Indian Kanoon - Search engine for Indian Law

SHRI S. JAIPAL REDDY : Sir, according to the case of the CBI, it was submitted to the Court that a conspiracy was hatched on 5th December at the residence of our hon. Colleague, Shri Vinay Katiyar. That meeting was attended by Shri L.K.Advani. Shri L.K.Advani, Shri Vinay Katiyar and others hatched a conspiracy on 5th December to demolish this mosque in secrecy… (Interruptions)* Not Recorded श्री विनय कटियार : अध्यक्ष जी, मेरा नाम लिया गया है, मेरे घर का उल्लेख किया गया है।अध्यक्ष महोदय : जब आपको मौका मिलेगा, आप रिबट करना।

श्री मुलायम सिंह यादव (सम्भल) : अगर बहस नहीं चाहते हैं तो ठीक है, चलने दो जो चल रहा है।…( व्यवधान )

श्री लाल मुनी चौबे : अध्यक्ष जी, सीबीआई के नाम पर क्या यह असत्य नहीं बोल रहे हैं?… ( व्यवधान )

अध्यक्ष महोदय : आप बैठ जाइए।

श्री मुलायम सिंह यादव : वैसे ही बहस के लिए ये तैयार नहीं थे।… ( व्यवधान )

MR. SPEAKER: I have called Shri Jaipal Reddy, not you. Please take your seat.

SHRI S. JAIPAL REDDY : Sir, it may be argued by some friends that CBI is not formally under the Home Minister. I am aware of it. When recently a raid was organised on a particular industrial house, the Prime Minister made a statement saying that nothing was found in the house. I do not want to mention the name of the industrial house because that is beside the point; nor do I want to refer to the impropriety involved in his public statement, that is again beside the point. I would like to focus on this point alone. The Home Minister also thought it fit to make a public statement about the findings, or lack of findings of the CBI raid made on that industrial house. That shows the CBI is effectively under the Home Minister, Shri Advani. The Liberhan Commission is formally under the Home Minister Shri L.K. Advani. I know, Sir, Shri Advani is an ardent devotee of Lord Rama. … (Interruptions) Lord Rama, may I say in all humility, is not the monopoly of BJP or Sangh Parivar. May I say, Sir, as a Hindu, I myself give my palm to none in my veneration for the supreme virtues that Ram represents.… (Interruptions)…Lord Ram is supposed to permeate every inch of the universe. He is supposed to be omnipresent, omnipotent and omniscient. But Shri L.K. Advani and company would like to pin the Ram down to a disputed piece of 2.7 acre of land. When he represents the universe, they want to narrow him down to a disputed piece of 2.7 acres of land! Sir, Lord Ram is considered as Maryada Purushottam. I would like to ask whether there is maryada in Shri L.K. Advani sticking to the Home Ministry under the circumstances? Shri L.K. Advani is believed to be a representative of maryada by his admirers, not by me… (Interruptions)Sir, when hawala charge-sheet was filed against Shri L.K. Advani, though we were bitterly opposed to him, none of us questioned his financial integrity. There is nothing personal. We are here trying to understand the whole thing in terms of political discourse. Whether he would like to remain true to his image, to his reputation, is a matter best left to his conscience. But this mater has a lot to do with our Prime Minister too. When I gave the notice, I had only bargained for a drizzle. It developed into a downpour. It has now ended up as a dilution inundating all the Members of the NDA… (Interruptions) Sir, when I gave the notice, I had set out to catch or angle for some big fish. But as luck or ill-luck, have it lo and behold, I hit upon a whale, and that too the biggest whale. Who is the biggest whale? The Prime Minister of India, Shri Atal Bihari Vajpayee.… (Interruptions)

SHRI SOMNATH CHATTERJEE : I say this, subject to correction because we do not know what happened or what happens in the NDA meetings. … (Interruptions)

श्री विजय गोयल : ये समझते हैं कि मुस्लिम कुछ नहीं समझते, वे सब समझते हैं। … (Interruptions)* Not Recorded MR. DEPUTY-SPEAKER: Please do not interrupt him, Mr. Vijay Goel. You are talking to Shri Athawale. यह क्या बाईलैटरल टॉक है? I have taken note of it. Please resume your seat.… (Interruptions)

