2014 میںمحترممودیجی نےشپتھلی توسب سےپہلاکاماگران کیکیبینیٹنے لیاتو وہآرڈینینسلانےکا کیا۔ آپکو کوئیافسرپرنسپلسیکریٹریبنانےکے لئےرولچینجکرنےکے لئےآرڈینینسلاناپڑا۔           آجدو امینڈمینٹبِلآئےہیں،کیاضرورتہے؟ کورٹنے کہاکہ دوسالکا فِکسٹینیورہوگا۔آپسال2019 میںرائٹٹو انفورمیشنایکٹمیںامینڈمینٹلائےاورانفورمیشنکمِشنرکے پانچسالکے ٹینیورکوگھٹاکر تینسالکیا۔ڈائریکٹرسی۔بی۔آئی۔،ڈائریکٹرای۔ڈی۔میںیہاںکسیافسرکا ناملینانہیںچاہتاہوں۔میںجانتاہوںکہ ہمارےایکزیکیٹیوسسٹممیںجس کیسرکارہوتیہے،جو اوپربیٹھاہوتاہے،اس کیباتسُننیپڑتیہے۔میںیہ نہیںکہہسکتا،جس کیلاٹھیاسیکی بھینس۔میںاتناہی کہہرہاہوںکیاضرورتتھی؟کیاآپکو اورافسروںپر بھروسہنہیںہے؟کیاکچھاسپیشیلیٹیہے کہیہیدو افسرایکسیا وائیہوںگے؟آپملککو کہاںلے جارہےہیں؟           اسبِلکی سنرچناہے،ہم بدعنوانی،کالادھن،بینالاقوامیمالیاتیجرائمکا خطرہ،آتنکوادسے پیچیدہتعلقاوردوسرےدنڈنیئےجرائمقومیسلامتیاور(p. 417B)   ہمارےملککے مالیاتینظامکی استھِرتاکو سنگینمسائلپیداکرتےہیں۔دنیانےدیکھاکہ کیسےنوٹبندیمیںآپنے بھرشٹاچارکیا۔           کتناکیشتھا؟آپروزپریسکانفرنسکرتےتھےکہ صاحبکیشختمکرناہے،لیکنآجدوگُناکیشہے (مداخلت)۔چیرمینصاحب،مجھےآپکا پروٹیکشنچاہئیے۔           میںاسیپر بولرہاہوں۔میںآپکے ذریعہسے صرفاتناکہناچاہتاہوںکہ جبآپنے اعلانکیاکہ نوٹبندیکرنیہے،کس لئے؟ آپنے کہاتھاکہ کرپشنختمکرناہے،کالادھنختمکرناہے اورآپنے کہاتھاکہ آتنکواد ختمکرناہے۔میںپوچھناچاہتاہوںکہ کتناغیرملکیبینکوںسے کالادھنواپسآیا؟میںپوچھناچاہتاہوںکہ کتناآتنکوادختمہوا؟آپنےکہاتھاکہ کیشلیسایکونومیہوگی۔کیشلیسایکونومیکہاںہوئی؟ (مداخلت)۔۔آجمارکیٹمیںدوگُناکیشفلوہو رہاہے۔آپجو یہاںبتاتےہیں،اس کوآپامپلیمینٹنہیںکرتےہیں            کمسے کمآپتو مجھےپروٹیکشنکیجیئے (مداخلت)۔میںان دونوںبِلوںکی مخالفتکرتاہوںیہ بِلواپسہونےچاہئیے۔۔                                                                                                              (ختمشد) SHRI THOMAS CHAZHIKADAN (KOTTAYAM): Sir, thank you for giving me an opportunity to participate in the discussion on The Delhi Special Police Establishment (Amendment) Bill, 2021 and The Central Vigilance Commission (Amendment) Bill, 2021. I oppose these two Bills.

These Bills aim at extending the tenure of the of Directors of Central Bureau of Investigation and Enforcement Directorate on the recommendations of the respective Committees up to a period of one year at a time and for a maximum period of five years. However, I endorse the views of the hon. Members who spoke earlier at the stage of introduction of the Bills and during this discussion on these Bills as these Bills are unconstitutional, manifestly arbitrary and ultra vires to the Constitution.

The Supreme Court, by its verdict in 2018, had quashed a plea challenging retrospective changes in the appointment order of …* ..as Director of ED stating that a reasonable period of extension can be granted to facilitate completion of ongoing investigations only. However, the Court also made it clear that extension of tenure of officers who have attained the age of superannuation should be done in rare and exceptional cases only. It had also made it clear that no further extension can be given to … *.. as Director, ED.

          The Ordinances are not only illegal, but also it contradicts the Supreme Court’s 1998 Jain Hawala verdict. It creates an opportunity to corrupt the Directorates of law enforcement agencies by offering them an extension of tenure. They work according to the political will of the Government. It is done for creating an opposition against the Opposition.

          With these words, I oppose these Bills.

                                     

HON. SPEAKER: Hon. Member, you have only two minutes to speak.

*DR. THOL THIRUMAAVALAVAN (CHIDAMBARAM): Hon. Speaker Sir, I rise to oppose these two Bills, The Delhi Special Police Establishment (Amendment) Bill, 2021 and The Central Vigilance Commission (Amendment) Bill, 2021. I wish to oppose these two Amendment Bills brought before this august House.

I want to ask that what was the urgent need and necessity for the Government to bring ordinances with regard to these two Amendment Bills just a few days before the start of the Winter Session. The people of the country are raising this question.

It is highly shameful to see that a powerful Government is making all efforts to ensure that an individual gets extension of his tenure.  The Government is mending its ways and means just to benefit a single person.

Giving extension for a five-year term is not a problem area. But why are you insisting that this extension should be given to a particular person? Your favouritism is very much evident.

By extending the tenure of persons close to you, on these top posts, it is clearly evident that the rulers want to have the complete control of CBI and Enforcement Directorate and want them to act as per their whims and desires.   I strongly oppose this urgency shown by them.

I oppose both these amendment Bills. People throughout the country, when they lose hope on the State Government or the State Police demand an investigation by CBI. That was the credibility that CBI had in the past.

People believed in the credibility of CBI in honestly investigating the cases to find the real culprits and bringing them to book.  It was a thing of the past.

At present, the credibility of CBI and ED is coming down gradually day by day. There are political interventions to that extent.

 People of this country know very well that the political masters are intervening in the functioning of CBI and ED. I, on behalf of Viduthalai Siruthaigal Party, therefore oppose the way the ordinances are brought in an urgency, in order favour or facilitate a person or persons, close to the ruling dispensation, by extending their tenure.

