Document Fragment View

Matching Fragments

THE MINISTER OF LAW AND JUSTICE AND MINISTER OF COMMERCE AND INDUSTRY (SHRI ARUN JAITLEY): Sir, I beg to move:

"That the Bill further to amend the Constitution of India, be taken into consideration."  

 Sir, this amendment to the Constitution has two important components to it. The first one seeks to amend the Constitution where changes are brought about by way of the Constitution (Fifty-second) Act on 1st March, 1985. If we recollect, in 1985, the Tenth Schedule was added to the Constitution by way of Anti-Defection Law and at the time when that law was enacted by this Parliament, there was harmonisation of two thoughts which were made in this particular law.

As far as the amendment to the Anti-Defection Law is concerned, I would like to say that this Bill is proposing to delete the provision relating to the split. This is also a very salutary provision and we should accept it. When the Bill was originally discussed in this House in the 1980s, we were the Members of this House and we had an occasion to discuss many of the provisions of the Bill at that time. Originally, this Bill did not have the provision relating to the split. It provided that one-third or any number of Members defecting from one party to the other party would lose the membership of the House. That was the original provision. But then, some experts spoke and wrote about this provision. One of the persons who spoke and wrote about it was Shri Madhu Limaye and the other person who spoke and wrote about it was Shri Nani Palkhiwala. There were other Members also who were objecting to this provision.

The second provision is about the Presiding Officers. I am very sorry to say that this is one of the most important aspects relating to the Anti-Defection Law. Those who are Presiding and those who are given the responsibility to decide these cases have onerous responsibility to discharge. Their main job is to see that the House functions. Their main job is to see that the laws are enacted; the Budget is passed and the discussions take place in the House in a proper manner. They are given the responsibility to act as the Judicial Officers also to decide these cases in which the fate of the elected Member of the House has to be decided.

At the outset, I would like to pay my tribute to a great leader of this Parliament, a great parliamentarian, a lady Member of the CPI, Shrimati Geeta Mukherjee. On that day, Shrimati Geeta Mukherjee, while taking part in the debate said :

"I would also like to say a few words about the size of the Ministry. Although – as I have been told – it does not fall within the purview of this Constitution amendment, yet I feel that everywhere the size of the Council of Ministers being made is very big. That gives an alibi for luring other people to defect. " Shrimati Geeta Mukherjee is not here today. But she really made a very significant contribution on that day. As an honour to pay my respect to the soul of Shrimati Geeta Mukherjee, on 8th April, 2003 I introduced a Private Members’ Bill in this very House pertaining to the size of the Ministry. Of course, in that Bill I requested the Government that for the size of the Council of Ministers, a Member of Parliament who is not a Minister, may be appointed or nominated as Chairman of the statutory corporations under the control of the Union and may be accorded the status of a Minister as per article 74 of the Constitution but he shall not be entitled to any emoluments on perks by virtue