279 PM's Statement re. [ RAJYA SABHA ] against families of 280 Inquiry Commission Minister and Former Home Minister [Shri Lai K. Advani] been agreement. But here there has been a formal discussion and a formal decision by the Business Advisory Committee in which representatives of all parties were there. Apart from that, according to rule 12 of the Rules of Procedure, the Council shall sit on such days as the Chairman, having regard to the state of business of the Council, may, from time to time, direct. So, it is the state of business of the House on the basis of which the Chairman will direct.

Now, Sir, so far as the Government is concerned, the Government has not been amiss at all. It is only after the Bill is passed by the other House, that we can take it up for consideration. We cannot take it up fox consideration before that. Therefore, there has been no lapse on the part of the Government.

STATEMENT BY PRIME MINISTER RE. RESOLUTION ADOPTED BY RAJYA SABHA FOR APPOINTMENT OF A COMMITTEE OR ALTERNATIVELY TWO SEPARATE COMMISSIONS OF INQUIRY TO INQUIRE INTO ALLEGATIONS OF CORRUPTION MADE AGAINST MEMBERS OF FAMILIES OF THE PRIME MINISTER AND THE FORMER HOME MINISTER— continued

SHRI ERA SEZHIYAN (Tamil Nadu): Sir, just now we have hear-d the Leader of the Opposition saying that this House is supreme. That way, is it not supreme in other respects also? That is where, Sir, we differ. This House is supreme in the functions allotted to it by the Constitution. This House is supreme in arranging its own business. This House is the master of its own business. Nobody can inter- fere in its business. Even the courts cannot say when this House sit or should not sit or what this House should do or what it cannot do. But, at the same time, Sir, this House is 281 P.M's Statement re. [ 24 AUG. 1978 ] against families of 282 Inquiry Commission Prime Minister and former Home Minister not supreme in executive matters. This House very brief and I will not repeat the points is not supreme in judicial matters. That is why already covered. I think Mr. Kulkarni rightly we say the Resolution is only pointed out that the Chairman does not come recommendatory in character and that it is for into the picture at all with regard to this the Government to take the recommendation Resolution. It is because this Resolution and give its own consent. recommends to the Government, as rightly given by you, Sir, in your ruling to seek Sir, why is the hon. Member standing forthwith the guidance and advice from a when somebody is speaking? committee of 15 Members to be appointed by the Chairman, or alternatively, to appoint a THE VICE-CHAIRMAN (SHRI SHYAM commission of inquiry. Therefore, the entire LAL YADAV): Mr. Kalp Nath Rai, please thing is upon the Government, whether they take your seat. want to seek the guidance or advice of the committee or they want to appoint the SHRI ERA SEZHIYAN: Sir, when the hon. commission of inquiry. If they do not want to Members spoke about parliamentary seek the guidance of the committee, then the democracy, about the sanctity of this House, question of appointment of a committee does about the supremacy of this House, I felt not arise. The Chairman is not in the picture. It elated. is for the Government to decide. If this House had wanted, if those who moved this motion [Mr. Chairman in the Chair] had wanted, if those who moved the amendment had wanted, they could have called upon the House or they could have For twenty long months these things were forgotten by them very conveniently. They had called upon the Chairman to appoint a forgotten that there was a parliamentary committee. Then, having appointed the democracy in this country, that there is a committee, they should have asked the Gov- Constitution, that there were two Houses of ernment to be guided by that committee. But Parliament. The supremacy of these things was their first appeal was to the Government to conveniently forgotten by many Members seek the guidance. Once the Government does there. At least now they have begun to realise not want the guidance of a committee, the that such a thing as called parliamentary question of appointment of a committee does democracy is there and that respect should be not arise. given to the decision taken by the House in its own sphere. Mr. Pranab Mukherjee was very Mr. Goswami raised the point that it is not a eloquent when he said that instead of referring Resolution and this is a motion. Sir, he has it to a judge, it should be referred to a com- been in the Parliament and I believe he knows mission of inquiry. I hope, Sir, he shows some the difference between a motion and a courtesy to the commission of inquiry already Resolution. Anything that is moved by the appointed by the Government... hon. Members in this House is a motion and after consideration by the House, when it is SHRI PRANAB MUKHERJEE: I showed accepted, it becomes a Resolution. We may courtesy, Mr. Sezhiyan. 1 appeared the first even take the case of a private Member's day before that commission and I raised Resolution. We can go through the certain technical issues. Therefore, do not proceedings of the past where it is mentioned: bring in this matter. I showed courtesy and "Motion negatived" or 'Motion adopted". That went there and appeared on the first day. means, when the House is approached, it is a These things are on record. motion. There is even this No-Day-Yet

SHRI ERA SEZHIYAN: Sir, coming to the Resolution as such, I would be 283 PM's) Statement re. [RAJYA SABHA] against families of 284 Inquiry Commission Prime Minister and former Kf>me Minister [Shri Era Sezhiyan] Named-Motion. If the need be no confrontation between the House hon. Members go through the past history, and the Chairman between this House and the they will know. Therefore, I do not want to go Executive. You can advise, you can into that. What Mr. Kulkarni said, is the recommend, you can pass a resolution, but it correct position. This Resolution or the is a political question, which the people will motion,—whatever you call it—makes a decide, the people will judge. Now they want recommendation to the Government. This is to go on technicalities and in order to avoid a not a recommendation to the Chairman. This political confrontation the Prime Minister has is a recommendation made to the come forward with this one. Government, to be guided by a committee to be appointed. The Government does not Lastly, Sir, Mr. Kulkarni said that the propose to seek the guidance of a committee Janata Party, the Janata Government lacks and, therefore, the Chairman does not come political maturity. I may accept the plea that into the picture. we lack political maturity, but I can say to this SHRI ANANT PRASAD SHARMA: Why House that we do not have the political im- are you twisting the whole thing? morality, political sycophancy, political subservience, political authoritarianism. We SHRI KALP NATH RAI: You are may make errors, we may make mistakes, distorting the whole thing. but...

SHRI ERA SEZHIYAN: I am not SHRI BUDDHA PRIYA MAURYA: But distorting it... question mark.

MR. CHAIRMAN; You may go on. If you start replying to other points, there will be no SHRI ERA SEZHIYAN: Yes, Mr. Maurya, end to it. I know you entire political career has been a question mark. I know that. I was the Member SHRI ERA SEZHIYAN: Sir, whenever any of the other House and I know when you hon. Member stands up, I understand that he spoke against the Government in so many wants to say something. Therefore, Sir, this terms. Therefore please do not raise this. motion is addressed to the Government, and Therefore, Sir, here is a political question. I not to the Chairman. Mr. Kulkarni also raised admit it but it has been dealt with politically. a point... (Interruptions). Just because there is a majority here you SHRI BHUPESH GUPTA: It is quite clear should not have met it like this. from the speech you are making that there has been a lot of laxity in thinking on this matter. One thing I want the leaSers of the Congress and the Congress (I) to ponder over. SHRI ERA SEZHIYAN: This is for the Suppose, the other House takes on itself and first time that this point is being raised. When passes a resolution for appointment of a there was the Maruti case, when there was the committee to go into many of the charges Nagorwala scandal, so many questions were which should naturally go to a judicial forum, asked in tne House but they had the majority and suppose it had arrogated to itself all the here and the majority in the other House. At functions of the judiciary and the executive, that time, they never brought in this point. what would happen? Here, the Government has come forward to refer the matter to the Chief Justice if an hon. Therefore ,in all political maturity with Member can give a specific case. I do not which Mr. Kulkarni said, I want the same want a confrontation; I think somebody political maturity to come to the other side correctly put it that there also and ponder over these things because we want many things to be done. 285 PM's Statement re. [ 24 AUG. 1978 ] against families of 286 Inquiry Commission Prime Minister and former Home Minister SHRI ARVIND GANESH KULKARNI: Mr. Sezhiyan, what you said is you may be lacking in political maturity but not in political dishonesty, sychophancy etc. One can appreciate it, but to run a Government and to run a country political maturity is more important.