I oppose both the amendment Bills.

Thank you.

 

डॉ. जितेन्द्र सिंह : अध्यक्षजी, मैं सबसे पहले आपके माध्यम से उन सभी माननीय सदस्यों का धन्यवाद करूंगा, जिन्होंने इस चर्चा में भाग लिया है-श्री एन. के. प्रेमचन्द्रन जी, श्री मनीष तिवारी जी, कर्नल राज्यवर्धन राठौर जी, श्री ए.राजा जी, श्री कल्याण बनर्जी जी, श्री तालारी रंगैय्या जी, श्री विनायक भाउराव राऊत जी, श्री राजीव रंजन सिंह ‘ललन’जी, श्री भर्तृहरि महताब जी, श्रीमती सुप्रिया सदानंद सुले जी, श्री अधीर रंजन चौधरी जी, डॉ. सत्यपाल सिंह जी, एडवोकेट ए.एम. आरिफ जी, श्री रितेश पाण्डेय जी, श्री बैन्नी बेहनन जी, प्रो. सौगत राय जी, श्री बृजेन्द्र सिंह जी, कुमारी गोड्डेति माधवी जी, श्री असादुद्दीन ओवैसी जी, श्री हनुमान बेनीवाल जी, श्री डी. रविकुमार जी, श्रीमती सुनीता दुग्गल जी, सुश्री एस. जोतिमणि जी, कुंवर दानिश अली जी और डॉ. थोल तिरुमावलवन जी ।

महोदय, जब मैं शुरू में इस बिल को कंसीडरेशन के लिए लेकर लाया था, तब सभी माननीय सदस्य कह रहे थे कि आप इसको मुस्कुराकर क्यों ला रहे हैं । So, I am proud to share that I started with a smile and I will also conclude with a smile, and when I near the conclusion of this debate, there is an added reason for me to smile. इसका कारण यह है कि चर्चा बड़ी व्यापक और लंबी हुई है । विषय को लेकर किसने कितनी बात कही, वह इतना दिलचस्प पहलू नहीं था, लेकिन सबको अपने-अपने दिल की व्यथा निकालने का मौका मिला, इसकी मुझे तसल्ली हुई ।…(व्यवधान) हर पार्टी और हर प्रदेश के सदस्यों ने अपनी-अपनी बात बताई कि किस-किसके घर पर रेड पड़ी । हमें जो नहीं पता था, सदन को वह भी पता चल गया । उसके मेरिट्स में तो जाना नहीं है, क्योंकि वह मेरा विषय नहीं है ।

          हमारे मित्र रितेश पाण्डेय जी ने इंदौरी साहब का शेर बोला, बाद में श्रीमती सुनीता दुग्गल जी ने उसका जवाब भी दिया । मैं आम तौर से शायरी को अवाइड करता हूं, लेकिन ये मुझे कभी-कभी उलझा देते हैं, तो फिर यह भड़क उठता है । मुझे पूरी चर्चा को सुनते हुए साहिर साहब का एक शेर याद आ गया -

‘कौन रोता है किसी और की ख़ातिर ऐ दोस्त, सब को अपनी ही किसी बात पे रोना आया’ इस चर्चा का इतना तो सुखद परिणाम निकला । Now, having said that, let me reiterate to this august House that Prime Minister Modi holds CBI, CVC and all these institutions in a very high esteem.

          Independence of these institutions is the Government’s top priority. Facilitating and enabling an independent functioning of these institutions is our top responsibility. So, the entire exercise is actually inspired by this. Therefore, I  will make a humble appeal that considering the sanctity of these supreme institutions, we could try to rise above the political considerations and help each other in order to strengthen the independent and enabling functioning of these institutions… (Interruptions) मैं उस पर भी आ रहा हूँ । इस चर्चा में कई बार बहुत सी ऐसी बातें भी कही गईं कि the subject and fact became a casualty. यह बार-बार कहा गया कि यह ऑर्डिनेंस की सरकार है, पहले दिन से ऑर्डिनेंस ला रही है । यह किसी ने नहीं कहा कि पहली कैबिनेट मीटिंग में जो निर्णय हुआ था, वह ब्लैक मनी पर एसआईटी लगाने का हुआ था । अगर इस पर भी माननीय सदस्य कुछ कहते तो अच्छा होता ।… (व्यवधान) जो दस साल में रह गया था ।… (व्यवधान) वह भी आ जाएगा ।… (व्यवधान) उसके बाद और शायरी होंगी ।… (व्यवधान) आपने जो दस साल में किया था, उसके लिए थोड़ा समय दीजिए, लेकिन पहला निर्णय वही था । That was the declaration of the intent of this Government and  its crusade against corruption. आठ वर्ष गुजर चुके हैं । मोदी सरकार के किसी मंत्री पर भी भष्ट्राचार या घोटाले का आरोप नहीं है, लेकिन पिछली सरकार के मंत्रियों पर अब भी आरोप निकल रहे हैं । Is  that not a contradiction? Usually, corruption charges are faced by the incumbents in power because they have the prerogative and privilege to exercise and to misuse power. So, what must be the scale of indulgence at that time? फिर बार-बार यह सोचा जाता है कि public memory is short and memory of hon. Members may also be short. `Parrot in cage’ उस दिन भी कहा और आज भी कहा गया । यह तो यूपीए सरकार को कहा गया था । Whom are you pointing out a finger?… (Interruptions) वह वहीं से चल रहा है । Prof. Sougata da is a very literate and a very wise person. If these states had conviction, then, they also shouldn’t refer cases to the CBI or otherwise. आप सभी राज्यों में से एक ऐसे राज्य हैं, जिन्होंने सीबीआई के जनरल कन्सेंट का जो प्रेरोगेटिव होता है, उसे विथ्ड्रा कर लिया । इससे सीबीआई अपने स्तर पर किसी केस को इनिशिएट नहीं कर सकती है । But if you have to fix somebody, you have the privilege to refer it to the CBI, as a State Government. That is not the law. That is the selective use of law for your convenience, and that is against the law of propriety. On the one hand, you don’t trust the CBI; on the other hand, to fix your opponent, you trust the CBI. Why should you withdraw the general consent? The logic is, you don’t have the faith. यह सरकार की सीबीआई है । यह मोदी जी की सीबीआई है, लेकिन जब आपके द्वारा किसी को फिक्स करना होता है तो आपको उसके ऊपर विश्वास आ जाता है । I think, we have to rise above not only to show conviction but also  to show the courage of conviction. इन्होंने कहा है कि डिस्पोजल में डिले हो रहा है । हाँ, हो रहा है । That is the legacy of the past. But if you go through the figures of the recent years, it has been overcome. The present legislation also is aimed in that direction. जैसा मैंने शुरू में अपने इंट्रोडक्टरी रिमार्क्स में कहा है कि कंटिन्यूटी आएगी, स्टेबिलिटी आएगी । Certain information which is confidential with the  head of the investigating agency, will remain with him till the conclusion of the cases. Therefore, this also, to an extent, is going to address that issue.

