___

SYNOPSIS OF DEBATES (Proceedings other than Questions & Answers) ______

Monday, May 9, 2016 / Vaisakha 19, 1938 (Saka) ______

*MATTERS UNDER RULE 377

(i) SHRI AJAY MISRA TENI laid a statement regarding need to take

necessary steps for construction of permanent school building for

existing Kendriya Vidyalaya at Kheri parliamentary constituency,

Uttar Pradesh.

(ii) SHRI RATTAN LAL KATARIA laid a statement regarding need to

establish a Sainik school and a Military school in Ambala

parliamentary constituency, Haryana.

(iii) DR. laid a statement regarding need to set up a

National Disaster medical Response Force for providing medical help

during natural disasters.

* Laid on the Table as directed by the Chair. (iv) SHRIMATI laid a statement regarding

need to provide additional funds for revival of Hindustan Copper

Limited, Khetri, .

(v) SHRI laid a statement regarding timely

release of Central Funds under Post-Matric Scholarship Scheme.

(vi) SHRI BHAIRON PRASAD MISHRA laid a statement regarding

need to probe alleged misappropriation of funds allocated under

Centrally sponsored schemes and drinking water schemes in Banda

parliamentary constituency, Uttar Pradesh.

(vii) COL. SONARAM CHOUDHARY laid a statement regarding need

to improve telecommunication facilities in Barmer parliamentary

constituency, Rajasthan.

(viii) SHRI SHYAMA CHARAN GUPTA laid a statement regarding need

to grant Group 'B' status to railway engineers.

(ix) SHRIMATI DARSHANA VIKRAM JARDOSH laid a statement

regarding need to mint adequate number of coins as also printing of

small denomination of currency notes.

(x) SHRI BAHADUR SINGH KOLI laid a statement regarding need to

set up a Passport Office at Bharatpur, Rajasthan. (xi) SHRI HARISHCHANDRA CHAVAN laid a statement regarding

need to ensure adequate supply of water from Par-Tapi-Narmada Link

project to North Maharashtra.

(xii) SHRI PRAHLAD SINGH PATEL laid a statement regarding need

to start construction of railway line from Lalitpur to Ramtek as a part

of North-South Corridor to Diamond Quadrilateral Railway project.

(xiii) SHRI RAJEEV SATAV laid a statement regarding need to make

'Agriculture education' a compulsory subject in school syllabus.

(xiv) SHRI RAVNEET SINGH laid a statement regarding need to

introduce Air- flights from Vancouver & Toronto in Canada to

Amritsar and Chandigarh in Punjab.

(xv) PROF. SAUGATA ROY laid a statement regarding increasing

atrocities against women of dalit and backward communities.

(xvi) SHRIMATI APARUPA PODDAR laid a statement regarding need

to set up a Kendriya Vidyalaya at Chandrakona in Arambag

Parliamentary Constituency of West Bengal.

(xvii) SHRI BALBHADRA MAJHI: laid a statement regarding need to

stop the process of privatization of IDBI Bank. (xviii) DR. RAVINDRA BABU laid a statement regarding need to take

measures to address the problem of land subsidence in East Godavari

district of Andhra Pradesh .

(xix) DR. BOORA NARSAIAH GOUD laid a statement regarding need to

treat heat wave condition as a natural calamity.

(xx) SHRI SANKAR PRASAD DATTA laid a statement regarding

problems faced by the employees of Hindustan Antibiotics Ltd., Pune.

(xxi) SHRI DHANANJAY MAHADIK laid a statement regarding need

to reorient the activities of post offices.

(xxii) SHRI RAM KUMAR SHARMA laid a statement regarding need to

construct toilets along National Highways in the country.

(xxiii) SHRI RADHESHYAM BISWAS laid a statement regarding need to

establish a new ONGC Basin in Karimganj district of Assam.

THE ANTI-HIJACKING BILL, 2016

(As passed by Rajya Sabha)

THE MINISTER OF CIVIL AVIATION (SHRI ASHOK GAJAPATHI

RAJU) moving the motion for consideration of the Bill, said: There is a slight difference from the previous Bill in the sense that the definitions have changed.

This Bill had been introduced in the Rajya Sabha and was referred to the Standing Committee. Out of the four recommendations of the Committee, three were agreed by the Government. The one which was not accepted was with regard to compensation has been left in the realm of the Executive. The death penalty also has been brought in where if a death occurs. So, I would like to request the hon.

Members of the House to support the Government on this Bill.