SHRI ERA SEZHYAN: All right. Sir, I admit but political maturity of a diffrent character, not the political maturity of the past that has been exhibited in the country, which he himself has said should be not done. Therefore, he should come out of the political maturity which suppressed the country under tne dark age for more than 20 months. And that kind of a political maturity we do not want, we do not need. We want a pulitical maturity where political democracy is respected, where political questions will be met squarely, and in the end I would commend to the leaders of the Opposition, to the leaders who are sitting on that side to ponder over this thing. This is a question where executive functions cannot be taken over by this House. Suppose you appoint another committee to act as a court enquiry into some other case. Is it necessary for this House to do so? Is it the function of the Parliament to conduct commissions of inquiry, to assume the role of the judiciary, to go into the matter. It has been allotted to some other forum. That is w"hy I say the Parliament is supreme, this House is supreme in the field of legislation. It is supreme In giving advice to the Government, in passing resolutions which are recommendatory. I do agree but we should not go one step beyond that. Otherwise, it becomes infractuous, as you have correctly said in your ruling, Sir, that the appointment of a committee becomes infructuous at this stage.

287 Re. sitting of [ RAJYA SABHA ] Rajya Sabha on 26-8-7S 288

289 Re. sitting of [ 24 AUG. 1978 ] Rajya Sabha on 26-8-78 290

MR. CHAIRMAN: We have spent enough time... (Interruption). Please wait for one minute. If you can take five minutes each I can accommodate three or four Members. Then I will have to lake regular work at 5 P.M. So please manage.

SHRI N. K. P. SALVE: My question is this. The ball is now in your court.

MR. CHAIRMAN: If you want to speak for five minutes you may speak.

SHRI N. K. P. SALVE; I do not like to make a lengthy speech. I will make a relevant speech. If nothing else, brevity wi'jl be the merit of my speech.

The first question that needs to be considered is this. I had hoped against hope that not only sober but wise counsel would guide the decision Oi the Prime Minister in determining the stance he has taken on this motion. Unfortunately, he has given the gobye to both. Sir, there are three aspects of the matter. I would like to say. Mr. Era Sezhiyan made a point that so far as this House is concerned, it is supreme in its own field. It cannot usurp to itself any judicial function. That is the basic character of the Constitution. Nor can the Supreme Court usurp to itself what is, in fact, the prerogative of this House.

Sir, what is the issue? The issue in this Resolution is: What is the auths^ rity and power of this House in the 291 P.M'g Statement re. [ RAJYA SABHA ] against families 0/ 292 Inquiry Commission Minister and Former Home Minister [Shri N. K. P. Salve], Three are three or four questions that will arise. matter of ensuring purity and integrity in the Does he take it that the Supreme Court is government administration, and what is the the handmaiden of the Government? Under right of this House in ensuring that highest what authority, under which law, is he entitled norms are guaranteed in the public life of this to do this? This is a ver valid question raised. country? Is this House so utterly impotent that y That is number one. N'nmber two is, is the a Resolution passed by itself is disregarded in Chief Justice bound to deal with a matter like the manner as it has been done by the Govern- this, and is the Supreme Court meant for a ment? I put it to a person like Mr. Era thing like this? Already the Supreme Court is Sezhiyan. Is there any good reason a suspect because there has been far too much given why the Government did not stand political thinker-ing with the Supreme Court. by the solemn pledge it has given to the Law (Interruptions) Commission? They have been pontificating, they have been sermonising on high standards Last but n,ot the least, if there is of dignity and morality and wanting this a statute which entitles the Govern House to show high standards of ment to get a Judge appointed, why discipline of a graveyard as it were. Why not under section 3, because that pro have not they asked the Government, why vides a procedure? I cannot under did not the Government stand by its solemn stand it. If you are going to go by pledge? If they are really worried about this procedure and order an honest, the dignity of this House, why don't they stand impartial and fair inquiry, if your by the commitment they had made to the intentions are honest and this is not Law Commission that if a resolution is passed purely a ruse, meretriciousness a by this House, notwithstanding the statutory deception arid a fraud on Parliament, may I provisions. notwithstanding the binding know one good reason why you cannot have force that it has so far as the other House is the same Judge under section 3 of the concerned, even a resolution passed by this Commissions ,of Inquiry Act? Therefore, Sir, House would be respected? That was the this ig neither here nor there. solemn pledge. Any good reason given by Coming to the Resolution itself, I have no Morarjibhai? What Morarji-bhai stated doubt in my mind that the language of the unfortunately today, I have never Resolrffbn is absolutely clear and unequivocal. expected from a person "wh0 all his life But' now the ball is in your court and you have had shown such political sanctitude, to interest it. Sir, I am unaware of your political seintli-ness. What he stated today background or if you have had any forensic is most unfortunate, no doubt, solely devoid background or not. But the principles of and bereft of any political maturity, hermene-utics, the science of interpretation, devoid 0f any political wisdom. It smacks 0f clearly lays down the first postulate. Here is arrogance which comes from power. It is the book of Gray on Statutes-a bible on the so hopelessly peu-rile and childish. He canons of interpretation. It says that any a n wants to give tig lollipops in this House ' d interpretation of a document or a statute should thinks this House will be talked out of a be so made that it does* not frustrate 'the motion just because his son is involved. intended purpose and for purposes of What is it, Sir? He says any Member, determining an intent and purpose. This book giving in writing certain allegations will be .is an'authority. That is what I will read' and sit sent to the Chief Justice for the doVn: It is laid down that you have to refer- appropriate thing being done. p> the debate and if yoii are tn refer to the (Interruptions) debate, you will have no doubr 293 P.M's Statement re. [ 24 AUG. 1978 ] against families of 294 Inquiry Commission Prime Minister and Former Home Minister left in your mind that apart from the fact that it satisiactonly without reiemng to-the past is in itself clear that the entire i'atent, the entire history of the legislation on the subject and purpose of the Motion was to ensure that in the speech 0f the mover of the amendment case a commission is not appointed> 15 who was undoubtedly in the best position to Members of this House will go into it. For that explain what defect i'n law the-amendment purpose it is not purely the language as such had sought to remove." but the debate can be gone into, and I am reading o'nly two QV three lines from this Sir, the Supreme Court did not deliver this book, you can extend the circumstance and judgement for my benefit or for the benefit of include Parliament's debate. It is incumbent the people who< had passed the Resolution. upon you to consider what was the tenor, w'hat They had said that wherever you are in doubt was the tone, what was the demand, what was of the enactment 0f a legislation, thea the the spirit behind bringing the entire debate into speech of the Move,- is the best guide to this House. It was not an exercise in futiMty. determine. Here we are shouting hoarse This is Gray's Statute Law—seventh edition— 'nothing e'se except making a demand that a and I am reading from page 129:— 15-Member Committee should go into the allegation. That was what brought out in our "In 1968, Lord Lee said that there wa s speeches. That was the intent and purpose, purely practical reasons why any debate in and should it ever be that completely either House are 'not allowed to be stated misleading Eng^u is; read in it, then I submit and as examples mentioned at tenes the the debate should be perused. Ther is no expense involved in reading f the debates e 0 other interpretation that is possible. That is the Act the difficulty of access by on my submission. Council, etc., to reports or earlier Acts. Later, in the same year, he thought that there MR. CHAIRMAN: Shri Yogendra was room for exception where examining Sharma. You take five minutes" b~e-cause I the proceedings in Parliament almost have not sst the time-limit for it. certainly settle the matter immediately one (Interruptions) Let hims speak. way or the other."

Sir. kindly refer to the entire proceedings. I will quote a few more lines from the decision of the Supreme Court. I am reading from 1975. 101, ILR 234. I am on page 253. This is the principle laid down by the Supreme Court. I quote; "1+ is true that it is dangerous and may be misleading to gather the meaining of the words used i'-1 the enactment merely from what was said by the speaker in the course of a debate in Parliament on the subject. Such a speech cannot be used to defeat or„ detract from a meaning which clearly emerges from a consideration of. the enacting words actually used. But in the. case before us. the real. meaning and purpose of the words used cannot be understood, at all

.295 P.M's Statement re. [24 AUG. 1978] against families of 296 Inquiry Commission Prims Minister and Former Home Minister

SHRI A. R. ANTULAY (Maharashtra) : Mr. Chairman, in all humility I would like to invoke your authority tj enlighten this House with the help and assistance of the Law Minister here, on what exactly the Prime Minister said. I have been sitting throughout the debate starting with the speech of the Prime Minister which I heard very intently and with rapt attention. I have not missed a single w.ord from any speaker who has contributed to the debate, and, yet, Mr. Chairman, I really am at a loss to understand whether the Prime Minister dealt with the subject that was discussed and debated for 10 hours, on the motion you were good enough to admit and the motion this House was wise to pass. Mr, Chairman, it is not that.

