Document Fragment View

Matching Fragments

"It is not in order to put to a Minister a question for which another Minister is more directly-responsible, or ask one Minister to influence the action of another. "

  Sir, the motion is related to CBI being misused or interfered by the Union Government in its Executive action. I draw your kind attention to the proceedings of 7.12.1999 just to narrate the hon. Prime Minister’s own statement. I quote:

"Mr. Speaker, Sir, pending Ayodhya cases can be classified into two categories.
The first category is of cases relating to the title dispute. There are five such cases, two of which have remained pending since over 49 years.
Neither the Constitution nor the law disqualifies a Minister from holding office merely because a charge sheet is filed by the police or formal charges are framed by the court.
The question as to who should be in the Council of Ministers is one of Prime Ministerial discretion, and sense of political propriety. Many circumstances are relevant to the final decision of the Prime Minister on these issues."
 

 Why I quote this is because the issue was directly related to the CBI and the framing of charges. The Prime Minister with his full responsibility that he holds the desk of CBI also as Prime Minister, therefore, responded and replied. But I understand that in this House the hon. Prime Minister’s responsibility, in contravention to the May’s Parliamentary Practice and tradition in a selective case, would be transferred though the Cabinet is collectively responsible, any Minister can interfere. I am not prejudiced. But in this case, I understand the hon. Prime Minister is not likely to respond. He will transfer the whole responsibility to his Law Minister. Therefore, I think, the first departure starts from here.

Sir, I will now come to justify whether the matter is of recent occurrence and of great importance or not. It is a matter of recent occurrence because between the last Session and this Session, the chargesheet was filed in Raebareli court on 31st May and after that we are meeting in this Session. Therefore, on the first day we brought it to your notice as to how the executive action was wrong and that is why it is a matter of recent occurrence.

On how important the issue is, I only like to quote you, Mr. Speaker, Sir. The other day, on 21st July, while we gave the notice for suspension of Question Hour, you were so generous to make your observation. Sir, you are the custodian of the House. Your discretion and your observations guide the destiny of this House and also of parliamentary democracy of the nation. Sir, I quote yourself.

Mr. Speaker Sir, I quoted the discretion because I knew the sub judice issue would come. I can cite hundreds of examples.

We used to request the Chair to give a direction to the Minister not to reply to a question or a debate, which was sub judice. We have done that. The observation of the Chair used to be, "Yes, you can discuss it under Rule 193 or Rule 184, but do not discuss it under an Adjournment Motion." That is why, Mr. Speaker, Sir, I tried to cite before you the examples of 1966, 1971 and the provisions of Rule 59 of the Rules of Procedure and Conduct of Business today whereby you can apply your discretion, subject to your satisfaction.