SHRI ADHIR RANJAN CHOWDHURY initiating said: Since

Independence we have experienced seven nerve-wrecking hijacking incidents in

India. The civil aviation industry in our country has been growing exponentially since the new millennium. India is expected to become the third largest aviation market by 2020 and the largest by 2030. But, at the same time it has brought in its stride great vulnerabilities also. That is why, we need to be very vigilant and more holistic in our approach towards the security of our passengers. The first anti- hijacking legislative document was explored in 1963 by the Japanese Government and the same is called the Tokyo Convention. There is a sequence of various

Conventions and Protocols which had been culminated in this legislation. There is an urgent need to update the existing air law instruments which this Government has been pursuing and I must support this step. The provisions of Clause 7 of this new Bill will enable India to register a case against hijackers if any Indian is hijacked in any aircraft anywhere across the world. The proposed law would also give teeth to concerned agencies or security forces to immobilize an aircraft or prevent its take-off and also allow the Indian Air Force to scramble its fighters to intercept a hijacked aircraft and force it to land. The other proposed amendments include powers to the agencies and forces to take stern action against those making hoax threats also. Security in airports in India is being provided by various agencies and various Ministries. I would like to give some suggestions. I would like to insert more legal teeth into this legislation.

SHRI RAJESH PANDEY: The list of incident of hijacking occurred in the history of civil aviation does not mention the hijacking incident of the plane flying from Delhi to Lucknow on 20th December 1978. This was the first incident of hijacking perpetrated for political benefit. Hijacking in itself is a serious crime.

Our government has brought this bill for checking such a crime. We can make several provisions so as to prevent hijacking of planes. We will have to install advanced systems at the airport so as to strengthen the security arrangements at the airports. The ground handling staff are large in numbers and frequently move from one place to other at the airport. Therefore, if a ground handling staff enters the airport after proper security check and frisking then, he or she should not be allowed to go out unless it is very urgent. I take this opportunity to express my gratitude to both the hon. Ministers for setting up an international airport at

Kushinagar. PROF. SAUGATA ROY: Hijacking is one of the heinous crimes to humanity. The earlier speakers have mentioned about several cases of hijacking that had taken place in the country. Of course, the most shameful case of hijacking was IC-814. An aircraft is the most vulnerable vehicle. Any small explosion can cause the death of a large number of people. That is why, the world stood up and took note, and in 1970, the Hague Convention was first passed. We have taken a long time to enact our own law in this regard. The new Bill defines various important things. Any flying aircraft can be immobilised with electronic jamming.

We have not been able to develop our cybernetics to the extent that we can counter this. The aircraft is also dependent on its communication with the control tower.

If that is put out of action, then also the aircraft becomes helpless. For the first time, in this Bill, this technological means of electronic warfare has been mentioned. The law has been made much better. Airport security is in the hands of the CISF which is under the Home Ministry. I would like to know how much control your Ministry has on the CISF who are totally in-charge of frisking, checking and everything.

SHRI TATHAGATA SATPATHY: The Bill is good and I support it except for a few clarifications that are required. There is this point about compensation. It has not been left to the judiciary but to the executive. Death penalty has been stressed upon in this amended Bill but I do not know whether death penalty alone will be a proper deterrent. The CISF is a force that is guarding all our airports. The airports are very hi-tech establishments and the CISF is not trained or not equipped to handle the exigencies that might arise at any time. I believe that it is time we developed a special force exclusively meant for airport security. Everyone including VIPs should go through the same scrutiny. The third point I would like to mention is that there are these hoax calls and fake hijacking.

We must not allow hijacking to happen, and to stop that, you have to make things better which you are not doing. You must have no VIP treatment for anybody.

SHRI M. MURLI MOHAN: I welcome this Bill and the TDP Party fully supports the Bill. This Bill will replace the Anti-Hijacking Act, 1982. This is defining hijacking, and it awards death penalty for hijacking in certain cases. The

Parliamentary Standing Committee suggested various changes including making hoax calls a punishable offence. My suggestion to the Government is that NIA should be further strengthened and more manpower should be inducted in the

CISF. The Bill does not provide compensation for the affected persons in hijacking. I propose that a compensation package not be less than Rs. 4 crore should be provided to the nearest relative of the deceased. I would request the

Union Government to initiate a process with all developed and developing countries for setting up an international organisation on anti-hijacking for safety and security of the passengers. DR. BOORA NARSAIAH GOUD: The background of this Bill is the

Convention for the Suppression of Unlawful Seizure of Aircraft, which was earlier signed in Hague and recently in Beijing. I would like to speak about clause 11 that extradition in every case creates a risk of inadequate trial of the accused as happened in Kandhar hijack in December, 1999. It is only because of inadequate trial the people involved in Kandhar hijack were again responsible for 9/11 Attack in America as well as attack in Mumbai. This issue is required to be treated as political issue also otherwise this will have serious national as well as international ramifications. At the same time, the issue of compensation needs to addressed to.