of holding the office of Chairman.. By my Bill, I added article 74(A) to be incorporated. But I did say that the size of the Council of Ministers should be reduced to 10 per cent including that of the Legislative Councils in the States, wherever it may be. After this Bill was introduced, I finally felt that the Government was coming out with a comprehensive Bill in this regard. I must tell you that I was very happy with such response. Though I support the Bill fully, still I repeat what my late leader Shri Rajiv Gandhi said on that day that the shortcomings are still there which we have to fill up one day. Will the Government consider to bring a comprehensive legislation for the entire electoral reform instead of piecemeal things, about the entire functioning of our parliamentary system regarding elections and everything? It was the dream of late Shri Dinesh Goswami, our dearest colleague, part of which has been accepted and the rest of which has not yet been implemented. In this Parliament I defined defection in two categories – one is defection per se as per the statute and the other is deception. This legislation will give a wider scope that if a leader of a Party resigns from that Party, joins another Party, it is also defection and if he does not get elected by the people’s mandate, he will not be considered as a minister. Simply contesting election will not wash his whole sin or crime or whatever it is. I agree. It is good. You are giving the total emphasis on the mandate of the people. If the mandate of the people is the single criterion to honour the Constitution, then my submission to the hon. Minister of Law and Justice is – with due respect to the Upper House here and the Council in the States – that the percentage of the legislators to be inducted in the Ministry, 15 per cent, or tomorrow you can further make it to 12 per cent if there is a shortcoming, it should be done on the basis of the people elected by the people and not combining both the Houses. Combining both the Houses negates the very concept where you state that a Member who resigns and joins other Party cannot be considered as a member of the Council of Ministers and sworn in at the Rashtrapati Bhavan or the Governor’s House, unless he is elected. So, ‘elected by the people’ should be the basic criterion and if that is so, in that case, combining both the Houses and deciding the strength to determine the size of the Council of Ministers is not a correct approach. Tomorrow or day after, one has to think seriously over it. It does not help. The second point which I would like to say is that the defection is not new here. Defection started in England, the mother of democracy. In 1931, Mr. Ramsay McDonald in order to become the Prime Minister defected. He took three Members of Parliament with him and then became the Prime Minister. Such a legislation was not there in those days. In political defection, even no less a person than Mr. Churchill left the Liberal Party and stood as a Conservative Party member. I am talking of defection and deception. Take the example of Congress. If the Congress Party believes in the policy of Mahatma Gandhi and declaration of Mahatma Gandhi or principles of Congress – secularism, democracy, etc. - and tomorrow, by hook or by crook, the Congress Party decides that we have no faith in secularism, it is not only defection, it is a deception also. There is no clause in our system about how to grow healthy political culture of political parties. Take the instance of BJP. You have a direct commitment to the people throughout, since the day the Party was formed, that you stand by abolition of article 370, you stand by creation of a different kind of Raj - Hindu Raj, Ram Raj or whatever it is. … (Interruptions) श्री रघुनाथ झा (गोपालगंज): एन.