          Raja ji said that the Government is not meant to make people fear. Certainly, no Government is meant to make people fear. We should also not be afraid of each other. But the Government is meant to make the criminals fear. When we say something like this, somewhere we are exposing our own guilt. Why should we fear? Sougata da said it and Raja ji has come out vindicated. There is nothing to fear. But the Government should make the criminals fear.  जिसको हमारे सेंट्रल इंडिया में कहते हैं कि यह सरकार का इकबाल है, यह तो बरकरार रहना चाहिए । The deterrent effect of the Government is equally effective as the prosecution. अब यह कहा गया कि एक्सटेंशन आर्बिट्रेरी है । या तो बिल का अध्ययन नहीं किया जा रहा है या फिर इसको अपनी कन्‍विनिएंस से मोड़ा जा रहा है । The extension is again going to be by the same process by which the appointment has been made. Who is there in the Selection Committee? For CBI, the Selection Committee consists of the hon. Prime Minister, the hon. Leader of Opposition in the Lok Sabha, and the Chief Justice of Supreme Court. Premachandran ji is the best law-knowing person. I will try to bring this to his notice also. He also referred to it. Should we not be congratulated for having walked an extra mile? There was no Leader of Opposition in the 16th and 17th Lok Sabhas because अध्यक्ष महोदय भलीभांति जानते हैं कि नेता, विपक्ष का दर्जा हासिल करने के लिए एक निर्धारित न्यूनतम संख्या चाहिए । वह संख्या नहीं थी । हम प्रावधान लेकर आए । … (व्यवधान)

संसदीय कार्य मंत्रालय में राज्य मंत्री तथा संस्कृति मंत्रालय में राज्य मंत्री (श्री अर्जुन राम मेघवाल): उस प्रावधान को हम लाए हैं ।… (व्यवधान)

डॉ. जितेन्द्र सिंह: हम प्रावधान लेकर आए कि let us have the Leader of the Opposition.… (Interruptions) It was not a binding on us. We actually wanted it. The hon. Prime Minister demonstrated absolute democratic mindset in it. He said that we would have the Leader of the largest Opposition Party which was incidentally the Congress. चालीस-पैंतालिस मेम्बर्स की पार्टी के नेता को हमने नेता, विपक्ष मानकर अपने सिर पर बैठाया और फिर भी कहा जा रहा है कि सेलेक्शन कौन कर रहा है । …(व्यवधान)नहीं किया । इसीलिए नहीं किया किwe did not want to be dictatorial as you are alleging. अब कहा गया कि सरकार इसको पार्लियामेंट में ला सकती थी, सत्र प्रारम्भ होने में थोड़े ही दिन बचे थे । इसका उत्तर मैंने पिछली बार भी दिया ।Going by the experience of the last session, पूरा का पूरा सेशन वाश-आउट हो गया । यहां तो भरोसा ही नहीं है कि सत्र चलेगा या नहीं चलेगा । मैं धन्यवाद देता हूं और बधाई के पात्र हैं माननीय अध्यक्ष महोदय, जिन्होंने अपनी सूझ-बूझ से इस बार सदन चलाया है । क्या सरकारें काम करना बन्द कर देंगी? अगर एक वर्ष में तीन-तीन सत्र नहीं चलेंगे तो क्या सरकारें हाथ पर हाथ रखकर बैठ जाएगी? तब सरकार पर भी आरोप आएगा । … (व्यवधान)किसानों की बात किसानों के समय करेंगे,अभी वह बात कर रहे हैं, जो आपने छेड़ी है । … (व्यवधान)अब फिर से कहा गया कि साहब, यह दो साल का समय था । बार-बार कहा जा रहा है कि इसे बढ़ाया गया । मैं बार-बार यह समझा रहा हूं कि इसे बढ़ाया नहीं गया है, बल्कि हमने इसकी सीमा तय कर दी – मैक्सिमम पांच साल । पहले सीमा थी ही नहीं । … (व्यवधान)इसका मतलब है कि आपने एक्ट नहीं पढ़ा है । एक्ट पढ़ लीजिए,तब आपको समझ आएगा, फिर अपनी ही बात पर हंसी आएगी । …(व्यवधान)उसमें लिखा है – “Tenure not less than two years”. In the interest of stability यह कहा गया कि “Not less than two years. हमने उसी स्टेबिल्टी को और ज्यादा पुख्ता बनाने के लिए उसको पांच साल तक की हद दे दी और साथ ही साथ यह सीमा भी तय कर दी कि इसको मिसयूज न किया जाए । Rather we have institutionalised that clause for which we should be complimented.

19.00 hrs नहींतोआपवहउनकोदेतेरहते । It was said that this will reduce the independence. अब independence कैसे reduce हो गया, यहहमेंसमझमेंनहींआया ।  Rather, by fixing it at five years, we have ensured that there is no more alibi left to be distributed. यू.पी.ए. कीसरकारमेंभीटेन्योरतीनसेज्यादाहोगए । अबयेकहेंगेकिउसवक्तयेहुएतोरिटायरमेंटसेपहलेहुए, लेकिनइसक्लॉजकेतहतआजसेरिटायरमेंटकेपहलेभीनहींहोंगे । आपटेक्निकलबातकोसमझिए । मानलीजिएकिपहले 54सालकीउम्रमेंकिसीकोआपनेसीबीआईडायरेक्टरबनादिया । उसकाकार्यकालदोवर्षकेबादसमाप्तहो  गया । फिरआपनेउसकेकार्यकालकोबढ़ादिया, क्योंकिआपवह 60सालतककरसकतेथे, लेकिनअबनहींकरपाएंगे ।    So, we have actually tried to impose certain embargos which will introduce more of transparency.

अबयहकहागयाकिइसमेंपब्लिकइंट्रेस्टक्याहै? यहलानाहीपब्लिकइंट्रेस्टहै । What is the definition of public interest? When you appoint somebody, it is in public interest. When you ask somebody to go on retirement, you have side reasons. And if you do not trust a Selection Committee constituting the Prime Minister of India, the Leader of Opposition in the Lok Sabha, and Chief Justice of India, to have the wisdom and prudence to decide what is in public interest, then who will decide? …(Interruptions) No, let me complete.