So, unless and until we make the compensation clause very clear, there will be a fair amount of loss to the people. With these few suggestions, I would like to support the Bill.

SHRI SANKAR PRASAD DATTA: The Bill seeks to repeal the Anti-

Hijacking Act of 1982 to give effect to the Hague Convention for the Suppression of Unlawful Seizure of Aircraft, 1970 and the Beijing Convention of 2010 to which the Government of India is a signatory. I have an objection in the case of punishment clause particularly to death penalty, as we have seen that race and place determine who lives and who dies. I urge upon the Minister that death penalty should not be the and other stringent actions should be there for people who are involved in cases of hijacking. SHRI Y.V. SUBBA REDDY: The Bill is on the lines of the Beijing

Protocol and we welcome this move. The Bill is laying more emphasis on punishing culprits and not on prevention of crime. Notwithstanding having a number of security mechanisms in place we fail to stop the IC 814 incident. So, I strongly feel that instead of dealing with hijackers and hijack, the Government has to lay emphasis on preventing hijacking itself. Moreover, I would like to know from the hon. Minister as to what prevented him from including a provision in the

Bill to shoot down aircraft if it becomes missile heading towards strategic targets or civilian pockets or other important destinations. Finally, providing compensation to all the victims without any discrimination has to be given priority.

SHRI GOPAL SHETTY: This Bill has been able to draw the support of all the people as it serves the interests of the country and the human being as well.

This Bill has been introduced on the lines of Protocol Supplementary Beijing

Convention which provides for the punishment from life time imprisonment to the death penalty. I would also like to say that it was necessary to bring about such changes in the Act to tackle the threat of terrorism that our country is facing at present. We should bear it also in our mind the plane highjack is likely to be carried out even through the use of electronic technology. Hence, measures should also be taken accordingly. In the case of plane highjack compensation should be provided to all the passengers of the plane without making any discrimination on the basis of their country.

DR. ARUN KUMAR: I would like to thank you for providing me an opportunity to speak on the Anti-Hijacking Bill, 2016. I would also like to say that the compensation should not be determined on the basis of somebody's origin. An organization should be raised on the lines of NSA to tackle the emergency situation like plane highjack. As far as the security checks of VIPs are concerned, national security should not be compromised at any cost.

SHRI DUSHYANT CHAUTALA: I am on my legs to support this Bill.

But we have taken as many as 17 years to introduce this Bill after Kandhar incident. The forces should be developed on the lines of USA and the UK who should invariably be capable of tackling all the security issues of aircrafts. This is necessary also for providing security to our airports on the professional lines.

Moreover, the judges and the ministers should also be brought under the purview of security checks. I would also like to urge upon the hon. Minister that aviation industry should not be privatized as it may put our security in jeopardy.

SHRI RAJESH RANJAN: We all are linked to one another economically, geographically, socially and culturally not only in our country but also in the world. Therefore, issues like terrorism should also be tackled from social, cultural, economic and political point of view. The entire world is against the capital punishment and at the same time it is not the solution to any problem. Hence, this provision should be abolished from the proposed Bill.

SHRI KAUSHALENDRA KUMAR: The Government has introduced a stringent anti-hijacking law on the lines of Beijing Protocol of the International

Civil Aviation Organization. This is a welcome move. This Bill has provided for not only stringent penal provisions for the culprits but also has provided for the confiscation of their properties. But in majority of the cases, the hijackers or the conspirators do not belong to the same country to which the aircraft belongs to. In such a situation how will we be able to confiscate the properties of the citizens of other countries. Provisions should be incorporated in the Bill for this purpose also.

SHRI JAI PRAKASH NARAYAN YADAV: This Bill should have been introduced much earlier. The entire country was shaken when the Kandhar incident took place. We have to come to terms with the hijackers of the plane. So, it was incumbent upon us to think about the formulation of stringent law for the security of the air passengers.

SHRI GEORGE BAKER: I would like to say that if proper electronic equipment is used at airports, it would not only prevent hijackers from being able to enter with certain equipments on their body, it would also prevent incidents of the smuggling of gold which recently happened at Kolkata Airport. In the case of plane hijack the stress should be laid on saving the people and thereafter providing proper compensation to all the passengers of the plane.