डी.ए. में नहीं कहा था। श्री प्रियरंजन दासमुंशी: आप सुनिए। आप अच्छी बहस में भी टोकते हैं। मैंने आपके बारे में नहीं कहा। If the Congress, in order to form a coalition Government, accommodates a party to suppress the agenda of secularism or if you, accommodating a coalition, suppress your own political commitment or ideological commitment for the time being, how do you classify it – defection or deception? So, deception is also equally very bad because our object is not to run the Government, but to carry with people our conviction to the extent we can and to carry a conviction to the people and the workers, and compromising it, in order to form a Government, is also a very dangerous thing. If a party has commitment for dalits that they would see that justice is ensured to dalits and that group, to accommodate their party in the Government, suppresses the agenda, I call this kind of a compromise ‘deception’. I think, defection in political strength and deception both should be taken care of. Now, I come to the Election Commission. We declare at the time of registration of a political party its constitution, its statute, its ideology and everything. What is sickening in India today is the feeling among the young electorate for which my late prime Minister, Rajiv Gandhi did three great things. First, he brought the Anti-Defection Bill with a positive commitment. Shri Arun Jaitley has rightly said that still, this Bill has grey areas and shortcomings are there. At that time also, the late Prime Minister himself admitted in the House in response to Shri Madhu Dandvate and other leaders that there were shortcomings. It has been covered by you and tomorrow, something more can be done. Equally, he brought an amendment to the Constitution saying that in 21st century, there will not figure the names of freedom fighters in voters’ list; 21st century’s founding pillars of the democracy would be the young electorate. So, let us give franchise to the young people above the age of 18, irrespective of the consequences, whether we are out of power or we remain in power. I am not holding a brief for my party only. That young electorate, cutting across every line, are feeling very bad about the whole political system of the country, seeing that ‘X’ party had promised something which they forgot on getting accommodated in the Government and that ‘Y’ party does that. What is this politics? If this young electorate gets derailed, the future of democracy would be at stake. Therefore, I feel that in the near future, if the ideological commitment and declaration of the party is compromised in order to retain a Government, that is also a negation to the public declaration and declaration to the people. Under article 74, the Council of Ministers is collectively accountable to the House. I will only give two instances. Whatever the Council of Ministers does, led by any party, is a commitment to the House and nobody can deny that. Now, I have been watching for the last six months this Council of Ministers, headed by Shri Atal Bihari Vajpayee, hon. Leader of the House. He brought out publicly and in Parliament – I thank him that he is not hiding it – that `I believe disinvestment should be done; I believe that POTA should be