If extension has to be given to someone in public interest, this highest Selection Committee possible of governance is determining this. … (Interruptions)

KUNWAR DANISH ALI : What about ED? … (Interruptions)

DR. JITENDRA SINGH: For ED, Chief Vigilance Commissioner, Vigilance Commissioner and three Secretaries are connected. … (Interruptions) They do not have Shri Danish Ali. They do not include Shri Danish Ali. They will not.

माननीयअध्यक्ष : माननीयमंत्रीजी, जोमाननीयसदस्यबैठे-बैठेप्रश्नपूछ रहेहैं, आपउनका जवाबनहीं दीजिए ।

डॉ. जितेन्द्रसिंह : अगरआप कहेंगेकि यहमेरी मर्जीसे नहींहुआ तोपब्लिकइंट्रेस्टमें नहींहै, तोयह बातनहीं चलेगी । You are asking, ‘What about CVC, etc?” ये प्रावधानआपकीसरकारोंसेचलेआरहेहैंऔरहमेंयेविरासतमेंमिलेहैं । आजआपकोसमझमेंआयाहैकिसीबीआईकीसेलेक्शनकमेटीगलतहै । हमवर्ष 2014 से सत्तामेंआएहैं । उससेपहलेआपनेजोरामराजदियाथा, यहउसीकीविरासतहै । येसारीसेलेक्शनकमेटियांपहलेकीबनीहुईहैं ।

फिरयहकहागयाकिबाकीदेशोंमेंयहहोताहै, तोइसमेंऐसाक्याहै? मैंनेयहलिस्टनिकालीहै । एफबीआईकाटेन्योर 10सालहै । दोसालकाटेन्योरकिसीभीदेशकानहींहै । I will come to the reasons for that in a few seconds. The United Kingdom’s Director General of Internal Counterintelligence and Security Agency has no fixed term at all. हमनेपांचसालफिक्सकरदीहै । मैंनेएवरेजनिकालीहै । I could not have done it as it may not be very suitable for me. But I took out the average and it is again five to seven years. For Federal Criminal Police Office of Germany, the average is six to ten years since 1981. There is no fixed term.

माननीयअध्यक्ष : सदनका समयइस विधेयकपर चर्चाऔर प्रस्तावोंके पारितहोने तकबढ़ायाजाता है ।

डॉ. जितेन्द्रसिंह : अध्यक्षमहोदय, धन्यवाद । For Australian Federal Police, very interesting, tenure is of seven years with a clause for extension.अबक्याकहेंगेकिवहसातसालअपनेमास्टरोंकोखुशरखेगा, ताकिउसेअगलेसातसालकाटेन्योरमिले, तबतोदुनियाकानिज़ामनहींचलेगा । हमयहांयहआरोपलगारहेहैं ।

We are making an allegation against a duly-elected body, a duly elected Leader of Opposition.

अबरॉयलकेनेडियनमाउंटेडपुलिसकाउदाहरणहै । There is no fixed term.  The average is four to ten years. येचंदउदाहरणहैं of some of the leading democracies in the world. हमक्याउदाहरणअपनेलिएस्थापितकरनाचाहरहेहैं unless we have something to hide? Let me tell you, each time, when we say that there is some mala fide in this, we forget that we might be inviting the accusation of hiding something within ourselves.  We have nothing to hide.  There is no reason to fear. 

I am glad that Supriya Sule ji suggested how changing one clause would address so many issues.  I agree with her.  But we have to start somewhere.  So, she must welcome it.  We have taken one small step to address all these issues.  We will be taking more and we will be expecting your support.  She raised certain other issues which I am not taking much cognizance of because more than addressing the Bill, they were addressing the agenda of the Maharashtra Government.  So, I leave it to that.

अधीररंजनदाचलेगएहैं । I had said that there are added reasons now to smile. उन्होंनेएकबड़ीदिलचस्पबातकहीथी । The exact phrase he used which he had written down and which was very beautifully coined is: ‘culture of subversion is being introduced by the Modi Government’. This is coming from a Party which has gone down in the history of subverting the democracy of the country.  Having imposed Emergency, they subverted not only democracy, but also subverted the Constitution of India. अबबताएंकिहंसीनहींआएगी, तोक्याआएगा? We live in a world of evidence. 

Owaisisahib is a law-knowing person. वेऊंची आवाज़में बातकरते हैं, वेउर्दूभी उतनीही खूबसूरतबोलतेहैं, जितनीअंग्रेज़ीबोलतेहैं । कुछलोग इसीमें बहजाते हैं । वेइंटिग्रिटीऑफ दिकांस्टिट्यूशनके बारेमें कहरहे थे । उन्होंनेएक केसका हवालादिया ।He said, it is a contempt of court.  But is this not contempt of the Constitution to question a constitutionally constituted body which exists in a selection process, which has come down the years, down the decades, not invented, not constituted after 2014?

श्रीकल्याणबनर्जी  :कन्टेम्प्टकोर्टकाहोताहै । … (व्यवधान)

डॉ. जितेन्द्रसिंह : वहतो जजबोलतेहैं न, मैंकह रहाहूं किकांस्टिट्यूशनका कन्टेम्प्टउससे भीघोर पापहै । Contempt of Constitution and contempt of democracy is even graver sin.

SHRI KALYAN BANERJEE : There is violation of the Constitution, not contempt of the Constitution.… (Interruptions)

DR. JITENDRA SINGH: That is in the court’s language.  I am not talking in a legal sense.

SHRI KALYAN BANERJEE : You are Minister of State in the Prime Minister’s Office. … (Interruptions)

DR. JITENDRA SINGH: So, do you mean to say that you are at liberty to sin against the Constitution, sin against democracy?

श्रीकल्याणबनर्जी  :कन्टेम्प्टऑफकोर्टहोताहै, कन्टेम्प्टऑफहाउसहोताहै । … (व्यवधान)

डॉ. जितेन्द्रसिंह : अध्यक्षमहोदय, मैंआपके माध्यमसे यहीकह रहाहूं किबार-बारकन्टेम्प्टऑफ कोर्टकहा गयाऔर उसकेबहानेकांस्टिट्यूशनलीकांस्टिट्यूटिडबॉडीज़पर भीसवालियानिशान, सलेक्शनप्रोसेसपर भीसवालियानिशानलगाए गए । … (व्यवधान)

श्रीकल्याणबनर्जी  :ऐसा होताहै । … (व्यवधान)

डॉ. जितेन्द्रसिंह : होताहोगा, लेकिनक्या यहचिंतनका विषयनहीं हैकि we can raise a question mark on the Constitution, on the democracy?  If it was a contempt of court, the court would have stepped in.  It was not your prerogative. … (Interruptions)

          Now, I will just share with Manish ji.  He made a factual point on which I will just update you.  The Guwahati High Court had come out with a judgement about which he is right, since he is an advocate.