SHRI ASHOK GAJAPATHI RAJU replying said: I am grateful to the

House for supporting this Bill. Of course in the course of the debate, many issues have been raised but, I would like to bring one thing to the notice of this House.

Indian security is by and large good. Change being a continuous process and security being a mix of manpower and technology, these things will keep changing. We are at it. The issue has been raised should we not have a specialised aviation security force? Of course, these things are being looked into and constantly monitored and upgraded as and when they are required. As far as civil aviation is concerned, the Bureau of Civil Aviation Security set the patterns and those patterns are followed by whichever agency mans and manages those airports.

We have a Hijacking Contingency Plan in place. I am grateful to the House for having supported this Bill but I cannot agree with certain Members who do not want the death penalty to be there. I think all of us have to be practical and work together to overcome this menace.

The Bill was passed.

THE UTTARAKHAND BUDGET, 2016-17 - GENERAL DISCUSSION

AND

DEMANDS FOR GRANTS ON ACCOUNT (UTTARAKHAND), 2016-17

THE MINISTER OF FINANCE, MINISTER OF CORPORATE

AFFAIRS AND MINISTER OF INFORMATION AND BROADCASTING

(SHRI ARUN JAITLEY): As far as the State of Uttarakhand is concerned, notwithstanding what the courts decide the passage of this Bill is a constitutional necessity. Otherwise, there will be a grave crisis as far as Uttarakhand is concerned. This is the first time in the history of Independent India that out of 67

Members present, 35 or 36 are giving it in writing stating that we have voted against the budget, and the budget is still declared to be passed. Therefore, there is a serious doubt and a cloud whether a budget has been passed or not. After the budget has passed, the Speaker of the House has to certify and write to the

Governor that the budget has been passed, and the Governor has to accept that.

But from 18th till the midnight of 27th of March, when the Council of Ministers recommended action under Article 356, no recommendation or certificate had come that the budget has been passed. There is a serious doubt about the passing of the Budget. On the 31st of March, having proclaimed the President's Rule, the

Central Government was faced with a question as to what happened to the so- called Budget that has been passed on the 18th of March. What happened on the 18th of March itself was doubtful so we issued an Ordinance in support of the

Appropriation Bill itself, sanctioning the appropriation for the financial year 2016-

17. It is that Ordinance, along with the Budget, has come up for consideration before this House today.

Now, various things can happen. If any new Government is formed of either party, it will be entitled to call for its own Session. Pass its own Budget and make changes to whatever we are doing. Alternatively, if the President's Rule is to continue, then I have asked for an appropriation for a period of four months so that the expenditure of the State can go on in the meanwhile. Therefore, as a constitutional necessity, we should approve the Budget, the appropriation for a period of four months and the Ordinance which has been issued.

SHRI GAURAV GOGOI initiating said: This Bill is related to one of the most beautiful state of India having population of about one crore people. People of Uttarakhand want to maintain the dignity of our Constitution and to ensure that they voted Congress to power by exercising their democratic rights. And this

Congress Government brought the Appropriation Bill in the beginning of this year for the upliftment and better future of Uttarakhand. On 13th March, Money Bill or

Appropriation Bill was passed. On 20th March, a collective decision was taken by the Governor, Speaker and the Chief Minister that floor test would be undertaken on 28th March but proclamation regarding President Rule was made on 27th March. Why the Government was in such a hurry? What type of politics they are resorting to? Now, again why this Government is in a hurry to bring Appropriation Bill or

Ordinance Bill today only whereas floor test is scheduled for tomorrow only?

Now-a-days BJP is having two political tools. First is Article 356 and other is

Ordinance. Dr. Ambedkhar has himself said that Article 356 should be used in rare of the rarest cases whereas your Government has used it two times within a period of three months. First time in the 70 years, politicians at Raisena Hills in

Delhi are deciding that whether any Bill have been passed or not in the Assembly of any state. When the Speaker of Assembly has said that Money Bill has been passed, that cannot be questioned. But BJP is claiming that this has not been passed. On what basis this Government is making such claim. Government should respect the election system and they should have trust in the people. Today, we demand justice for the one crore people of Uttarakhand who have elected a government in the year 2012. We also request that the Government should not create such an environment which further creates conflict with the court and in particular, authority of the Speaker of the House should not be challenged.