297 P.M's Statement re. [ RAJYA SABHA ] against families of 298 Inquiry Commission Prime Minister and Former Home Minister

The Prime Minister said, "If some body SHRI A. K, ANTULAY: You don't were to give specific charges, : shall refer understand. You go on saying "yes* yes". the matter to the Chie: Justice." What You please try to understand what I am does the Prime Minister mean by this? Mr. saying. If you cannot comprehened what I am Chairman, yov. have got to safeguard the saying, I cannjt help it. You should know dignity oi the House. This is an attack on elementary language. each Member individually, all Members collectively and this auyast House Mr. Chairman, very simply the points because the Prime Minister has not even said, is this. I think the Law Minister will bsar me as wrongly we have assumed that ha has said out when I say that when there was a and taken part in the discussion and the debate debate in the Constituent Asssmbly in in both the Houses. "All right there were two regard to the appointment of Supreme proposals, and I am coming forward with the Court and High Court judges, especially- third proposal on the charges levelled by Mr. Supreme Court judges, by the House itself, the Salve, as a result of which the debate ensued." point raised and accepted was. let the names No, he has given a complete go-by; it did not not be discussed; if the names are discussed exist; the Prime Minister did not say anything and re-*-jected, it will be construed as a bad! that took place on the 10th of this month. He thing for the judiciary. When this; motion could have equally said to the Press also and was discussed on the 10th,. it was also outside the House what he has said here. discussed and debated as: to> whether it This, in my humble submission, Mr. should be referred to a: judge because there Chairman, is a contempt of this House. was an amendment which ultimately was You see the arrogance with which the withdrawn. And the House having come to Prime Minister has paid scant respect the conclusion that it will not be referred to a to this House, the arrogance with Judge, which judge in this country will not be which he has made the statement, the embarrassed before accepting this arrogance with which he has not even assignment? Mr. Chairman, why embarrass mentioned the debate, the arrogance with the judiciary? If I were on the judiciary, if I which the motion which has been adopted were a judge of the Supreme-Court or the by the House has been absolutely put into Chief Justice of. the Supreme Court, after oblivion. Mr. Chairman, you are the the House has rejected the amendment, the custodian of the rights of the House; you amendment having been withdrawn, after the are the custodian of the privileges of the House has come to a definite conclusion that it House; you are the custodian of all that stands should be referred to a committee of the House, good for this House. You have to give a if the Prime Minister were to say "Let it be ruling on this subject,, because the Prime referred to the judiciary or the Chief Minister has made a mistake. The Prime Justice", if I am worth my salt as Chief Minister has only said, "All right, let Justice, if I am really trying to be impartial and somebody make specific charges. I will if the entire House has shown a preference to refer them." Mr. Chairman, we are not here referring it to> a committee of the House rather to waste our time. The House is not going to than a judicial person... (Time bell rings.) No, waste its time on that. If the Prime Minister Mr. Chairman, I am making new points I am has to say that, let him say that wherever he not repeating, I never repeat what has been wants. But the precise object of this already discussed. Then, the Chief Justice or discussion is and has been, what is happening' any judge will not accept it. He will say,. to the motion that has been passed. Did he "Yes, there was a proposal before the House even once refer to the motion? No. that the matter should be referred to a member of the judiciary.. SHRI BIJU PATNAIK: Yes, yes. 299 P.M's Statement re. [ RAJYA SABHA ] against families of 300 Inquiry Commission Prime Minister and Former Home Minister [Shri A. R. AntulayJ 'The House has not voted for it. The SHRI A. R. ANTULAY: I think it will not House has voted for a committee of be fair to embarrass that Chief Justice in .the House. Why should I unneces being required and called upon to go into the sarily stick my neck out? I would affairs of the son of the Prime Minister not do so." I think our judiciary being because unfortunately whatever he may say, independent, our judiciary being self- justice will not seem to have been done. respecting and our judges being Why? When the motion was being discussed people for whom we have got respect, and debated—I am not going to repeat—I rthey will certainly say "No". The said, no hush-hush should be there. Be that Prime Minister should have enligh the Chief Justice of India, be that a Judge of tened the House on this point. Assum the Supreme Court, no hush-hush should be ing that we accept it, which we do there. Let everybody know, these are the not, should he not have said "Yes, I things. It should be a public inquiry. Only in have consulted the Chief Justice. He Pro-fumo's case—Mr. Shanti Bhushan will is prepared to take it up"? What does bear me out—throughout the history of he think? Does the Prime Minister English Law—I know it since 1921—was take the Chief Justice for granted? there a secret inquiry. It was only in Should he come here and make a Profumo's case where the security of the solemn declaration on the floor of country was involved, the risk was grave, that the House, "All right, I am making a the inquiry was held in confidence, in camera, reference to the Chief Justice or the in secrecy; otherwise, no. In Profumo's case it judiciary", without consulting them? was done because of his standing; nobody Does he think the Chief Justice is one could dispute his standing; even the worst of of the Ministers? Fortunately this his enemies would say, here is a man who is country knows that the judiciary is impartial and great. Therefore, Sir, I am not independent under the Constitution. going to repeat, but that is what I said... Before he wants a sort of clearance MR. CHAIRMAN: You have to sit down, from this House, which the House is please. How can you go on like this? absolutely not giving but is with holding—but suppose the House had SHRI A. R. ANTULAY: Let me make my deemed it necessary and desirable to points. There is enough time till 5 o'clock. If give clearance—has the Prime Minis you ask me, I will sit down. ter taken counsel? Or, should he MR. CHAIRMAN: I requested you to have arrogated the power to himself , finish quickly. as if the judges are waiting to say "Oh, yes, whenever the Prime Minister SHRI A. R. ANTULAY: Yes, I will. The wants to give us anything, we are point I was making was except in Profumo's there to take it up"? Mr. Chairman, I case, there has bean no secret inquiry, no inquiry am not one of those who subscribe in camera. And what is wanted by the Prime to this view, but let us not be obli Minister , perhaps supported by the Law vious of the fact—this happened only Minister, is that the -. Chief Justice of this a few months ago—that an important country should sit in his chamber, look into the member of the ruling party raised the papers quietly over the night, and then the next controversy, which -was supported by morning he should come and say, this is this, this a person like Chagla, that the present is that. No, let us nott start such a new Chief Justice should not be appointed Chief Justice...

MR. CHAIRMAN: We are not concerned with that. SHRI A. R. ANTULAY: I am not making that point...

MR. CHAIRMAN: Why bring in that?

301 P.M's Statement re. [24 AUG. 1978] against families of 302 Inquiry Commission Prime Minister and Former Home Minister feature. After all, you have appointed 22 jee. It may be said that I am indulging in commissions of inquiry. Twenty-two quibbling. But Churchill in his memoirs said commissions of inquiry have been appointed to his subordinates, "Pray, do this". Churchill by your own Government. And to come saying in folded hands, "Pray, do this" means forward now in this hush-hush manner and say a command; it is a command. Similarly, when this, I think it will be a bad day for the this House says, "please do this", it h a independence of the judiciary. I am •one of command to the Government. Who is those who have respect for the judiciary, subordinate to whom? This question may belonging to the Bar of this country, being an arise. The Government is subordinate to the honourable member of that Bar. I would House. Therefore, it depends upon who is big request the judiciary, every one of them—I am and who is small. If a big man says it should making a call to them through the good offices be done, then it is a command; it is a flight of of this House—not to accept any such his imagination and his culture. Therefore, reference from the Prime Minister, because Sir, you are a part of the House; you are not anybody saying anything will unfortunately part of the Executive. Whatever the Executive have the opposite effect. It should be a public may decide to do or may not decide to do, inquiry, as I said, held .publicly, where here you are the custodian of the House. In everybody is free to go and sit. regard to facts the Government may agree or may not agree; what the Government does or I am coming to my last point, Sir. Uavc we does not do is not the point. So far as the not put the cart before the horse? The motion is concerned, so far as the reference is resolution says first that the Government concerned, I have said enough, and I think no should seek advice and guidance from the judge worth his salt in this country will come committee to he appointed by the Chairman. forward to accept the assignment which is Now, for the Government to seek guidance - going to be assigned, which is going to land there must be a committee which you have not that person, to whomsoever it is referred, in a appointed. So the first prerequisite is that the situation which no judge in the past has Chairman should •appoint a committee. That is faced. Thank you. a mandate .given to the Chairman. I .have great respect for the Chairman, and the SHRI AMARPROSAD CHAKRA- Chairman knows it. I know the Chairman for BORTY: Mr. Chairman, Sir, for the last one many, many years. In fact, he was there in our month we have been hearing this thing again own State as a Minister whei I was just a and again regarding the allegations or, if I young boy. Since those days I ..have been may say so, some attempted allegations made respecting him. Therefore, let nobody say against the son of the Prime Minister. tomorrow that he was presiding over a House MR. CHAIRMAN; Kindly be brief. whose majority Membership said certain SHRI AMARPROSAD CHAKRA- things which he did not accept. If anybody else BORTY: Sir, on thing, of course, we have were the Chairman, I would not have bothered e noticed and it is this that both the present much; I would only have bothered about the Prime Minister and the ex-Prime Minister are Constitution and the facts. But here I put very much sensitive regarding their sons. before you the point of law, the Constitution, and the facts. I would .implore you, Mr. Y/hen-ever anybody talked of the Maruti car Chairman, I would pray, you should protect or anything like that, the ex-Prime Minister the dignity of the House. Here I am reminded got infuriated. In the case of the present Prime of Churchill. I have great respect for the Minister also, we do not understand what the harm would he, when some document learning of my friend Mr; Baner-

303 P-M's Statement re. [ RAJYA SABHA ] against families of 304 Inquiry Commission Prime Minister and Former Honi° Minister [Shri Amarprosad Chabia] that suggestion had been accepted-then, which was marked as secret wasplaced many things could have been. settled. on the Table, in placing theother letters Now, many things are coming up and on the Table of theHouse. Whether *here the Resolution has been passed and many is a primafacie case or not, what is the things are being said. Somebody is saying that harm inplacing them before the you are bound to do it. All these things are House?Heaven would not have fallen if in a mess. Out of anger, out of wrath, we are those letters had been placed and ifthose using many kinds of language here. You are letters had been disclosed. not the Chairman elected by the House. Sir, you are the Vice-President of India and you Sir, we are fighting against corruption are not elected by the House and you are not whoever he may be the Prime Minister, subject to any penal action by this House as whether it is the ex-Prime Minister, Shrimati the' Deputy Chairman, elected by the Indira Gandhi or whether it is Mr. Morarji House, would be. So, that submission Desai, and whenever corruption charges are made by some of my friends there is made, we are very much keen that they must incorrect. You are not the servant of this be inquired into. But here, Sir, it arose only out House. You are to act as the ex-officio of those two letters and it is only because of Chairman of this-House. But you are their bungling and because of their policy, elected by the elected Members of all because of this, Sir, so much time of the House over India and so, you have two kinds has been wasted, I should say. It is because of status . . . somebody whispered something. On both sides there are some whispers of political bias. On SHRI PRANAB MUKHERJEE; No. He is both sides such whispers are there, whispers of elected by the Members of the Lok Sabha and political bias. Some will say that because there the Rajya Sabha. are some proceedings against Mrs. Gandhi and SHRI AMARPROSAD CHAKRABORTY: Mr. San jay Gandhi, certain people are trying Yes. Sir, you are a part of the executive and to make seome allegations against Mr. Kanti you are a part of the House also, part of this Desai. Be that as it may, when it has been Parliament, as the ex-offlcio Chairman of this alleged by some body what prevented the House. Therefore, we would only be too harsh Government to place it before this House, in saying' that you; are the servant of this when you have already placed something House and that you are bound to carry out the which was marked "secret"? But that was not mandate of the House. I, therefore, think that done. That was not done at all. But we were the opinion expressed by my friends on that very firm in our opinion, when on the 10th side may not be correct. Mr. Kulkarni also August the Resolution came up before this made a point. I think it is a very sober and a House, and we were categorical, that it must be reasonable opinion. What is it we want? Some referred to a Supreme Court Judge or a jurist. probe must be there. We must see whether a Be that as it may, we were firm that it should prima facte case is there. We must enquire into be referred to a jurist or a Supreme Court it from the time the Janata Party came into Judge or to somebody of the status of a Judge. power, and not from the earliest period. Let But we did not mention the Chief Justice of the there be some sort of enquiry from that date till Supreme Court then. Nowhere did we mention this date. That is the purpose. I shall not take him. Now, after 14 days, Sir, the Government much time. If that purpose is served in any way has accepted that suggestion and I think, that by adopting some golden means and by taking if the assistance of different party leaders, that would be'

305 P.M's Statement re. [24 AUG. 1978] against families of 306 Inquiry Commission Prime Minister and Former Horn,". Minister better. Many Members have ex- i SHRI SHYAM LAL YADAV (Uttar -pressed their opinion indirectly that Pradesh): Sir, ... {Interruptions). they want some sort of solution. Th y MR. CHAIRMAN: No, Mr. Nanda been want some sort of solution. On the waiting sin^e a long time. Yes, Mr. Nanda. one hand we must fight against cor ruption, on the other hand we SHRI NARASINGHA PRASAD want that the dignity of the NANDA: Sir, I shall not preface my House must be maintained and if remarks with a lengthy statement., allegations are made we must also try but I will come straight to the point. to see whether there is any prima The question that is for consideration, facie case. These things ought to be before you is the Resolution which observed. On behalf of our side, we was passed by this House on the 10th. would urge upon you or rather we of August. Now, we have two would submit humbly that let this poinds of view. One view is that it controversy be over, it should not be is only recommendatory in nature. kept up any longer. With ail respect The other view is that it is- to the ruling, party and specieJly to mandatory in nature. Mr. Baner- the Prime Minister, I would say that jee tried to interpret it as re we have come to such a stage on the commendatory. I would submit- other side also they are a bit rash. very respectfully that' a Resolution - Anyway, let us come to a decision of this nature is mandatory, so far as with a cool brain. Let us work for you are concerned. So far as the upholding and maintaining demo Govrenment is concerned, it may cracy. We never believed in the interpret it in its own way. Eut supremacy of Parliament. That s so fas as you are concerned, it is. mandatory. why this amendment is there. If som;- The position is that so long as this Resolution body said that Pailiament is stands, you have not alternative except to ap- supreme, it is the British Parliament point a committee of 15 persons. This is my where this principle is followed. We first point. But if it is thought, as some people are thinking, that the matter may be referred to. fought against it during the emer the Chief Justice, then I do not agree-with Mr. gency, tooth and nail, because it arose Antulay that the Chief Justice will be from the time of Kesavanand Bharati embarrassed if a reference is made to the Chief case, even the case of Mrs. Justice because the amendments which were Indira Gandhi versus Rajnarain, moved by Mr. Surjit Singh and Mr. Dinesh Golaknath's case and Subaraos case. Goswami were withdrawn and were not We believe that the people are sup rejected by the House. In that case, another reme. This reference has been made motion has to come before the House and if in the amendment that has been such a motion is accepted by the House, then brought forward. We do not be- only this motion will not be operative and then lieve that Parliament can do everything. that motion will have to be implemented. This And what has been done during the is my second point. emergency we are against it. Sir, my third submission before you is that With these words, we want that some unless such a motion comes and it is agreed to solution should be found and I would by the House, this Motion remains alive and earnestly request you to let this situation be you, as Chairman and the custodian of the changed. dignity of this House, have to safeguard the Lastly, Sir. you will kindly see that the interest of the House Quite apart from the Resolution itself is very defective. It can give legalities and double interpretation. Let good sense prevail upon us. And I would support what Mr. Kulkarni has said that let us come to a final decision. MR. CHAIRMAN: Mr. Nanda. 307 P.M's Statement re. [ RAJYA SABHA ] against families of 308 Inquiry Commission Prime Minister and former Home Minister [Shri Narasingha Prasad Nanda] technicalities of the question, you have to appoint that committee. Lastly, I would submit that the Prime Minister's statement is an inno- i cuous statement as Mr. Antulay rightly pointed out. Such a state- ment could have been made even to the Press outside. This Statement has absolutely no meaning because it is just a sort of pious desire that if somebody gives a complaint in writ- , ing, then the matter would be referred to the Chief Justice. Firstly, it takes the Chief Justice for granted and secondly, it pre-supposes ' that somebody must give something in | writing and then only it would be referred to the Chief Justice. I would submit that a number of alle- gations have been made in the House during the debate on 10th August. L'hose allegations are there in the proceedings of the House. Those allegations can be summarised. They can be put numerically and they can constitute the basis for a reference to the Chief Justice of the Supreme Court if it is so decided by the House by a separate motion. These are the basic submissions I have to make on this impasse that has been created on the basis of the Resolution and your indecision or the postponing of the decision on the Resolution passed by the House. Sir you have a great responsibility so far as this Resolution is concerned. You have to protect the interests of this House. You have to seafeguard the dignity of the House. After all, if we, the present generation do not safeguard the interests of this House and if we do not look to the dignity of the House, the future generation will blame us as it blamed us for our past deeds.

309 P.M's Statement re. [24 AUG. 1978] against families of 310 Inquiry Commission Prime Minister and former Home Minister

MR. CHAIRMAN: Now the Law Minister.

SHRI BIJU PATNAIK: Oh, come on. Sit down. SHRT KALP NATH RAI: Why? Why should I sit down? SHRI BIJU PATNAIK: The Law Minister is there.

SHRI KALP NATH RAI; Shut up.

SHRI BIJU PATNAIK: Sir. he s that only he has got the right to behave like that. Mr. Kalp Nath Rai, dont ever utter 'shut up' and all those things. Don't ever do that—a little bntcha of yesterday talking like this. Don't "When the interviewer compared over-do things. the attitude of Mrs. Indira Gandhi and Mr. Desai to their sons, Mr. Narayan said, had the allegation of corruption been levelled by ' an irresponsible quarter, it would have been different. But when they have come from Mr. Charan Singh and other senior leaders, they should be probed."

311 P.M'S Statement re. [ RAJYA SABHA ] against families of 312 Inquiry Commission Prime Minister and former Home Minister point of older. He has made a reflection on the Chair. He ha-; said that you are working under duress. (Interruptions) MR. CHAIRMAN: Please resume-your seat. SHRI PIARE LALL KUREEL UR.F PIARE LALL TALIB (Uttar Pradesh): Sir this is a very serious allegation. This is an insult to you. This is an insult to the whole House.

MR. CHAIRMAN: On the same subject on which all of you are-speaking. SHRI KAMLAPATI TRIPATHI: Thank you, Sir. We are prepared to hear him. THE MINISTER OF LAW, JUSTICE AND COMPANY AFFAIRS-(SHRI SHANTI BHUSHAN): Mr. Chairman, Sir, I must confers that having heard with rapt attention the various speeches which have been m;.de particularly by the hon. Members on the other side, it has been a very valuable education to me. Sir, whe'i I used to argue before courts. [ used always to find myself under one handicap because whenever somebody came to me with an absolutely hopeless case, Sir, I did not find it possible as to how I could at all argue it. (Interruptions) SHRI BIJU PATNAIK: Why don't you wait for the last laugh? SHRI SHANTI BHUSHAN; Sir, I would only appeal to the hon. Members not to exhaust their laughter prematurely. (Interruptions) MR. CHAIRMAN: From 11 a.m. we are sitting quietly and discussing: the matter. Why not maintain silence for some more time? MR. CHAIRMAN: Yes, Mr. Law Minister. SHRI GIAN CHAND TOTU (Himachal Pradesh): Sir. I am on a

313 P.M's Statement re. [24 AUG. 1978] against families of 314 Inquiry Commission Prime Minister and former Home Minister SHRI ANANT PRASAD SHARMA: SHRI KALP NATH RAI: And , the Minister is saying that we corruption. arguing a hopeless case. SHRI SHANTI BHUSHAN: Sir, I can SHRI SHANTI BHUSHAN: ... what d0 the assure the hon. Members thai in every High Parliamentary institutions id for; why Court, I know it from personal experience, are the • i:.e- of legislature there are one or two lawyers who have tho constituted? Why are their members capacity of being able to argue even a elected by the people directly or indirectly and they come to the y hopeless case with ail sound and fury. something, to spsak out? And I thought (Interruptions) that what I had learnt of the Constitutional SHRI DEVENDRA NATH DWI->I: princi-i was that the people come to And you top the list either this House or the other House to represent the feelings of the nation. t':-j SHRI SHANTI BHUSHAN: When national feelings. But I must say, Sir, ever any client approaches lawyer that in the debate which has taken placre after lawyer and exhausts all the in this House today, it attention h-;s been lawyers and none of th ble to paid to rmin principle of Parliamentary tell him that there is the slight--t arguable institutions. Sir, when the Prime point in his case, he approaches those one or Minister made a statement this two lawyers, who are able to produce a lot of morning, I expected, probably I anticipated sound and fury without any substance. But, much to my discomfiture or d'sappointment, what I could not learn from those couple of but I had anticipated that there would be lawyers in every High Court, I have been able a big welcome to the statement... to learn from the performance of the hon. (Interruptions) .... that the entire oppo- Mmben on the other side. sition would sav that it was a glorious day in the history of this tmtry,... Sir, for so many hours it has been sound and fury and nothing else. And therefore, Sir, I am hap?y_ and the hon. Members would SHRI DEVENDRA NATH DWIVEDI: appreciate, that it v/iV no; b? necessary for me The greatest optimist born on earth. to tax their p-itien?e for a long period of time, because there is noth'ng that I have to deal with. But, still, Sir, out of deference to the SHRI SHANTI BHUSHAN: A) I said, I hon. Members—because, how can I be di- stand educated.... respectful to the' hon. Members—whether or not there is substance in whatever they have said, I must try to locate and search loi some substance and reply to it out of deference to hon. Members -and I shall make that attempt with the best of my ability.

Now, Sir, no much has been said about the Parliamentary institutions, SHRI SHANTI BHUSHAN: Because when about the position of a presiding we deal with serious questions, I can quite officer in a House and all kinds of appreciate the emotion to certain things and I things, democracy, emergency, non can also appreciate that apart from the emergency, and so on; but- I was emotion, there is politics also. But while 'wondering all the time emotion- in polities have a place, the emotions in politics must 315 PM's Statement re. [ RAJYA SABHA ] against families of 316 Inquiry Commission Prime Minister and former Home Minister [Shri Shanti Bhushan] referred to the statement of oath. But the statement does not make any reference to any oath etc ...... mot be made everything. We have to see as to what we are doing today. Sir, it has been said SHRI A. R. ANTULAY: Mr. Chairman, that the Prime Minister's statement had no on a point of order. relevance with the Resolution which had been adopted by this august Hou:e on the 10th of MR. CHAIRMAN: They never raised any August. May I remind the hon. Members of point of order. I do not understand. Let the main part of the Resolution which had him finish. been adopted and the spirit of the Resolutions? It was said: This House is the opinion that SHRI A. R. ANTULAY: I hope the Law if the -situation is not dealt with Minister will yield. Again the ramething, Mr. appropriately and with urgency, it is likely to Chairman, is being repeated. Thirty-four bring not only persons of high public charges have bten levelled here by an hon. standing to avoidable disrepute but also Member of the House and yet the hon. Law cause irreparable damage to the very credibility Minister should repeat.... of public life in the country. If, Sir, I have been able to understand the Resolution MR. CHAIRMAN: That is all right. properly, this was the heart of the Resolution. In fact, the Resolution did not refer to any specific SHRI SHANTI BHUSHAN: I have allegations. It referred to some understood what Shri Antulay wanted to say correspondence which had been exchanged and I will deal with it. between the Prime Minister and the then Home Minister with the assumption as if in Sir, I was referring to the Resolution. the correspondence "ome charges had been Because the Resolution refers to the levelled by one against the other and correspondence and then to the allegations vice versa. Now, whatever may be the which emerged from tie correspondence, nature of the charges, if something has been that is why so f^r as the Resolution is said, and if some charges of corruption are concerned, it does not refer to any other charges there, then in that case it is demanding that which might have been made, otherwise than all this should be put beyond any those in the correspondence. Therefore, if controversy, namely, the nation demands or the cDrrepon-dence did not have any the public expects that there would be allegation vwhatsoever, any charge examination of these allegations and the whatsoever, then the Resolution does not refer to public would know the truth one way or any allegation or any charge whatsoever. the other. That I understood was the spirit Now the position is this. Some hon. of the Resolu-t:on. Now, there might, be no Members have also said: Well, why is a allegation at all in that correspondence and Commission of Inquiry not being constituted, the Resolution might not refer to any why this reference to a Committee OP taking allegation whatsoever. But the Prime the assistance from the Committee is not being Minister makes a statement saying that done? Sir, the statement of the Prime even if a single Member—I do not want Minister has made it very clear that so far as to refer to anthanam Committee, namely appointment of a commi-sion of inquiry :s tenmembers. and so on—makei any concerned—there are so mary hon. charge of corruption in writing in Members on the other side who are eminent this context, he is prepared to refer •it, and so lawyers, they know it very well—when an on. The hon. Shri Salve order is made under the Commissions of Inquiry Act there is a certain condition which is to be fulfilled and that is, i1 should •be a definite matter of public im- 317 P.M's Statement re. [24 AUG. 1978] against families of 318 Inquiry Commission Prime Minister and former Home Minister pcrtance. That fa what all the time has been reme in this country, nobody else is sovereign, said that if a commission of inquiry is to be nobody else is supreme. Of course, so much appointed, it can only be in regard to a definite has been said about sovereignty, where it matter. So far as the Resolution is concerned, resides and so on and so forth, but now it. goes it did not refer to any definite allegation at all, without saying and it has been held that the in fact, to no allegation at all. Then in that sovereignty resides in people. The whole case it was not possible even to consider the democracy is for the people and ultimately question of appointing a commission of what we say here we try to represent the inquiry under the Commissions of Inquiry feelings of the people, so that ultimately it is Act. Similarly, Sir, until there is a definite the satisfaction of the people. And, Sir, would allegation the question of referring that a single hon.. Member of this House have the allegation to anybody does not possibly arise slightest doubt that so far as the people of this and that is why the Prime Minister said, if a country are concerned, throughout all the single hon. Member makes a charge in decades which have gone on in this country, writing, makes a specific charge in writing. the people have reposed their utmost confi- Obviously, something can be referred to dence in the judiciary of this country? This somebody for examining if it is something country can be proud of its judiciary and will definite; that this is the definite allegation continue to be proud of its judiciary. Sir, which is being made against a pernon, then, of anybody trying to say anything' to' denigrate course, somebody can be asked to example it the judiciary, I am quite sure, is not likely to can be referred to somebody for examination, cut any ice with any section of the people in for enquiry. And that is why the Prime this country. In that context I can only Minister has said and that is why I thought, appreciate the sentiment-, in this way: All the entire opposition, if it was not merely a right, sometimes it has happened that a person question of emotion, if it was not merely a wanted something and he was expecting that question of polities would have welcomed the this would not be given. As soon as it Was statement. After all, what do the people of this given, he started doubting as to whether he country want? The people of this country, take wanted it or not. So it appears that the hon. it from me Mr. Antulay and hon. Members on Members are now quite convinced that there is the other side, do not distrust the judiciary. absolutely no charge, no substance, nothing to The people of this country, even if in any be said, and, therefore, they say: "All right, quarters there wan the slightest anxiety, how can we welcome thin clear offer that the whether with justification or without justi- highest judicial functionary in the country will fication, any kind of a misgiving has arisen in examine any kind of an allegation which even any quarter, all that they want is that some a single Member chooses to make"? impartial person must go into that matter and (Interruptions) come to one conclusion or the other con- SHRI KALP NATH RAI: The Home clusion. Minister has made these allegations against It was said that there is no precedent for you. such a thing. How does the memory of the SHRI BUDDHA PRIYA MAURYA: hon. Members fail that such a- precedent is Hopeless case not there? Even in this country there has been SHRI SHANTI BHUSHAN: Sir. it has a precedent with good reason, because after been asked: What is the effect of a all, the question is,' ultimately it is the people Resolution which might be adopted by this who-are sup- House? Sir,~ every House of the legislature is entitled to ;trie 319 P.M's) Statement re. [ RAJYA SABHA] against families of 320 Inquiry Commission Prime Minister and former Home Minister [Shri Shanti Bhushan] the Council of Ministers, shall be visible to the Lok Sabha. The 4 Lok Sabha being utmost re:pect from the paople and from directly elected, it was considered that if the everybody because, after all, tiie Houses of government was to function in a democratic way the legislature are the s oi democracy in this in the country, then in that case the government country. Li at, it should be appreciated that .en must be made :;sibie to the Lower House— Lok a bicameral system was adopted in this Sabha here and Vidhan Sabha in the State:. Yet country, the ConstituLon-makers wire when we say that, it is not to say that the Upper conscious as to what constitutional position House does not have a very important role. It had to be es-t ibiished under that system. has a very important role in various respects. From time to t me, there have been .ads, But so far as deciding a certain matter as to particularly in the various States—the other whether the government should take a certain day there was a Private Member's Resolution coure of action or not, it is the voice of the Lok in the other House—that the bicameral sys-. a Sabha or the Lower House which is to prevail. is not a good system; it should unicameral (Interruptions) Let me complete. system and so on and so forth. But the fathers of the Constitution, the Constitution-makers in SHRI BHUPESH GUPTA: You need not this country, in their wisdom, es-hed a complete. (Interruptions) Where is this bicameral system even though the bicameral power laid down? Many Resolutions... system presents certain obvious difficulties. The Constitution-makers were conscious that SHRI SHANTI BHUSHAN: Now, Sir, I when you have two Houses of the legislature would like to say... functioning, it is quite possible—that may or may not be the situation today, but theore- SHRI BHUPESH GUPTA: If there had been tically it is quite possible—even when we no bicameral system, we would not have Mr. have a two-party system in the country, that Shanti Bhushan arguing here. (Interrup-0 one party may enjoy a majority in one House This is absolutely wrong. Wherein the and the other party may enjoy majority in the Constitution says that the opinion of this other House. Therefore, what is to happen? House does not stand on the same footing as The voice of the majority in which home was the opinion of the other House, except iri to prevail if there is a conflict, as obviously certain cases? Which provision of the there would be if of the two different political Constitution says so? parties opposed to • each other, one has a majority in one House and the other has a SHRI SHANTI BHUSHAN: Now Sir, I majority in the other House. And the Cons- would be the last person to try to cross titution-makers decided in their wisdom, for swords with such a veteran is Shri Bhupesh very good reasons, that after all for successful Gupta. functioning of a democracy, the government has to be made responsible to one Houss; it is not possible for the government to be simultaneously responsible to the two Houses. In that case, it would be a complete blockade MR. CHAIRMAN: No, n*. if the majority in the two Houses were to be of different nature. And that is why in the Constitution it was provided that the Government, namely

321 P.M's Statement re. [ 24 AUG. 1978 ] against families of 322 Inquiry Commission Prime Minister and former Botrte- Minister ble for either House to pass a binding resolution for the constitution of a Commission of Inquiry. What the Law Commission had recommended— and which recommendation was not accepted by the earlier Government— wag that unless both the Houses passed resolutions for the Constitution of a Commission of Inquiry it will' not be binding on the Government to constitute the Commission of Inquiry. What I they had said was that, af course, the Government has a discretionary power otherwise if it is satisfied and so on. But so far as the binding resolution is concerned, the binding resolution must be supported by both the Houses, namely, if it is supported by one House and not supported- by the other House, then it 3houW not be compulsory on the government to constitute a Commission of Inquiry. But the Government did not accept that recommendation and said "No", and very correctly... (Interruption) Some hon'ble Members have said it. And the Government very rightly came to the conclusion and, therefore, did not accept that part of the recommendation of the Law Commission and said that on account of the fact that since the Constitution itself makes the Government responsible to the Lok Sabha, therefore, it should be a decision of the Lok Sabha only SHRI SHANTI BHUSHAN: Sir, the hon'ble which should be binding on the Government. Member has himself solved his own But' at the*same time. Sir, as a House... difficulty, namely, he himself contemplates, SHRI F. M. KHAN (Karnataka): Point" of and evidently he would not say that it is the order. minority which has to prevail because the SHRI SHANTI BHUSHAN: There is no situation that he is contemplating is that the point of order. party which is in a majority in the Upper House and is in a minority "in the Lower MR. CHAIRMAN: The hon'bl* Member House, then it is for the party which is in a must realise that they have already spoken for minority in the Lower House that it has to hours together... take decisions on every question quite apart from the question that the resolution of both SHRI F. M. KHAN: I am'on a point of the Houses is recommendatory in nature. I order. was trying to draw a distinction which has MR. CHAIRMAN: Please resume your been mad* by the Constitution itself in the seat.... . position of the Lower House and in the posi- tion of, the Upper House. And this SHRI F. M. KHAN: I understand" . . . distinction has been recognised even in the MR- CHAIRMAN: You have already Commissions of Inquiry Act. In fact, when takmr seven >h«urs. Now please re- the Law Commission went into the question of .the revision of the Commissions of Inquiry Act, even the Law Commission had not suggested that it could be possi- 1095 RS—tl. 323 PM's Statement re. [RAJYA SABHA] against families of 324 Inquiry Commission Prime Minister and former Home Minister [Mr. Chairman] sume your seat... mendation to the Government. Thereafter it is (I?iterruption) when I am standing you the function of the Govern- ^ ment to apply its should resume your seat. mind to the recommendation and see whether in a particular case it is possible to accept that SHRI F. M. K-IAN- I should be allowed to recommendation or it is not possible to accept have my submission. I am asking... that recommendation, and that is why with regard to this Resolution the Prime Minister MR. CHAIRMAN: Let him finish. I want made a statement explaining as to why it was to hear him. When you are speaking you not possible to accept the two alternative would like others to hear you. Why are you recommendations which had been made in the disturbing? I want to hear him. Please Resolution. But keeping in mind the main resume. sentiment behind the Resolution, namely, that if allegations are made they should be inquired SHRI F. M. KHAN: I want to make my into, he said that if any hon. Member makes a pomt 0f order. specific charge in writing to the Government, it shall be referred to the Chief Justice for MR. CHAIRMAN: Not now. I will allow examination. And, Sir, I have not the slightest you later, not now. I am not allowing you doubt and I hope the hon. Members will also not now. Please resume your seat. have the slightest doubt, that so far as the whole nation is concerned, the whole nation would SHRI SHANTI BHUSHAN: At the same welcome it just as it had welcomed the time, even the Upper House... suggestion for the creation of the institution of (Interruptions) Lokpal. (Interruptions) It is this Government which has for the first time come out with the MR. CHAIRMAN: Please hear me. I idea of implementing the Lokpal Bill so that would request The hon. Member tc please there may be some institution where any hear me. I will give you an opportunity to ask allegation of corruption could go; it could go about any doubt. Why are you unnecessarily even against the Prime Minister. And the Prime doing this? When I am saying I would allow Minister was the person who said that even the you, why are you unnecessarily sitting here? Prime Minister must be subjected to the institution of Lokpal. That was a Bill which was SHRI F. M. KHAN: If you are allowing brought into the other House but because it was me, I am going back. not possible to enact that Bill, the Prime Minister thought, "All right, if any single SHRI SHANTI BHUSHAN: Sir, at the Member makes any allegation, in that case he same time, because every institution in a should not have the slightest hesitation in democracy has been assigned an important referring it to the highest judicial functionary in place and has been invested with certain the country in which the entire country has the functions and, therefore, even the Rajya fullest confidence." (Interruptions) Sabha has very important functions. And one of its important functions is to make Sir, I am very grateful that the hon. recommendations to the Gdvernment and that Members have heard me with attention. is why this Resolution was adopted. It made SHRI BHUPESH GUPTA: All a certain recom- wrong argument. 325 PM's Statement re. [ 24 AUG. 1978 ] against families of 326 Inquiry Commission Prime Minister and former Home Minister MR. CHAIRMAN: There was one ^point of order. (Interruptions) How long are we to sit? I do not know. SHRI F. M. KHAN: Mr. Chairman, Sir, the hon. Minister was just saying that they are only answerable to the Lok Sabha. Likewise, the Chief Ministers in the States are answerable to the respective Legislatures. But, unfortunately, they have appointed Commission. On what basis? They have two systems here. When they want to argue their case here in the House, they say, we have got a democracy. This is not the way. They are arguing whichever way is convenient to them and now they are saying that they are answerable only to the Lok Sabha. Then what about the Chief Ministers? Then why have they appointed these Commissions? This is the very argument which he has made. Then let them withdraw the Commissions in the respective States wherever the Chief Ministers are not with them. SHRI BHUPESH GUPTA: Sir, what are you going to say? You have heard it. How long have we to be at dispute? (Interruptions) But you did not go into it. Sir, we have argued, he has argued. Anyway, we have argued. What about you, Sir? MR. CHAIRMAN: Please resume. I will consider it. SHRI BHUPESH GUPTA: i' suggest ... SHRI BHUPESH GUPTA: Sir, I fave him the scope and he has rifchtty-spoken. Sir, we are not to enter at this stage into any argument with the Government. That part is over. He may have his own interpretation of Mr. Morarji Desai's statement or of our Resolution. We have our interpretation of the statement; and we have given our interpretation of the Resolution, which, we think, is the correct interpretation. That matter now is not to be taken up just at this stage. Sir, the only thing I should like to add is: Well, Sir, the hon. Minister has said that the House should have accepted it. I wish, Sir, this kind of thing was done before. Now, after one month, after so much of water having flowed down the Ganga or the Yamuna, the Prime Minister comes obviously having found himself in an untenable situation, morally broken and haggard, going from pillar to post, he has come

327 PM's Statement re. [ RAJYA SABHA ] against families of 328 Inquiry Commission Prime Minister and former Home Minister [Shri Bhupesh Gupta] here to give us a MR. CHAIRMAN: Everything is relevant. consolation prize. And that was: "I shall send anything that a Member may give in writing SHRI BHUPESH GUPTA: We are only to the Supreme Court Judge. The Law concerned with you. We beg of you. Even they have not said that it was Minister should explain. The Supreme Court recommendatory to you. In all the arguments Judge is not a play boy. The Supreme Court that have been made, not one Member has Judge functions under the Constitution. Under said that. We have been following it. Nobody which provisions of the Constitution will the has disputed that it is mandatory for the Supreme Court Judge entertain this thing, Chairman. The language is polite. When we adjudicate on it and give his opinion? It is speak to Chairman, we use polite language. It under article 143. . . is a convention. Yourself having given you SHRI A. R. ANTULAY: Article the mandate—the House means you and all of 123. us—*ell us whether you are going to respect it. Plain thing. Plain thing for us. We want to SHRI BHUPESH GUPTA: No, it is know from you whether you are going to article 143. Tell me under which respect it. If you have any doubt, today's article the Supreme Court Judge can debate should make absolutely clear what do it. The Supreme Court Judge is stand the House has taken. The intention of not somebody in the ante-room of the House has been clearly expressed. The the Prime Minister. We have a desire has been expressed in favour of your respectful Judiciary. When you are appointing a committee. Therefore, Sir, kindly in difficulty, the Supreme Court do this thing, and this is all the request that Judge becomes a kind of straw to we make. No discussion. hold on to. That is not the right thing. The Supreme Court Judge, I PROF. RAMLAL PARIKH: At least three am afraid, cannot function like that. Members have said that it is recommendatory Privately, these things have been to you also. done. When the Malavia case came MR. CHAIRMAN: Let us go to the regular up, Pt. Jawaharlal Nehru did not work. come here to say "I shall give it to the Supreme Court". What did he do? SHRI KAMLAPATI TRIPATHI-No, no, Privately, he wanted to have the Sir. Judge's opinion for his personal satisfaction; There was no Resolution of either House nor even a big demand for it. He wanted to satisfy himself. It was a private matter.

Now, it is a public matter. On the (interruptions) floor of Parliament, the Prime Minis ter of the'country says: "I will refer MR. CHAIRMAN:' I have heard all the it to the Supreme Court". Under Members speaking. I will consider. which article is he going to refer' it SHRI KAMLAPATI TRIPATHI: When will to them? ' ' ' you give the decision. How will this thing continue now? When are you going to give SHRI BIJU PATNAIK: Sir, does he want your decision? We must know your decision to make another speech? first. (Interruptions)

6 B.M. MR. CHAIRMAN: I have heard the whole day. I must have some time. SHRI BHUPESH GUPTA: That is number (Interruptions) one. SHRI ANANT PRASAD SHARMA: This is a relevant point.