          But after that, an SLP was filed and that judgment has been stayed. As long as it is stayed, we need not get into that. It is sub judice.

SHRI MANISH TEWARI (ANANDPUR SAHIB): It is in everybody’s interest that the legality of the CBI should be adjudicated.

DR. JITENDRA SINGH: No, it is not directly related to this per se. So, let that pass. एकबातबार-बारआईकि, why raise the international angle? There is a huge international ramification of the kind of methodology which is evolving everyday and you are seeing so many cases. और यहफॉरेनलांड्रिंगकेकेसेजइन्हींकेहिस्सेमेंआतेहैं । As I have already said, we cannot depend only on institutional intelligence, information, and confidentiality and also, on the individual who is at the head of it. Moreover, जो हमारीएफएटीएफहै, उसनेयहसुझावभीदियाहै that some of the countries will have to look into how to upgrade their capabilities, and I quote:

“Law enforcement authorities and countries should have in place processes to ensure that the staff of these authorities maintain high professional standards, including standards concerning confidentiality and should be of high integrity and be appropriately skilled.”           Now, they are expecting us to rise to the same level as some of the other countries,जिनकामैंनेआपकोब्यौरादिया । कहीं-कहींइनकाटेन्योरदस-दससालहैऔरकहीं-कहींइनडेफिनेटहैऔरअगलेसालइसकारिव्यूभीहोनेवालाहै । So, if we have to meet the global standards and reach the global pedestal, which India is already at the threshold, I think, we should be more progressive and forward-looking.

          I am not going to get into the details of this because hon. Members have borne with all of us for a very long time. So, I would say that if we do not extend this or bring in this provision, which is not an extension actually, a restrictive approach may be counter-productive to the interest of justice and fair delivery of interrogation and investigation results.

From that point of view, मैंएकबारफिरसेअध्यक्षजीकेमाध्यमसेनिवेदनकरूंगा that in good faith and in an atmosphere of trust, हमइसविधेयककोस्वीकारकरेंऔरयहकामनाकरेंकिआनेवालेसमयमेंभारतविश्वपटलपरभ्रष्टाचारमुक्तऔरक्राइममुक्तदेशकेरूपमेंअपनाएकस्थानबनासके ।

 

SHRI N. K. PREMACHANDRAN : Thank you, hon. Speaker, Sir.

          I would like to reply to the hon. Minister with regard to the Statutory Resolution with a smile.

          Sir, the point which I would like to make is regarding the urgency and exigency or the extraordinary situation prevailing in the country so as to promulgate this Ordinance. This was the fulcrum of my entire argument. The hon. Minister has not spoken anything about the situation arising for promulgating an Ordinance. That means the argument advanced on the part of the Opposition that this is the misuse of the Article 123, is well ratified.

 

          Sir, I will conclude within two minutes.

          Another issue is … (Interruptions)   

डॉ. जितेन्द्रसिंह : महोदय, मैंनेबार-बारकहा हैऔर बिलके इंट्रोडक्शनमें भीकहा किइस बारअध्यक्षमहोदयजी कीसूझबूझका नतीजाहै, क्योंकिपिछलासदन तोवॉशआउटहो गयाथा । ऐसेतो कोईभी कानूनया लेजिस्लेशननहीं बनेगा । … (Interruptions) We had to move on and we could not wait for the protest to settle down because this is a provision which is going to reflect India’s image at the international forum.

          So, that is the urgency for the country.

SHRI N. K. PREMACHANDRAN: Sir, the last Session was washed out and this House has passed 21 legislations. 

DR. JITENDRA SINGH: You must compliment the hon. Speaker for that.

SHRI N. K. PREMACHANDRAN : If you can pass very controversial legislations during the wash out Session, this could also have been passed. 

DR. JITENDRA SINGH: In that case, you would say it was passed in din. आप कभीइधरसेपकड़तेहैंऔरकभीउधरसेपकड़तेहैं । Now, you are also smiling. I think you mean that it  should go in that direction.

SHRI N. K. PREMACHANDRAN : You are changing the goalpost.  I am really sorry. You could have passed 21 legislations in the last Session and you are saying that the whole Session was a wash-out.

          The second point which I would like to respond is this. I would like to admit and appreciate the hon. Minister for ‘selective use of CBI’. You are absolutely correct. I can cite one example from my State itself. Now, our State Government is fighting against CBI by spending crores and crores of rupees.

DR. JITENDRA SINGH: Now, he is saying that I have changed the goalpost. I said, ‘selective use of the consent to CBI’ in the context of what Saugata Da was saying. जनरलकन्‍सेंटलेलिया । So, it is like that. Now, we are equal.

SHRI N. K. PREMACHANDRAN: I actually mean it. See, the State Government is fighting against coming of CBI into the State of Kerala and at the same time, in those cases in which they are interested in order to have the political vengeance.  It is not only about consent.  They are requesting the CBI to investigate the case.  I am not citing an example.  So, that is there. The point which we are raising is that the State Government is giving consent. The Central Government is using its force. So, it is better to have independent status for the Central Bureau of Investigation and Enforcement Directorate. Let it be above the administrative control of the Prime Minister and the Government so that independence can be maintained. That is the best thing which the Government can do.

          The third point which I would like to make is regarding the selection committee. You are always talking about the selection committee. The Prime Minister and the Leader of the Opposition and the Chief Justice of India are there in the Selection Committee.  That is only in respect of CBI.  As far as the Enforcement Directorate is concerned, it is an absolutely bureaucratic committee.

माननीयअध्यक्ष : माननीयसदस्य, आपरेजोल्यूशनमूव करनाचाहतेहैं यानहीं?

SHRI N. K. PREMACHANDRAN: Regarding the selection of CBI Chief, this Prime Minister comes in and Opposition leader comes in the Selection Committee.  As far as the Enforcement Directorate is concerned, it is absolutely the whims and fancies of the Government.

माननीयअध्यक्ष : अबमैंश्रीएनकेप्रेमचन्द्रनजीद्वाराप्रस्तुतसांविधिकसंकल्पकोसभाकेसमक्षमतदानकेलिएरखताहूं ।

प्रश्नयह है :

“कियहसभाराष्ट्रपतिद्वारा 14नवम्बर, 2021 को प्रख्यापितकेंद्रीयसतर्कताआयोग (संशोधन) अध्यादेश, 2021 (2021 का संख्यांक 9)कानिरनुमोदनकरतीहै ।” प्रस्ताव अस्वीकृत हुआ ।

माननीयअध्यक्ष : प्रश्नयह है :

“किकेंद्रीयसतर्कताआयोगअधिनियम, 2003 का औरसंशोधनकरनेवालेविधेयकपरविचारकियाजाए ।” प्रस्ताव स्वीकृत हुआ ।

 

माननीयअध्यक्ष : अबसभा विधेयकपर खण्डवारविचारकरेगी ।

… (व्यवधान)

खंड 2 … (व्यवधान)

माननीयअध्यक्ष: माननीयसदस्य, मैंआपको थर्डरीडिंगमें बोलनेका अवसरदूंगा ।

… (व्यवधान)

माननीयअध्यक्ष : श्रीसौगत रायजी ।

SEVERAL HON. MEMBERS: Sir, not present. … (व्यवधान)

माननीयअध्यक्ष : श्रीमनीष तिवारीजी, क्याआप संशोधनसंख्या-12 प्रस्तुतकरना चाहतेहैं?

… (व्यवधान)

SHRI MANISH TEWARI (ANANDPUR SAHIB): Sir, I beg to move:

“Page 1 and 2, for lines 8 to 11 on page 1 and lines 1 and 2 on page 2, -

substitute “Provided that if the Director completes the age of sixty years during the period of two years referred to in this sub-section, his tenure as such Director shall stand completed immediately on attaining the age of sixty years and he shall not be eligible for any extension or reappointment after he has ceased to hold office either on attaining the age of sixty years or on completion of two years, as the case may be”.”          (12) माननीयअध्यक्ष : अबमैं श्रीमनीष तिवारीद्वाराखण्ड 2 मेंप्रस्तुतसंशोधनसंख्या12 कोसभा केसमक्षमतदानके लिएरखता हूं ।

संशोधन मतदान के लिए रखा गया तथा अस्वीकृत हुआ ।

माननीयअध्यक्ष : श्रीएन केप्रेमचन्द्रनजी, क्याआप संशोधनसंख्या-2 प्रस्तुतकरना चाहतेहैं?

SHRI N. K. PREMACHANDRAN (KOLLAM): Sir, I beg to move:

“Page 1, line 9, -

          for               “in public interest ”  

          substitute     “in case of non-availability of   

                               suitable officers”.”           (2)  

माननीयअध्यक्ष : अबमैं श्रीएन केप्रेमचन्द्रनद्वाराखण्ड 2 मेंप्रस्तुतसंशोधनसंख्या2 कोसभा केसमक्षमतदानके लिएरखता हूं ।

संशोधन मतदान के लिए रखा गया तथा अस्वीकृत हुआ ।

माननीयअध्यक्ष : श्रीएन केप्रेमचन्द्रनजी, क्याआप संशोधनसंख्या-4 और10 प्रस्तुतकरना चाहतेहैं?

SHRI N. K. PREMACHANDRAN : Sir, I am not moving Amendment numbers 4 and 10.

माननीयअध्यक्ष : श्रीबेनी बेहननजी, क्याआप संशोधनसंख्या-6 प्रस्तुतकरना चाहतेहैं?

SHRI BENNY BEHANAN (CHALAKUDY): Sir, I am not moving.

माननीयअध्यक्ष : श्रीविनायकभाऊरावराऊत जी, क्याआप संशोधनसंख्या-3 प्रस्तुतकरना चाहतेहैं?

SHRI VINAYAK BHAURAO RAUT (RATNAGIRI-SINDHUDURG): Sir, I beg to move:

“Page 1 and 2, for line 11 on page 1 and lines 1 and 2 on page 2,-

          substitute  “up to a maximum period of six months  

                             only”.”                     (3)  

माननीयअध्यक्ष : अबमैं श्रीविनायकभाऊरावराऊत द्वाराखंड 2 मेंप्रस्तुतसंशोधनसंख्या3 कोसभा केसमक्षमतदानके लिएरखता हूँ ।

संशोधन मतदान के लिए रखा गया तथा अस्वीकृत हुआ ।

 

माननीयअध्यक्ष : श्रीकोडिकुन्नीलसुरेशजी, क्याआपसंशोधनसंख्या 5 और 9 प्रस्तुतकरनाचाहतेहैं?

SHRI KODIKUNNIL SURESH (MAVELIKKARA): Sir, I beg to move:

          Page1, line 11,-

                   For              “up to one year at a time”  

                   Substitute   “once up to one year only”.     (5)  

          Page 2, omit lines 1 and 2.      (9)  

माननीयअध्यक्ष : अबमैं श्रीकोडिकुन्नीलसुरेशद्वाराखंड 2 मेंप्रस्तुतसंशोधनसंख्या5 और9  कोसभा केसमक्षमतदानके लिएरखता हूँ ।

संशोधन मतदान के लिए रखे गए तथा अस्वीकृत हुए ।

HON. SPEAKER:  Shri Adhir Ranjan Chowdhury --       Not present   

                             Shri M. K. Raghavan               --       Not present   

एडवोकेटडीनकुरियाकोस, क्याआपसंशोधनसंख्या 13प्रस्तुतकरनाचाहतेहैं?  

   

   

   

   

ADV. DEAN KURIAKOSE (IDUKKI): Sir, I beg to move:    

          Page 1, after line 11,-  

Insert                                       “Provided further that while extending the term of Director beyond two years, the Committee under clause (a) shall consider the names of at least five other officers having similar experience and qualifications as recommended by the Union Public Service Commission”.  (13)  

माननीयअध्यक्ष : अबमैं एडवोकेटडीन कुरियाकोसद्वाराखंड 2 मेंप्रस्तुतसंशोधनसंख्या13 कोसभा केसमक्षमतदानके लिएरखता हूँ ।

संशोधन मतदान के लिए रखा गया तथा अस्वीकृत हुआ ।

माननीयअध्यक्ष :प्रश्नयहहै:

“किखंड 2 विधेयककाअंगबने ।” प्रस्ताव स्वीकृत हुआ ।

खंड 2 विधेयक में जोड़ दिया गया ।

खंड 3 विधेयक में जोड़ दिया गया ।

खंड 1, अधिनियमन सूत्र और विधेयक का पूरा नाम विधेयक में जोड़ दिए गए ।

 

माननीयअध्यक्ष : मंत्रीजी, अबआपप्रस्तावकरेंकिविधेयकपारितकियाजाए ।

DR. JITENDRA SINGH: Sir, I beg to move:

“That the Bill be passed.” माननीयअध्यक्ष : प्रस्तावप्रस्तुतहुआ:

          “किविधेयकपारितकियाजाए ।”   SHRI A. RAJA (NILGIRIS): Sir, from the reply given by the hon. Minister it seems that he wants to impress upon this House and through this House to the people at large that the selection is constituted by virtue of the Lokpal Bill and the members are the Prime Minister, the Leader of the Opposition, and the Chief Justice of India. What the hon. Minister claims is that these three persons occupy constitutional positions and so their integrity is beyond doubt. With due respect to every Prime Minister, whether it is Dr. Manmohan Singh or Shri Modi or somebody else who may occupy the position tomorrow, I am emphasising on the position of the Prime Minister and every one of them will be motivated by political thinking. That cannot be ignored. It is the opinion of a well-known legal expert, namely, Justice Krishna Iyer, observed in his book that `judgement given by judges are final but that does not mean we are infallible’. That means Chief Justice is fallible and also the Prime Minister is also motivated politically. Then spontaneously and naturally the opinion of the Leader of the Opposition will become insignificant. In such a case, the decision will be taken by the Prime Minister which will be motivated by political thinking and the CJI. So, where is the transparency? … (Interruptions) The argument advanced by the hon. Minister cannot be accepted and so we are walking out.

19.24 hrs At this stage, Shri A. Raja and some other hon. Members left the House.

   

DR. JITENDRA SINGH: What are you trying to suggest? Do you want to throw the baby with the bathtub --किकांस्टीट्यूशनही डिमोलिशकर दो । You are questioning the institutions … (Interruptions)

माननीयअध्यक्ष :आपजवाब मतदीजिए ।आपको जवाबनहीं देनाहै ।

SHRI KALYAN BANERJEE : Sir, in 1959, when the late Pandit Jawaharlal Nehru was the Prime Minister, a notification was issued. It categorically identified that these are the categories of cases and provisions of the statutes and sought for general consent from different States. The late Dr. Bidhan Chandra Roy was the then Chief Minister of West Bengal and he gave consent to that. Thereafter, you may kindly check it up, I have read it and made research on that, in 1961, 59 notifications had been rescinded and thereafter again it had been sent for consent from the State Governments, but incidentally after 1961 no consent has been given by the State of West Bengal. I am saying this and you can check it up. … (Interruptions)

 

SHRI KODIKUNNIL SURESH : Hon. Speaker, we are not convinced with the reply of the hon. Minister. His reply is not satisfactory. So, we are walking out.

19.25 hrs At this stage, Shri Kodikunnil Suresh and some other hon. Members left the House.

   

माननीयअध्यक्ष :प्रश्नयहहै:

“किविधेयकपारितकियाजाए ।” प्रस्ताव स्वीकृत हुआ ।

… ( व्यवधान)

                                                -

माननीयअध्यक्ष :श्रीमनीष तिवारी, क्याआप कुछबोलनाचाहतेहैं?

 

SHRI MANISH TEWARI : Sir, I just have three or four very short points to make.  The Central Bureau of Investigation and the Enforcement Directorate have not covered themselves with any great glory primarily because judgement after judgement has deprecated the investigation over the years.   The carrot of extension which you dangled before the Director of the CBI and the Director of the Enforcement Directorate is too tempting a carrot. Therefore, the possibility of these organisations getting subverted and as a consequence the hierarchy getting subverted is immense.  That is why, we have opposed these Bills, and Mr. Speaker Sir, I move the Statutory Resolution.

माननीयअध्यक्ष :क्याआपसांविधिकसंकल्पवापसलेरहेहैंयामूवकररहेहैं?

श्रीमनीषतिवारी :सर, मैंनेमूव करदिया है ।

माननीयअध्यक्ष :अबमैंश्रीमनीष तिवारीद्वाराप्रस्तुतसांविधिकसंकल्पको सभाके समक्षमतदानके लिएरखता हूं ।

प्रश्नयह है:

“कियहसभाराष्ट्रपतिद्वारा 14नवंबर, 2021 को प्रख्यापितदिल्लीविशेषपुलिसस्थापन (संशोधन) अध्यादेश, 2021 (2021 का संख्यांक 10) का निरनुमोदनकरतीहै ।” प्रस्ताव अस्वीकृत हुआ ।

 

माननीयअध्यक्ष :प्रश्नयह है:

“किदिल्लीविशेषपुलिसस्थापनअधिनियम, 1946 का औरसंशोधनकरनेवालेविधेयकपरविचारकियाजाए ।” प्रस्ताव स्वीकृत हुआ ।

माननीयअध्यक्ष :अबसभा विधेयकपर खंडवारविचारकरेगी ।

खंड 2 माननीयअध्यक्ष :प्रो. सौगतरायजी, क्याआपसंशोधनसंख्या 1 प्रस्तुतकरनाचाहतेहैं?

PROF. SOUGATA RAY (DUM DUM): Sir, I beg to move:

“Page 2, for lines 3 to 8,-

substitute    “Provided that if the Director complete the age of sixty years during the period of two years referred to in this sub-section, his tenure as such Director shall stand completed immediately on attaining the age of sixty years and he shall not be eligible for any extension or reappointment after he has ceased to hold office either on attaining the age of sixty years or on completion of two years, as the case may be.”.

(1) 

सर, हमेंतोपढ़नेदीजिए, कमसेकममूवकरनेदीजिए । इतनासमयतोदेनाचाहिए ।

माननीयअध्यक्ष :अबमैंप्रो. सौगतरायद्वाराखंड 2 मेंप्रस्तुतसंशोधनसंख्या 1 कोसभाकेसमक्षमतदानकेलिएरखताहूं ।

संशोधन मतदान के लिए रखा गया तथा अस्वीकृत हुआ ।

माननीयअध्यक्ष :श्रीएन. के. प्रेमचन्द्रनजी, क्याआपसंशोधनसंख्या 2 और 9 प्रस्तुतकरनाचाहतेहैं?

SHRI N. K. PREMACHANDRAN (KOLLAM): Sir, I beg to move:

“Page 2, line 4,-

          for                         “in public interest”  

          substitute             “in case of non-availability of suitable     officers”.            (2)  

Sir, in public interest, in case of non-availability of suitable officers, this can be done.  This is subject to condition.  Kindly accept it.     Sir, I am moving only Amendment No. 2.  I am not moving other amendments.

माननीयअध्यक्ष :क्याआपसंशोधनसंख्या 9 प्रस्तुतनहींकरनाचाहतेहैं?