DR. RAMESH POKHRIYAL NISHANK: I rise to support this Bill related to the Budget of Uttarakhand. On 18th March Appropriation Bill was being passed in the Uttarakhand Assembly. The crux of the issue is whether or not the

Appropriation Bill was passed. The truth is that it was not. In the Assembly 27 BJP Members and 9 dissident Congress members stood up and said they voted against the Appropriation Bill. There is CD evidence in this regard. In the morning 27 BJP Members wrote to the Governor demanding division as they had no faith in the Speaker. 35-36 Members voted against that Bill and only 32 in favour. The demand for division of votes was not accepted. The Assembly proceeding records that demand was made for division of votes. 35 Members then and there wrote to the Assembly Secretary for vote of no confidence. This

Government should be dismissed. This is the demand of the Congress Members.

On 6th December, 1992 Governments of Uttar Pradesh, Madhya Pradesh, Himachal

Pradesh and that of Rajasthan were dismissed. What was their fault? Can it be justified? Why was government headed by Arjun Munda dismissed twice? The

Congress has a long history of misuse of Article 356. In 2002 industrial package was given for 10 year till 2013. But the Congress in 2007 withdrew it. The first sting is regarding the Secretary to the Chief Minister involving Rs.20 crores and is heard saying this with the concurrence of the Chief Minister. After the fall of the

Government second sting is under the CBI investigation. Only yesterday another sting was revealed in which Congress members said Chief Minister has taken

Rs.27 crore from mining. Hence, Article 356 has not been misused. I congratulate the President that if Article 356 has been judiciously used anywhere, it is in Uttarakhand. I welcome the Vote on Account. The welfare schemes should continue. Our Government initiated the schemes such as 108. It was our

Government that made it possible to complete MBBS course in Rs.15,000. We did lots of good work whether through Gaura Devi Dhankalyan Yojana or Nanda Devi

Dhankalyan Yojana or whether relating to the empowerment of girls or women or poor or farmers. Our Government in 2010 made the largest payment to cane farmers in the country. I am thankful to the Minister of Finance for conceiving an university regarding Himalyas which would become the source of inspiration throughout the world. Himalayas needs to be protected and its biodiversity conserved. Uttarakhand was on the forefront of development only under BJP rule.

If anyone is guilty of instability in Uttarakhand it is the Congress. Our

Government took a lot of steps for welfare of solders. Our 'vision-2020' be implemented. I again express my gratitude to the Minister of Finance for bringing this Bill here which I support.

PROF. SAUGATA ROY: As a regional party, we are opposed to

President's rule under Article 356 being imposed anywhere in any state. I had expected the present Government to concentrate on development, which they had promised, but they have indulged in solid horse-trading which is unfortunate. In the 15-odd years that Uttarakhand has been a state, development has not taken place. What are the basic facts? A Congress Government was there; nine

Congress MLAs were supposed to have defected from the Party. The Budget was placed before the Assembly. The Speaker said that the Budget was passed by a voice vote, which was disputed by many people. One day before the floor test was to take place, the Government imposed President's rule on Uttarakhand. The

Supreme Court has not given its final view in the matter yet. In Uttarakhand case the specialty is that the Governor did not recommend the President's Rule. The

Finance Minister earlier said that it was essential incumbent on the Central

Government to have the Appropriation Bill passed. I feel that there was no such hurry. I think the argument of the Government in this matter is fallacious.

Tomorrow, let the floor test take place. Let the Government of India assure this

House that popular Government would be resorted in Uttarakhand at the earlier.

SHRI TATHAGATA SATPATHY: Long back, in 1951 when the Patiala

Government, for the first time, saw promulgation of Article 356. At the outset, I would categorically put it on record very clearly that all these are regressive and bad precedents that we are setting. As a representative of an established regional party, I oppose this imposition of Article 356. India is in a situation where both the

BJP-led NDA and the Congress-led UPA seem to be in the same boat and both seem to be repeating each other. I believe the Constitution is a piece of paper. It is to be used for the interest of the people. It is not to be misused for our personal and political goals. We have heard about cooperative federalism from this

Government. We all hoped that a new chapter would begin. So, this cooperative federalism has become a doubtful slogan now, a slogan that is intended for use when it is convenient. What the BJP-led NDA government has done till now starting from Arunachal Pradesh to Uttarakhand is not only anti-democratic and anti-federalism but also a very sad thing because all of us pin a lot of hope on

Narendra Damodar Das Modi Ji and his Government. A floor test is the natural recourse if questions of stability of a Government are concerned.

SHRI JITENDRA CHAUDHURY: In Uttarakhand, by the undemocratic way, the Government has been dismantled. Now, the NDA is committing the same sins that were started by the Congress Party in 1959 when they dismissed a popular

Government in Kerala. In the S.R. Bommai's judgement of the Supreme Court,

Court said, "Issues of majority or minority are not matters to be determined by the

Government or for that matter anywhere else except the floor of the House."

Therefore, let the floor test be conducted in the Uttarakhand Assembly and popular

Government be installed there. It is a shameless assault on democracy and a blatant violation of constitutional norms. Therefore, I oppose this Appropriation

Bill.

SHRI MEKAPATI RAJA MOHAN REDDY: We sincerely support this

Budget. But we oppose the defection of people's representatives after having been elected on a particular party ticket earlier and later defecting to other parties. This is a very immoral practice. We have to correct this. We have a great example of hon. Vajpayeeji here. Had he wished to survive his Government, he would taken some MPs from other parties and would have survived and avoided the mid-term poll. But he never did like that. Here, unless otherwise we correct the lapses in our Anti Defection Law, either it should be a time-bound thing. Within three months, if a person croses the floor, having been elected on one party's to other party, either he should on his own resign; otherwise he should be disqualified.

This is high time as acted on it.

SHRI A.P. JITHENDER REDDY: When it comes to the Uttarakhand issue, as per the rules and regulations, if the Government did not have proper

MLAs, there should have been a floor test. In the floor test, if it had been proved that they were short of MLAs, automatically the Government would have fallen. I do not understand why BJP was in such a hurry to impose President's Rule in

Uttarakhand. So, unnecessarily using Article 356 is not good for democracy. We have our rules and regulations in the Assemblies as well as in the Parliament. So, I request that the State should be allowed to run properly.

SHRI PREM SINGH CHANDUMAJRA: We are opposed to the imposition of President's Rule in principle because for the first time in the history of Independent India, the Akali Government under the leadership of Gyan Singh

Radewala was dislodged by using Article 356. Again in 1980 the Badal

Government was dislodged by using the same Article. Today, the Congress leaders are opposing the imposition of President's Rule in Uttarakhand. It is because now they have realised what is the pain of using Article 356. it is true that we have to think about the situation that has arisen in Uttarakhand today. There was no other alternative before the Central Government but to impose President's

Rule there and they have done so out of compulsion.

SHRI AJAY TAMTA: A demand for separate statehood for Uttarakhand had constantly been raised for years together due to geographical conditions of the state. A lot of sacrifices were made and a number of lives were laid down for this cause but we did not get the statehood during the Congress regime. We got the separate state during the prime ministership of Shri Atal Ji. We got the status of a special state and also got industrial packages then only the development of the state received momentum. Even today we do not have motorable roads and a number of villages are still devoid of electricity and connectivity and there is shortage of drinking water. A plenty of forest land is required to carry out all these works. Our state remains always prone to natural calamities. Uttarakhand has witnessed several natural disasters over the years. I would also like to point out that our

Uttarakhand is predominantly a state of soldiers. The Union Government has extended tremendous benefits to people of the state by implementing the "One

Rank one Pension" scheme. We have abundant resources for power-generation.

We have huge glaciers. A number of rivers originate from the state and flow downwards to the plains of the entire country such a vast potential exists in

Uttarakhand. A large number of people visit the state as tourists but the real hardships being faced by the local people there need to be addressed.

DR. ARUN KUMAR: I am thankful to you for giving me an opportunity to speak on Finance Bill 2016-17 of Uttarakhand state. History is testimony of facts as to how provisions of the Article 356 has been misused and how one party destabilised the regional parties by misusing the provision of the constitution. The country has seen the menace of the Emergency in 1975. The provisions of Article

356 have been incorporated in our constitution in order to protect democracy. In the above state the said Article has been used to save the democracy as the incumbent government has very thin majority and as many as nine MLAs among them became rebel because of rampant corruption and loot there and a minority government cannot run the government constitutionally. Therefore, the Centre has imposed the President Rule. The Constitution provides check and balance when such constitutional crisis arises. The BJP and their allies who repose faith in democracy firmly believes in strengthening of democracy in order to strengthen the regional parties. Accordingly, the Government has stepped in to deal the crisis and

I support this move.

SHRI JAI PRAKASH NARAYAN YADAV: The basic tenets of our constitution is democracy but the federal structure is under attack today which is very dangerous. We are celebrating 125th Birth anniversary of Baba Saheb but we are bulldozing democracy as well. It will be decided on the floor of the respective

House as it is ethically right or not. But, it is dictatorship. The decision taken in hubris and unimaginable boldness may destroy the democracy. This type of attack has been started in all those states where non-BJP Government is in power.

Democracy in Uttarakhand has been attacked and the Constitution has been torn apart. Therefore, imposition of President rule there is a wrong decision.

SHRI DUSHYANT CHAUTALA: I feel sad whatever happened in

Uttarakhand and Arunachal Pradesh. It is also a matter of concern that comments are passed on the highest authority of the country. Today, I urge upon the

Government that they will have to think over judiciary as well. The people belonging to media write anything against the Government today. Judges pass such comment that become the highlights of the newspaper and television. This does not augur well for democracy. So, we will have to discuss on the amendment of the provision of emergency. We will also have to take cognizance of the fact the way

BJP has destabilised the democracy in two states. Therefore, I am of the opinion that we must discuss on the provision of Article 356 once again.

SHRIMATI MALA RAJYALAKSHMI SHAH: We are facing a lot of problems in Uttarakhand. The Bill is being discussed. Hon. Prime Minister has done a lot for Uttarakhand. We support him. We had gone through a lot of problems in 2013 when the Government was of Congress. Today, I would like to say that we must be more practical and let Parliament like a Parliament and not like a machhi bazaar. We only talk about each other. But the people, who are suffering, are suffering. Uttarakhand people need the support of our Government. The support will only come if we are with the people.

SHRI RAJESH RANJAN: The Members of BJP have acted in haste. It was not proper, they should have allowed the Congress government to prove if it enjoyed the confidence of majority votes on the floor of the House. Who will decide if the Speaker or the Judiciary is supreme? Shri Somnath Chatterjee was the true custodian of Democracy who evinced the Judiciary and the world that the actual powers of Democracy are vested in the Speaker and not in the Supreme

Court of India. I will insist that the World never upholds any act which is against

Democracy. Political persons are responsible for all such fall outs. Therefore, I would insist that we should make our policy and our intentions clear. The political system should desist from horse-trading. We should not become greedy for a post or governance.

KUMARI SUSHMITA DEV: Shri Arun Jaitleyji is right that as Finance

Minister of the country, it is incumbent upon him to avoid any constitutional crisis that may emerge if the Uttarakhand State Government is unable to spend after the

1st of April. But, the constitutional crisis that may happen on the 1st of April is actually precipitated by the decision of the Cabinet on 26th of March. What was there in front of the hon. President of India, and in front of the Cabinet, which showed and was evidence of the fact that the elected Government of Uttarakhand was not going to be able to function as per the provisions of the Constitution? The

Governor on 18th evening knew that the entire battle was about the Appropriation

Bill and only 27 MLAs wrote to the Speaker of the House to ask for a vote by division, it was not the majority. On 27th, if the minority asked for a division of vote, Madam, you are not bound to do it. They only signed the memorandum much later. This is an absolute travesty of justice and every attempt of this government to scuttle a Floor Test has ultimately been set aside by the hon. courts.

SHRI ARUN JAITLEY replying said: Article 356, from the time of its inception, has been an unpopular provision. A State Assembly is elected for the powers that the State Assembly has. The Parliament is elected for the jurisdiction that the Centre has. This is the essence of Federalism. As far as Uttarakhand is concerned, I will only point out three materials. On the 27th midnight, when the

Council of Ministers met and decided to advise the President, 27 MLAs asked for a

Division and the Speaker refused to give a Division. Secondly, you have a video clipping which is true as per the forensic examination. It shows the Chief Minister indulging in horse-trading. Thirdly, the 28th March was three days away from 1st

April. The Speaker had not certified the Appropriation Bill, and the Governor had not given his assent. On the 1st April, the State would have been plunged into a constitutional crisis where there was no Budget. Now the material is when

President’s Rule is imposed, when the majority was saying that they failed the

Budget, horse-trading was going on, you have a State without a Budget, and within

72 hours it would have plunged into a constitutional crisis; the certificate of the

Speaker comes much later; till today, the Governor has not given his assent.

Democracy and federalism are the essence of the Indian Constitution. Democracy means ‘rule by majority’. If the majority fails the Budget, can a ‘Government continue even for a minute? The MLAs may be disqualified. The answer to the

‘Tenth Schedule’ is the MLAs will be disqualified, and the Government has to resign because it has lost the Budget; both things have to follow. The rule by majority is defied because a failed Budget was declared passed. The Speaker refused to have a division; he refused to test the floor. The questions which have to be answered is: What if the Speaker refuses to have a floor test? Second is, the

Speaker wrongly manipulates the floor by wrongly counting. The third situation is that the Speaker adjourns the House and then changes the character of the floor and asks for a floor test under a new floor. One of the cardinal principles of judicial independence is that Courts should never follow the ballot box. The Bommai judgment in its application raises questions. Irrespective of whichever way the courts decide, whether they revive one Government or they create a new Government or they extend President’s rule continues, the Appropriation

Ordinance has to be made into an Act because there is a cloud on what happened on the 18th of March and, therefore, expenditure from 1st April has to be ratified.

That is a necessity and that is why we have sought that Appropriation for a period of four months. That is a Constitutional necessity.

The discussion was concluded.

All the Demands for Grants on Account (Uttarakhand) were voted in full.

STATUTORY RESOLUTION

Re: Disapproval of the Uttarakhand Appropriation (Vote on Account) Ordinance,

2016 (Ordinance No. 2 of 2016)

AND

UTTARAKHAND APPROPRIATION (VOTE ON ACCOUNT) BILL, 2016

THE MINISTER OF FINANCE, MINISTER OF CORPORATE

AFFAIRS AND MINISTER OF INFORMATION AND BROADCASTING

(SHRI ARUN JAITLEY) moved that the Bill to provide for the withdrawal of certain sums from and out of the Consolidated Fund of the State of Uttarakhand for the services of a part of the financial year 2016-17, be taken into consideration.

SHRI KALIKESH N. SINGH DEO moving the Resolution said: The question remains whether this Central Government has the moral authority or the Constitutional authority to bring in this Appropriation. I think it is important that the Chair clarifies this particular issue. Is the Government constitutionally enabled to bring in an Appropriation Bill and a Budget before the President rule is actually got ratified? Since the President’s rule itself has not been ratified by the Lok

Sabha and Rajya Sabha, the Government does not have a constitutional authority or the right to bring in the Budget. Secondly, I think we need to understand the emotions behind the use of Article 356. The use of Article 356 has led to disastrous consequences for the Indian polity, the political system, the parliamentary and legislative system as a whole, and for the country. The hon.

Finance Minister very correctly said that in the Kashmir scenario the use of Article

356 led to terrorism. Hon. Members have said this and I reiterate it that allowing the Courts to challenge the supremacy of the Speaker is not desirable for any political party. I agree some level of unfairness could possibly have happened in

Uttarakhand. We have to ensure that the business is conducted within the parameters of rules. I will ask the question that a day before a majority was to be proved in Uttarakhand what was the need to bring this Bill today? I fail to see the logic in that. What was the urgency in the matter? How would it impact the people of Uttarakhand or the Government of Uttarakhand? We should ensure that the rules under which the politicians have to conduct themselves are clarified and we, as a House, act responsibly. SHRI ARUN JAITLEY replying said: As regards my colleagues' opposition to the Ordinance, I would like to say that under Article 356 the ratification of the proclamation by both Houses of Parliament is to take place.

After the Bommai judgment, you are no longer allowed to dissolve the Assembly straightaway. It can only be put in animated suspension and the dissolution will come after both Houses of Parliament have approved it. If it is an Assembly under animated suspension, it is possible to revive it in case either the Court decides to the contrary or either of the two Houses of Parliament refuses to ratify it. The constitutional effect of dissolution or animated suspension is the same. In any case, the power of the State Assembly would vest in the Central Government. It is always politically correct not to have a Proclamation under Article 356. But, there may be several situations. Howsoever bad Article 356 or politically incorrect

Article 356 is, it would always be required. A Speaker's ruling is not challengeable in a court of law. That is the mandate of the Constitution. If the Speaker regularly says, 'I treat the minority to be a majority', will democracy be held to ransom by such a mala fide ruling? Are we without a remedy or will such actions of the

Speaker constitute a breakdown of the constitutional machinery because the action of the Speaker is allowing a minority to sit in the Government and a majority to sit in opposition? That is the question which I had posed before them. If somebody has an answer, please tell me as to how to deal with such a Speaker. I agree that the

Article 356 has to be used in the rarest of rare cases.

The discussion was concluded.

The Resolution was negatived.

The Bill was passed.

ANOOP MISHRA Secretary General

© 2016 BY LOK SABHA SECRETARIAT NOTE: It is the verbatim Debates of the Lok Sabha and not the Synopsis that should be considered authoritative.

English and Hindi versions of Synopsis of Debates are also available at http://loksabha.nic.in.