amended`. Now, there are two components in the whole coalition who are equally and collectively answerable. One is the DMK and the other is Shiv Sena. A Minister of DMK in the Government -- while issuing an Ordinance collectively by the Government -- said that POTA should be reviewed. But the constituent political party says that POTA should be repealed. A Minister of Shiv Sena in the Government says that disinvestment should be done, and the party outside says that we are opposed to it. This kind of deception also lacks the spirit of collective accountability to the House under article 74. So, we should have a repugnant Clause in the statute so that in the future the collective responsibility of a Minister, in a coalition, is in place. If he is committed to a legislation of a Government and if his party challenges him, then either he has to resign or he should be dismissed. If that is not done, then this kind of unholy compromise of deception will anger the young electorate in the future. You should kindly take that into account. This is the only submission that I want to make.         SHRI BIKRAM KESHARI DEO (KALAHANDI): I rise to support the Constitution (Ninety-seventh Amendment) Bill, 2003. Madam, I am supporting this Bill because it envisages probity in public life. Today, we are Members of Parliament, and MLAs get elected to Assemblies with a mandate from the people by projecting their party’s ideologies and the services that they would do for the society. But later on defections take place and the existing Anti-Defection Law -- which was enacted in 1985 -- is not sufficient to protect defections, to protect engineering of defections in the country. There was a recent occurrence in Chhattisgarh, where 12 legislators of BJP party defected. It was engineered by the then Chief Minister there. Those MLAs who defected were made Ministers in Chhattisgarh. So, their commitment to the people, their commitment to the voters -- for which they got the mandate -- has completely been betrayed. श्री रघुनाथ झा : कोई भी पार्टी इससे बची नहीं है। श्री बिक्रम केशरी देव: बीजेपी पार्टी में तो अभी तक नहीं हुआ है। Therefore, Madam Chairperson, this Bill basically says that a Member who defects -- whether he defects alone or whether he defects because his original party had split -- will be technically disqualified, and if he is a Minister, then he will lose his position. He will not hold any office of profit from the Government till he seeks re-election and gets elected. Therefore, Madam, it is a very welcome measure to strengthen the Anti-Defection Law of 1985, which was enacted in 1985. It amended the articles 101, 102, 190 of the Constitution and a new 10th Schedule Clause was added. Therefore, it resulted in further strengthening and making it more defection proof. This Bill makes it more stronger by making it defection proof. It is because we are all answerable to the people, to the voters, for whom we are sitting in this House or in the Assembly or at any level, even in the Panchayat level also. But, this is not applicable there. We hope that in future for Zila Parishads and District Administrations also the States would enact such type of law. It should start from the grassroots. Regarding the Council of Ministers, previously it was seen that in the unicameral system 10 per cent was reserved for the Council of Ministers or for unicameral system and bicameral system 10 per cent was reserved. The Standing Committees, in their Reports, have suggested that in respect of the Lower House, 15 per cent will be considered for the Council of Ministers. Therefore, this is, basically, a Bill to strengthen our democracy. MADAM CHAIRMAN : You can say that you support the Bill and conclude your speech. SHRI BIKRAM KESHARI DEO : I thank you for giving me the time to speak. I support this Bill.         श्री राशिद अलवी (अमरोहा): सभापति महोदया, "देर आयद, दुरुस्त आयद " - इस लोक सभा कार्यकाल जब खत्म होने वाला है, तब यह सरकार इस बिल को लेकर आ रही है। हमारे गांव में एक कहावत है - "नौ-सौ चूहे खाकर बिल्ली हज को चली। " भारतीय जनता पार्टी की सरकार द्वारा अब यह बिल लाया जा रहा है, मैं अपनी पार्टी की ओर से इस विधेयक को सपोर्ट जरूर करता हूं, लेकिन मैं दो बातें कहना चाहता हूं। इस विधेयक में १० प्रतिशत मंत्रियों की संख्या के बारे में कहा गया है। इसके बारे में मेरा कहना यह है कि दस प्रतिशत लोक सभा और पांच प्रतिशत राज्य सभा से होने चाहिए। …( व्यवधान)आपको जब अपनी बात कहनी हो, तब बोलिएगा। कुछ देर बाद आप इधर आने वाले हैं, तब आपकी दूसरी जुबान होगी। तादाद कम होनी चाहिए, लेकिन इसके साथ-साथ मैं यह भी कहना चाहता हूं कि अभी तक एन्टी-डिफैक्शन कानून का मिसयूज हुआ है और गलत तरीके से इन्टरप्रेट करने का काम किया गया है। श्री अरुण जेटली जी सीनियर वकील हैं। न सिर्फ पार्लियामेंट के अन्दर, बल्कि एसेम्बलीज के अन्दर जो प्रीसाइडिंग आफिसर होते हैं, जानबूझकर ईमानदारी के साथ गलत तरीके से इन्टप्रेट करते हैं, तो समझ में आता है, लेकिन हिन्दुस्तान की कितनी एसेम्बलीज के अन्दर प्रीसाइडिंग आफिसर्स जानबूझकर सरकार के इशारे पर मिस-इन्टप्रेट करने का काम करते रहे हैं। मैं किसी प्रीसाइडिंग आफिसर का नाम नहीं ले रहा हूं, लेकिन हमारी पार्टी में सात साल पहले जो एन्टी-डिफैक्शन हुआ था, उस बारे में सुप्रीम कोर्ट में आजतक कान्स्टीचूशनल बैंच नहीं बनी है। बैंच कब बनेगी और कब सुनवाई होगी तथा कब उसका फैसला होगा, इस बारे में कुछ नहीं कहा जा सकता है। इसलिए मैं कहना चाहता हूं, इन्टरप्रिटेशन के लिए यह तय करना चाहिए कि हाउस के अन्दर जो बहस होती है, हाउस की जो इन्टैशन है, कानून बनाने से पहले, फैसला करने से पहले चाहे जो प्रीसाइडिंग आफिसर हों या चाहे जजेज हों, उनको इसको देखना चाहिए। दुनिया में ऐसी कोई भी जुबान नहीं है, जिसको अलहदा तरीके से इन्टप्रेट न किया जा सकता हो। अंग्रेजी भाषा में तो एक कोमा से अर्थ बदल जाता है। उर्दू में एक मुहावरा है - "तौबा-तौबा, शराब से तौबा। " इसका अर्थ समझ में आता है कि शराब से तौबा कर रहे हैं। लेकिन इसी मुहावरे को दूसरे तरीके से बोल दिया, तो उसका अर्थ बदल जाता है। श्री विनोद खन्ना जी शराब का नाम सुनते ही खुश नजर आ रहे हैं। विदेश मंत्रालय में राज्य मंत्री (श्री विनोद खन्ना) : मुझे पता चल गया कि आप क्या कहने वाले हैं। श्री राशिद अलवी : इसको अगर दूसरे तरीके से बोल दिया जाए - "तौबा-तौबा, शराब से तौबा! ", तो इसका अर्थ बदल जाता है। किस हाउस का स्पीकर क्या फैसला करे, कुछ नहीं कहा जा सकता है। इसलिए मैं चाहूंगा कि एन्टी-डिफैक्शन के मामले में अकेले प्रीसाइडिंग आफिसर के हाथ में फैसला नहीं होना चाहिए। मेरा सुझाव है कि इस बारे में एक कमेटी बनानी चाहिए। लीडर-ऑफ-अपोजीशन कैसा भी हो, लेकिन मामला अकेले स्पीकर के हाथ में नहीं छोड़ना चाहिए। मैं किसी स्टेट का नाम नहीं ले रहा हूं। स्पीकर बनाने की क्वालफिकेशन है कि यह स्पीकर हमारे हिसाब से फैसला करेगा, इसलिए इसको स्पीकर बनाया जाए। उत्तर प्रदेश का मामला आपके सामने है। इसलिए इस मामले में सरकार को सोचना चाहिए और इस कानून को ज्यादा बेहतर तरीके से बनाना चाहिए। जो कानून बन रहा है, यदि उसका मकसद ठीक नहीं होगा तो उसे बनाने का कोई फायदा नहीं होगा। एक खतरा जरूर इस बात से पैदा हो जाता है कि आप जो कानून ला रहे हैं उससे पार्टी की इंटरनल डैमोक्रेसी कमजोर हो सकती है। ऐसे राजनीतिक दल जो तेजी से डिक्टेटराना दिशा की तरफ जा रहे हैं उससे देश की राजनीति और लोकतंत्र को भारी खतरा हो सकता है। विश्व हिन्दू परिषद के वाइस प्रेजीडैंट, जिन का मैं नाम नहीं लेना चाहता हूं, उनका अभी स्टेटमैंट आया। उन्होंने