SHRI N. K. PREMACHANDRAN :  No Sir, I am not moving Amendment No. 9.

माननीयअध्यक्ष :अबमैंश्रीएन. के. प्रेमचन्द्रनद्वाराखंड 2 मेंप्रस्तुतसंशोधनसंख्या 2 कोसभाकेसमक्षमतदानकेलिएरखताहूं ।

संशोधन मतदान के लिए रखा गया तथा अस्वीकृत हुआ ।

माननीयअध्यक्ष :श्रीबैन्नीबेहननजी, क्याआपसंशोधनसंख्या 10प्रस्तुतकरनाचाहतेहैं?

SHRI BENNY BEHANAN (CHALAKUDY): Sir, I beg to move:

“Page 2, line 8,-

          for               “five years”  

          substitute    “two years and three months”.          (10)  

माननीयअध्यक्ष :अबमैंश्रीबैन्नीबेहननद्वाराखंड 2 मेंप्रस्तुतसंशोधनसंख्या 10कोसभाकेसमक्षमतदानकेलिएरखताहूं ।

संशोधन मतदान के लिए रखा गया तथा अस्वीकृत हुआ ।

माननीयअध्यक्ष :श्रीएन. के. प्रेमचन्द्रनजी, क्याआपसंशोधनसंख्या 4 प्रस्तुतकरनाचाहतेहैं?

SHRI N.K. PREMACHANDRAN : Sir, I am not moving Amendment No. 4 to clause 2.

माननीयअध्यक्ष :श्रीबैन्नीबेहननजी, क्याआपसंशोधनसंख्या 4 प्रस्तुतकरनाचाहतेहैं?

SHRI BENNY BEHANAN :  Sir, I am not moving Amendment No. 4 to clause 2.

माननीयअध्यक्ष :श्रीअधीर रंजनचौधरी–उपस्थितनहीं ।

श्रीएम. के. राघवन–उपस्थितनहीं ।

श्रीविनायकभाऊरावराऊत–उपस्थितनहीं ।

माननीयअध्यक्ष :श्रीकोडिकुन्नीलसुरेश जी, क्याआपसंशोधनसंख्या 8 प्रस्तुतकरनाचाहतेहैं?

SHRI SURESH KODIKUNNIL (MAVELIKKARA): Sir, I beg to move:

“Page 2, for lines 6 to 8,-

          substitute            “once up to one year only”.     (8) माननीयअध्यक्ष :अबमैंश्रीकोडिकुन्नीलसुरेश द्वाराखंड 2 मेंप्रस्तुतसंशोधनसंख्या 8 कोसभाकेसमक्षमतदानकेलिएरखताहूं ।

संशोधन मतदान के लिए रखा गया तथा अस्वीकृत हुआ ।

माननीयअध्यक्ष : एडवोकेटडीनकुरियाकोसजी, क्याआपसंशोधनसंख्या 13प्रस्तुतकरनाचाहतेहैं?

ADV. DEAN KURIAKOSE (IDUKKI): Sir, I beg to move:

          Page 2, after line 6,-

Insert          “Provided further that while extending the term of Director beyond two years, the Committee under sub section (1) of section 4A shall consider the names of at least five such officers with similar experience and qualification as recommended by the Union Public Service Commission”.              (13)   माननीयअध्यक्ष : अबमैंएडवोकेटडीनकुरियाकोसद्वाराखंड 2 मेंप्रस्तुतसंशोधनसंख्या 13कोसभाकेसमक्षमतदानकेलिएरखताहॅूं ।

संशोधन मतदान के लिए रखा गया तथा अस्वीकृत हुआ ।

माननीयअध्यक्ष : प्रश्नयहहै :

          “किखंड 2 विधेयककाअंगबने ।” प्रस्ताव स्वीकृत हुआ ।

खंड 2 विधेयक में जोड़ दिया गया ।

खंड 3 विधेयक में जोड़ दिया गया ।

खंड 1, अधिनियमन सूत्र और विधेयक का पूरा नाम विधेयक में जोड़ दिए गए ।

माननीयअध्यक्ष : माननीयमंत्रीजी, अबआप प्रस्तावकरें किविधेयकपारितकिया जाए ।

DR. JITENDRA SINGH: Sir, I beg to move:

“That the Bill be passed.” माननीयअध्यक्ष : प्रश्नयह है:

“किविधेयकपारितकियाजाए ।” प्रस्ताव स्वीकृत हुआ     माननीयअध्यक्ष : सभाकीकार्यवाहीशुक्रवार, दिनांक 10दिसम्बर, 2021 को प्रात: 11 बजे तककेलिएस्थगितकीजातीहै ।

19.31 hrs The Lok Sabha then adjourned till Eleven of the Clock on Friday, December 10, 2021/Agrahayana 19, 1943 (Saka)     __________           INTERNET            The Original Version of Lok Sabha proceedings is available on Parliament of India Website and Lok Sabha Website at the following addresses:

           http://www.parliamentofindia.nic.in            http://www.loksabha.nic.in LIVE TELECAST OF PROCEEDINGS OF LOK SABHA          Lok Sabha proceedings are being telecast live on Sansad T.V. Channel. Live telecast begins at 11 A.M. everyday the Lok Sabha sits, till the adjournment of the House.

                   

________________________________________________________________________________ Published under Rules 379 and 382 of the Rules of Procedure and Conduct of Business  in Lok Sabha (Sixteenth Edition) ________________________________________________________________________________     * The sign + marked above the name of a Member indicates that the Question was actually asked on the floor of the House by that Member.

           

* Available in Master copy of Debate, placed in Library.

* Laid on the Table and also placed in Library, See No. LT 5368/17/21.

* Laid on the Table and also placed in Library, See No. LT 5369/17/21.

* English translation of the speech originally delivered in Odiya.

* Not recorded * English translation of the speech originally delivered in Tamil.

* English translation of the speech originally delivered in Tamil.

* Treated as laid on the Table.

* Not recorded.

* Not recorded.

* Not recorded * Expunged as ordered by the Chair.

* Not recorded.

* Not recorded.

* Not recorded * (…) Hindi translation of the speech originally delivered in Marathi.

** Not recorded as ordered by the Chair.

* Not recorded * Not recorded * Not recorded * Not recorded * Not recorded * Not recorded * Not recorded * Not recorded * Not recorded * Expunged as ordered by the Chair.

* English translation of the speech originally delivered in Tamil.

* Not recorded     * English translation of the speech originally delivered in Tamil.

* Not recorded.

* Not recorded.

* English translation of the speech originally delivered in Tamil.