SHRI SOMNATH CHATTERJEE : As I said, we cannot impute political motives here because disturbed not only were we or are we, but their own allies too were disturbed. We have found in the newspapers that leaders of two of the allied parties had gone and met the Prime Minister. They said that they were satisfied with the explanation. There was an emergency NDA meeting to look into that. Therefore, you cannot say that only the Opposition is trying to put up a case or make out a case here. The allies usually get easily satisfied and they got satisfied this time also. Why do we ask for resignation? Why do we ask for these resignations? I wish our good friend Shri Paswan was here. He is neither able to solve the postal strike nor does he get time to listen to us. If you get the reports of the Lok Sabha Debates of 7th December, you would find what he said. He said one very significant thing on the 7th December itself. He said, "Arrest Mr. Advani immediately." Now, we find him sitting on his laps. What do we say here? There are serious charges against them. Now, the situation is this. Maybe, the CBI is not under the control of the Home Minister for the moment. But the Prime Minister is in charge. So, the Prime Minister is prosecuting his own Home Minister. Really, the Home Minister looks after all these things. Therefore, the prosecutor and the accused are the same person. Justice should not only be done, but should also seem to be done. Now he may ask me why did I take it up after two or three years. If there is a delay of two or three years, does a crime get washed away? There is no limitation so far as the trial of crime is concerned. We have done nothing and I do not propose to do anything-- not to pass any judgement on any of the observations of the Judge. It is not only the CBI – after thorough inquiry or thorough investigation – has filed a chargesheet, but there is also a feeling in this country and in this House also that it is sufficient to raise questions of propriety. Somebody who is an accused should not remain in power until he gets exonerated. That was the measure that was applied so far as Shri Laloo Prasad Yadav was concerned. I stood up here and said that he should resign, although he was then supporting us. Shri Buta Singh was made to resign by Shri Vajpayee, as the Prime Minister. Shri Muthaiah was made to resign. Good principles were laid down. And then there was a demand for resignation of Shri Rameshwar Thakur because a Parliamentary Committee has expressed certain reservations about some of his observations. The same thing happened with Shri Harin Pathak. I know he was upset. I feel he is more upset now. He is not Shri L.K. Advani. So, he is sitting in the back bench whereas Shri L.K. Advani is still occupying the front benches. Shri Jaipal Reddy read out most of the serious charges that Shri L.K. Advani had a meeting on the day before the incident. These are the allegations. I am not saying that this is correct. Who can say that it is correct or who can say it is wrong? We cannot say that here. But these are the prima facie charges made by a competent investigative body. Many people swear by that Organisation in this country. What approach have they taken? The Chief Minister should not resign because there would be trouble. You put up barricades so that Central forces cannot come in. Km. Uma Bharati was raising interesting slogans. … (Interruptions) Shri Arun Jaitley was looking for precedents. He said that it is unprecedented because there is no other case. I was wondering what has happened to a good lawyer like Shri Jaitley. Where has he gone? He cited the example of Election Commission. According to the present law, unless a person is sentenced to imprisonment for six years, he is not disqualified. The Election Commission feels that even a chargesheet should be sufficient. But the political parties have not agreed because charges could be motivated based on the illegalities as was done by Shri Jaipal Reddy’s new party. They have committed many breaches of democracy, like MISA etc., during the Emergency. Of course, we have accused them. It was absolutely wrong on their part to open that lock or to do the shilanyas. This has sowed the seeds. That has been misutilised by communal outfits like VHP and Bajrang Dal. That decision of the Congress party did not serve the nation and it did not serve the interest of the Congress Party. They were also obliterated. We are not shedding tears for them. It cannot be an answer that Congress did not act properly and that they are guilty of misdemeanour. Are you getting inspiration from them? That is why I interrupted only once when Shri Arun Jaitley spoke. He said that was the national bhavna and national sentiment. Let us know whether Shri Atal Bihari Vajpayee is following that particular national sentiment and that he is trying to represent himself as a leader of the minuscule section of the Hindu community because he does not have the right to represent the Hindu community as a whole. What about Muslims and what about Christians who are suffering today? What is happening to the Christian community? They are only handful in this country. Repeated attacks are taking place against them. I can understand some of these fundamentalist and obscurantist forces in their group taking up these matters. Shri Atal Bihari Vajpayee is the leader of the country and leader of the Government. The Prime Minister has been telling everybody that NDA agenda is the only agenda that he has and that he has put the BJP agenda at the back. He is not talking of article 370, Uniform Civil Code, mandir-masjid controversy because he wants NDA as the national Government. Everybody is wondering about this transformation. I had said earlier also at other places that Shri Vajpayee does not use words so loosely. I have known him for almost 30 years. Many of us have got the privilege of working with him. He does not use words casually or carelessly. He is an articulate person. Whom was he addressing when he used these phrases – like, the unfinished task has to be completed - of national sentiments? He was addressing to the most fundamentalist obscurantist forces in his group boosting his attempt on the part of VHP and Bajrang Dal who want to illegally, threatening the people, construct the temple there.