कहा कि ऐसे तमाम लोग जो हिन्दू राष्ट्र में यकीन नहीं रखते हों, सैकुलरिज्म की बात करते हों, उन्हें संसद में इलैक्ट न किया जाए। मैं अफसोस के साथ कहना चाहता हूं कि भारतीय जनता पार्टी के किसी आदमी ने उसे कंडैम करने का काम नहीं किया। इस तरह का बयान देना असंवैधानिक है, क्राइम है, संविधान के साथ खिलवाड़ करना है। इस कानून को ज्यादा बेहतर तरीके से बनाया जाए तो ज्यादा बेहतर होगा लेकिन जो भी कानून सरकार ला रही है, मैं उसका अपनी पार्टी की तरफ से सपोर्ट करता हूं लेकिन यह केवल इसलिए लाया जा रहा है कि संसद के चुनाव होने वाले हैं। यकीनन भारतीय जनता पार्टी की सरकार नहीं बनेगी और कहीं बीजेपी टूट न जाए लेकिन बहरहाल जो भी मकसद हो, मैं इसका अपनी पार्टी की तरफ से सपोर्ट करता हूं। श्री अरुण कुमार (जहानाबाद): सभापति महोदय, ९७वां संविधान संशोधन विधेयक के जरिए सरकार ने लोकतंत्र में एक सक्षम व्यवस्था बनाने का काम किया है जो एक अच्छा प्रयास है। सरकार ने दिनेश गोस्वामी की रिपोर्ट, लॉ कमिशन की रिपोर्ट और स्टैडिंग कमेटी की रिपोर्ट के आधार पर काफी सोच समझ कर और विस्तृत तरीके से चर्चा करके इसे लाने का काम किया है। स्वर्गीय राजीव गांधी जी ने इस दिशा में एक कदम उठाया था। उसमें त्रुटि थी लेकिन एक अच्छा प्रयास था। यह सरकार भी इस दिशा में एक प्रयास कर रही है। मैं समझता हूं कि इससे कुछ सकारात्मक माहौल बनना लाजमी है। लोकतंत्र का आधार लोक लज्जा है। कानून के सहारे सिर्फ लोकतंत्र की गाड़ी नहीं चल सकती है। अभी माननीय अलवी साहब कह रहे थे कि स्पीकर के हाथ में अधिकार नहीं मिलना चाहिए। मेरा मानना है कि हमारे संविधान निर्माताओं ने जिस संविधान का गठन किया और जिन संस्थाओं का निर्माण किया, आज तक निश्चित तौर से हम इसे व्यक्ति से जोड़ कर न देखें। जहां कहीं त्रुटि हुई है उसमें निश्चित तौर पर सुधार होना चाहिए लेकिन संस्थाओं पर ऊंगली उठाने से उसका अच्छा फल नहीं मिलेगा। इसके दो रूप हैं - एक साइज ऑफ दी गवर्नमैंट और दूसरा डिफैक्शन। किन परिस्थितियों में डिफैक्शन होता है, मैं उस पर विस्तार से चर्चा नहीं करना चाहता लेकिन साइज ऑफ दी गवर्नमैंट कम हो जाए तो हम समझते हैं कि डिफैक्शन का परपज बहुत हद तक सर्व होगा। लेकिन जो १० प्रतिशत से १५ प्रतिशत रखा गया है, हम समझते हैं इसे और कम किया जाना चाहिए। १५ प्रतिशत से इनकी संख्या काफी हो जाती है। १३.३१ hrs. ( Mr. Speaker in the chair) अभी माननीय सदस्य श्री प्रियरंजन दासमुंशी डिफैक्शन, डिसैप्शन और अनहोली एलायंस के बारे में बोल रहे थे। यह किसी एक पार्टी तक सीमित नहीं है, वह जिस मोराल की बात कर रहे थे, उन्हें यह सोचना चाहिए कि अभी बिहार में जो उनकी सरकार चल रही है, जब वह जनता के बीच में गये थे तो राष्ट्रीय जनता दल की अराजक स्थिति के खिलाफ जनता ने उन्हें मैनडेट दिया था। लेकिन उस अराजक स्थिति को ढोने में आज वह सहयोगी बने हुए हैं। यह होली एलायंस है या अनहोली एलायंस ? चूंकि जनता ने इनकी भूमिका को पहले ही भांप लिया था और इस कारण कम लोग जीत कर आये थे। लेकिन जब कम लोग जीत कर आये तो इन्होंने राष्ट्रीय जनता दल के साथ होली एलायंस कर लिया। जनता ने अराजक स्थिति के खिलाफ इन्हें अपना मैनडेट दिया था और इनके जितने लोग जीत कर आये, वे सबके सब मंत्री बन गये, यह इनका होली एलायंस है। MR. SPEAKER: Hon. Member, I have to finish the debate by 1.45 pm. So, please conclude now. श्री अरुण कुमार : हम कहना चाहते हैं कि लोकतंत्र कानून से नहीं चल सकता, लोकतंत्र के लिए डिफैक्शन और डिसैप्शन समझाने से नहीं होगा, बल्कि हर एक राजनीतिक व्यक्ति को इस बात पर चिंता व्यक्त करनी चाहिए कि जिस दिशा में हम आगे बढ़ रहे हैं, उसमें हर आदमी को अपने आपमें चिंतन करना चाहिए। मोरल के आधार पर किसी राजनीतिक पार्टी से बंधा हुआ होना कोई बात नहीं है, यह सवाल सार्वजनिक हो गया है और हम लोग जनता के कठघरे में खड़े हो जाते हैं। इसलिए जब होली एलायंस हो तो वह एक सिस्टम पर निर्भर करता है। लोकतंत्र में लोक-लाज और लोक मर्यादा को जितना बल देंगे, हम सार्वजनिक चीजों पर जितना मजबूती से अमल करेंगे, यह व्यवस्था उतनी मजबूत होगी। MR. SPEAKER: Now, Dr. V. Saroja.