329 V-M's Statement re. [24 AUG. 1978] against families of 330 :Inquiry Commission Prime Minister and former Home Minister SHRIMATI SAROJ KHAPARDE: SOME HON. MEMBERS: No. You must tell us. (Interruptions)

MR. CHAIRMAN: I will tell you when I SHRI PRANAB MUKHERJEE: How do am going to give my views on Monday. You you think you are going to proceed? must remember, I will tell you when I am going to give my views on Monday. I have (Interruptions) told correctly. (Interruption*) Am I not ;to read? Am I not to study? Do you want me to MR. CHAIRMAN: One minute, Leader say anything immediately? SHRI KAMLAPATI TRIPATHI. On Monday we should be able to get your decision. SHRI PRANAB MUKHBRJEB: How can you expect the House to proceed? . . . MR. CHAIRMAN: I told you that on (Interruptions). Monday I am going to tell the House when I am going to give my views definitely. SHRI ANANT PRASAD SHARMA:

No. saheb, jf you will allow me to speak. I do not SHRI KALP NATH RAI: No, no. think that anywhere this type, of pressure is brought to give a decision or ruling by this (Interruptions) time or some time. (Interruptions) Please SHRI PRANAB: MUKHERJEE: hear. (Interruptions) No. SHRI BUDDHA PRIYA MAURYA: SHRI B. N. BANERJEE: Sir, you should No. take as much time as you require. We have argued for one day, not out of fun. We want SHRI KALP NATH RAI: Declare a you to come to a well-considered and correct committee against corruption of the Janata decision and not to come to any hasty Party on Monday. (Interruptions) decision under pressure from any quarter.

MR. CHAIRMAN: My point is, I want to make it clear to all the Members, because they are creating noise and they are threatening...

SHRI KALP NATH RAI: Announce a SOME HON. MEMBERS: No, no. Committee on Monday. Do not try to play. Mr. Advani, you do not play. MR. CHAIRMAN: Are you not hearing me? (.Interruptions). Mr. Kalp Nath Rai, what (Interruptions) are you doing? (Interruptions) No, I do not know. Mr. Kalp Nath Rai every time comes up to this place and he wants to show his strength and all that. Then what do I understand? (Interruptions) I have never said about you. You cannot afford to do that also. That is not possible. My point is, whenever (Interruptions) the presiding officer says that he will SHRI LAL K. ADVANI: Am I to proceed, Sir? MR. CHATRMAr*: Yea. 331 P.M's Statement re. [ RAJYA SABHA ] against families of 332 Inquiry Commission Prime Minister and former Home Minister [MR. CHAIRMAN] MR. CHAIRMAN: I will give it; it may be possible even on Tuesday or Monday. But let reserve his ruling, can any Member press that me consider it and" definitely on Monday he must give the ruling on a certain day? (Interruptions) That is what I am suggesting. At least I require some time. You have all AN. HON. MEMBER: No. (Interruption) taken so much time to study it. Am I not to understand the whole question? MR. OH AIRMAN: Please. Mr. Antulay is an expert on Constitution, and he has been in PROF. D. P. CHATTOPADHYAYA: May the Assembly. Has anybody forced the I make a submission? presiding officer to give a ruling on a certain day, immediately or now? (Interruptions) We appreciate your position and we do not press you; we do not expect you to give a SHRI BUDDHA PRIYA MAURYA: We decision under duress or what you think to be want to know the specific date from you. duress. But this is a point which has been (Interruptions) going on, being discussed in this House, off and MR. CHAIRMAN: No, no, when you are on, for a fortnight, more than a fortnight. not even prepared to hear me, what am I to do? Being sensitive and wise and experienced as It may be possible. .. (Interruptions) you are, it has been weighing all the time on your mind and heart, I think. It is not de SHRI VISWANATHA MENON: This is novo that you have to think over everything. goondaism. (Interruptions') The arguments that you have heard are often repeated, known to you, certainly anticipated by SHRIMATI SAROJ KHAPARDE: you. You may say, give me one day, give me This is not goondaism ------two days. We have given you fourteen (Interruptio?is) days, and very rightly so, because it is a serious matter which deserves your SHRI VISWANATHA MENON: What consideration, Government's consideration. else is it? (Interruptions) Now, if you say, on Saturday I will let you know my view or even Monday I will let you SHRIMATI SAROJ KHAPARDE: Don't know, we by ourselves will never press for use words like goondaism and other things. an immediate decision. But—this is a very (Interruptions) important *but'— , if you say—it seems that SHRI VISWANATHA MENON: Don't you are saying that—on Monday or even behave like this. (Interruptions) Tuesday you will let us know what your view is, that is highly disappointing and that is not a MR. CHAIRMAN: Now, so many Members position acceptable to us. In all humility that have spoken. I will have to go through is what I would submit. everything; I will have to study. If you want me to give my considered opinion, my considered MR. CHAIRMAN: I don't say that. views, I will have to study." If you force me, "today, immediately, in one minute,"... SHRI BHUPESH GUPTA: Sir, all of us will (Interruptions) Why don't you listen to me? I support you in one respect, that you should be have heard you for seven hours... given a reasonable time for drawing up your SHRI KAMLAPATI TRIPATHI: We are considered -opinion. And you will certainly not saying you must give It just now. You take into account the fact that we are going to adjourn. If you think you h*v« aome must take your own time. But let us know submission to make, when you are going to give It. 333 Papers laid [ 24 AUG. 1978 ] on the Table 334 something to say, we will be interested and you LAL K. ADVANI): Sir, I beg to lay on the should give us a little time - a f t e r that, Table, a copy (in English and Hindi) of the following the circumstances of the case and the Annual Accounts of the Film and Television sentiments. I am sure you will act reasonably. I Institute of India, Pune, for the year 1976-77, hope we may adjourn—today leaving it to your and the Audit Report thereon, together with a good sense and your good judgment. statement giving reasons for the delay in laying the document. [Placed in Liberty. MR. CHAIRMAN; Reasonable, I accept it. See No. LT-2668/78]. There is no doubt about it. I do not want to Seventy-fourth Report (August, 1978) of the delay it unnecessarily. That much I can tell you. I am not interested in delaying it. The Law Commission of India earlier I do it, the better it is. Therefore, there THE MINISTER OF LAW, JUSTICE is no question of my delaying it. AND COMPANY AFFAIRS (SHRI SHANTI (Interruption) I told you, definitely I am BHUSHAN): Sir, I beg to lay on the Table, a . going to do it very quickly. copy of the Seventy-fourth Report (August, 1978) of the Law Commission of India on Proposal to amend the Indian Evidence Act, STATEMENT BY MINISTER COR- 1872 so as to render admissible certain RECTING ANSWER TO STARRED statements made by witnesses before Commissions of Inquiry and other statutory QUESTION NO. 93 ANSWERED ON authorities together with a statement (in THE 20TH JULY, 1978 RE PRESSMEN English and Hindi) giving reasons for not WHO ACCOMiPANDED THE PRIME laying simultaneously the Hindi version of the MINISTER ABROAD Report. [Placed in Library. See No. LT- THE MINISTER OF INFORMATION AND 2685/78] BROADCASTING (SHRI LAL K. ADVANI): Sir, in the statement laid on the Table of the Annual Report (1976-77) and Ac- House in answer to Starred Question No. 93 counts of the Tannery and Footwear dated 20th July, 1978 it was, inter alia, indicated Corporation of India Ltd., Kanpur and against SI. No. 12 that Shri L. K. Shukla of the related papers Viswamitra of Calcutta, who was already in New THE MINISTER OF STATE IN THE York, joined the party of pressmen who MINISTRY OF LABOUR AND accompanied the Prime Minister during his visit PARLIAMENTARY AFFAIRS (DR. RAM to Iran, Belgium, U.K. and "U.S.A. The KRIPAL SINHA): Sir, on behalf of Shri correct position is that Shri Barun Sen Gupta George Fernandes, I beg to lay on the Table a of Anand Bazar Patrika of Calcutta, copy each (in ,English and Hindi) of the joined the party at New York, The entries in SI. following papers, under sub-section (1) of sec- No. 12 in the statement laid on the Table in tion 619A of the Companies Act, 1956:— answer are amended accordingly. The inconvenience caused to the House is regretted. I. (i) Eighth Annual Report and Accounts of the Tannery and "Footwear Corporation of India Limited, Kanpur, for PAPERS LAH> ON THE TABLE the year 1976-77, together with the Auditors' Report on the Accounts and the The Annual Accounts (1976-77) ofthe comments of the Comptroller and Auditor **Um and Television Institute ofIndia, General of India thereon. Pone and related papers THE MINISTER OF INFORMATION (ii) Review by Government on the AND BROADCASTING (SHRI working of the Corporation. H. Statement (in English and 1 Hindi) giving reasons for the delay