18.00 hrs.     We have come here for certain basic values. What are those values? The issue of the Motion should be understood in the right spirit. Shri Atal Bihari Vajpayee does not represent the BJP in Parliament as Prime Minister. When he is Prime Minister, he is the Prime Minister of mine also. He is the Prime Minister of the entire country, not of the NDA. What is the commitment of the NDA in its Manifesto? If Shri Vajpayee has betrayed somebody, he has first betrayed the Manifesto of the NDA. The NDA Manifesto is for secularism, the emotional harmony of all Indians and full protection of the minorities. Shri Atal Bihari Vajpayee is the Prime Minister of NDA, the Leader of this House and the Prime Minister of the people of India who express all kinds of emotions in their culture and religious habits. Was it in the NDA agenda that Shri Atal Bihari Vajpayee would have to address a meeting on the platform of the VHP in the United States? Was it in consonance with the agenda? Is it in consonance with the agenda that even if the Opposition has moved a Motion – whether right or wrong, whether it stands the propriety or not – he would have to respond and react in a different manner outside Parliament? Shri Arun Jaitley tried to defend the Prime Minister in his own way. According to Shri Arun Jaitley, the newspaper The Pioneer was telling an untruth when it said that they were in Ayodhya to protect the Babri Masjid. ‘PM’s clarification adds fuel to fire’, said The Times of India and it was an untruth. The Hindustan Times said, ‘PM for temple at disputed site’ and that was also an untruth. The reports, ‘Demand for Ministers’ resignation rejected’, ‘Temple should be built at the same site’ and "`Ayodhya mission yet to be realised’, Mr. Vajpayee" were all untruths. The only truths to appear in newspapers were, ‘Atal Bihari is gaining more support after Kargil’ and ‘Atal Bihari’s mission to Lahore is a success’. These were the only truths and the news items in the last few days were untruths. Is this the way they want to take the House into confidence? The media might have twisted the facts. But you could have given a clarification in the form of a written text or a written communiqué. There was nothing of that sort. Why did Shri George Fernandes have to hurriedly convene a meeting of the NDA to take them into confidence on an issue of this seriousness? Are we all telling untruths here? Are we all telling something to embarrass you? A question was raised by Shri Arun Jaitley, ‘Why this Motion, at this hour?’ Is it something where the Congress is trying to score a political point? I would categorically say, ‘No’. The Opposition parties, including the Congress, watched the developments over the last one-and-a-half months. You have appointed a man who was supposed to appear before the Liberhan’s Commission as a Governor, to exonerate him from appearing before that Commission. You have appointed a man, who was supposed to retire, as the Governor of Jharkhand. Why and what for has the Prime Minister chosen him suddenly? If the commitment to US-India relationship is very important to justify our stand on Kashmir in the United States, why did he deliver an address from the dais of the VHP? Why did the Prime Minister not say a single word against the stand and repeated threats of Shri Ashok Singhal that by a particular date after the Kumbha Mela the temple mission should be completed? Shri Arun Jaitley is absent. He is a very professional and competent lawyer. But today I have seen him poorly and miserably failing to defend this case. He was talking of jurisprudence. He said that we were providing a new jurisprudence. I am not a competent lawyer like Shri Arun Jaitley; nor do I practise law like him. But I can only tell him that the basic essence of jurisprudence is that the matter should not only be fair but it should also appear to be fair. Under whose umbrella is the Liberhan’s Commission functioning? It is under the Ministry of Home Affairs. Under whose command is the CBI functioning? It is under the Prime Minister. Who are working in the CBI? They are the IPS officials, under the Delhi Special Police Establishment Act. Who looks after the Delhi IPS officers or the IPS officers all over India? It is the Ministry of Home Affairs.Who is heading that? It is Shri L.K. Advani. It should not only be fair, but it should appear to be fair. Does it appear to be fair? When the Commission summons Shri Advani, he would appear before him. But who is Shri Advani? He is the Home Minister of India. How does the Commission work? It works under the umbrella of the Home Ministry. Does it appear to be fair in terms of political propriety, morality and constitutional traditions? It is not a charge against Shri Advani. Our Party still makes it clear. We have not come here with a pre-judged opinion that Shri Advani is guilty or not guilty or Kumari Uma Bharati is guilty or not guilty. We are talking about the basic political values which have been propounded for years together by Shri Atal Bihari Vajpayee, sitting on this side of the House. I heard a number of speeches of him on political morality, on parliamentary traditions and on propriety on many occasions. As a student of politics when I entered Parliament in 1971, it was Shri Atal Bihari Vajpayee, Shri Madhu Limaye, Shri Indrajit Gupta, Shri George Fernandes and others who taught me many things on Parliament. I understood them for a greater vision. Now, does it appear good? If a Chief of Naval Staff does something which is not in consonance with the spirit of the Defence Ministry, I share the views of the Defence Minister. A responsible Defence Minister cannot afford to keep him as the Head of the Navy. Now, is it fair on the part of the Prime Minister? It is not a case; Shri Arun Jaitley is not here. He referred to page 601 of Kaul and Shakdhar. What was that matter? It was regarding Shri Lalit Narain Mishra being a Minister of the Government misused power or not in an inquiry and whether on that basis, he is answerable to resign or not. The ruling was that if the Minister in his capacity as Minister does something – right or wrong – he couldn’t be singled out because the Ministry as a whole is collectively responsible to the Lok Sabha. But the case of Shri Harin Pathak or of dear sister Kumari Uma Bharati or of Shri Advani or of Dr. Murli Manohar Joshi is not in that category. Being a Minister of the Government, Shri Advani did not go to Ayodhya and involved himself in Temple or Mosque issue. Shri Advani, in his personal capacity, being a party cadre or a leader, Shri Harin Pathak, in his personal capacity, being a party cadre or a leader or Dr. Murli Manohar Joshi, in his personal capacity, did something in the past and later on, became Ministers. Now, that Ministry has to investigate the case under various umbrellas and he is sitting on top of that Ministry. Is it constitutionally, politically, morally, culturally, and as per the established traditions of Parliament fair? This is the question and nothing more than that. I never say that Shri Advani did something right or wrong. We said that in our eyes, apprehension and suspicion have been generated. Shri Harin Pathak is one of our dearest friends and colleagues. If your Government is convinced that if Shri Harin Pathak’s continuance in the Ministry at the moment might not be helpful in terms of constitutional propriety, why does the same yardstick not apply to Shri Advani and others? It is to strengthen the democratic traditions and not to strengthen the issue of Temple or Mosque. That will be taken care of by the Supreme Court at appropriate stage and we shall all stand by that. I do not understand why are we now discussing the issue of Temple and Mosque. Our notice of motion is not confined to that issue. The Investigating Officer in that case should tell me very honestly. Would he dare to go to the Court of Ayodhya and say, "Your Lordship, I have come with some more documents?" No. He is there to salute Shri Advani and say, "I am here, Sir." He cannot do that; he is a human being. If you feel that I am telling something wrong, you can tell me. If you are sincere to have appropriate prosecutions in every case without interfering and tampering with judiciary, then, why till today, in spite of several adjournments, in the case of the Union of India Vs. so and so, the State of Uttar Pradesh Vs. so and so, led by Shri Rajnath Singh, led by Shri Kalyan Singh, led by Shri Ram Naresh Gupta and now led by Shri Atal Bihari Vajpayee, they could not send a prosecutor saying that Shri Advani will appear before the Ayodhya Court? They should say that they do not want any adjournments.What was the motive? Why adjournment is taken day in and day out? I remember that one day the hearing was fixed in the Lucknow Court. Dr. Murli Manohar Joshi and Shri L.K. Advani had to appear in the Court. On that day they were in Parliament. But there, their absence was noted that due to some reasons they could not come. This creates suspicion and apprehension in the minds of the people that there is a deliberate attempt to cover up the whole thing using the good offices of the Home Ministry, the State Government and the Union Government. Here lies the question. This is what we call propriety, this is what we call political culture, and this is what we call political morality. You may accuse the Congress a thousand times. If Congress has done something wrong, you may cite it. But does that give you any dividend? Does that mean that you should also do the same thing? You can counter me with rhetorics and arguments. But where do you stand? Do you stand by your Manifesto? In the Manifesto, you talked of national governance, transparency and non-interference in the judiciary. Just now, Shri Arun Jaitley said that there was no interference anywhere. He also said that you cannot cite a single case. He is not present here now. Did he not say in the television that the charges against Shri L.K. Advani and others are all cock and bull story? Did he not say that these are false charges? Did not the Prime Minister say on the 6th December that charges are baseless? Till the judiciary decides whether it is correct or wrong, how can the Prime Minister say that charges are baseless? How can the Law Minister say that these are baseless? Does it not amount to exerting pressure on judiciary? Is it not interference? Does it not have a telling effect on the whole judiciary? You talk of transparency and national governance. Is it fair on your part? You say that this Motion is wrong. The purpose of this Motion is not to take any political mileage and not to divide the Hindus and Muslims. This Motion is for maintaining the dignity, propriety and political morality of the Government of the day. I admire Prime Minister, Shri Atal Bihari Vajpayee. We may have thousands of differences with him. Really speaking, I thought that, at this critical situation, this Prime Minister is trying to respond to the national ethos to the extent possible in spite of the tremendous pressure exerted by the VHP and the RSS. In the private discussions we say this. I do not hide it. The Prime Minister and Shri Arun Jaitley should not forget that they have come to power not because of BJP and VHP. Your brand was sold to the market because your brand was levelled with the picture of Shri George Fernandes who was in the socialist movement, with the picture of Shri Sharad Yadav who was also in the socialist movement, with the picture of Kumari Mamata Banerjee who stood for secularism and with the picture of Shri Vaiko who stood for the workers. That is how the lotus surfaced and Shri Vajpayee’s face was protected. That is why you are sitting in the NDA Government. When you go to the parade of RSS, you salute Shri Sudarshan and say that we believe in what you say. Have the guts to say in the Parliament also that we believe in what Shri Sudarshan says and go to Ayodhya. But you do not have the guts. Therefore, I say that you are suffocating on the one hand with your own hypocrisy outside Parliament and suffocate here because of your compulsions with the allies. Between these two arrangements, the Prime Minister is under great tension. Shri Arun Jaitley said that this Government is tension-free. But it is under great tension. The Prime Minister is under great tension. They have said that Government has got such a great image in the whole world and Congress is jealous of that. Why should we be jealous? The Governments of Pandit Jawaharlal Nehru and Shrimati Indira Gandhi used to negotiate directly with the Presidents of United States of America, but it is a pity that this Government negotiates with the Under Secretary called Mr. Talbott. This is the image and standard of this Government. They have brought down the image and standard of the Government. On the same matter, on 7th December, the Prime Minister said: