(Continuance) Bill, 1957 3316

5133 Preventive Detention [ RAJYA SABHA ] (Continuance) Bill, 1957 3316 [Shri Bhupesh Gupta.] allegation which is the Central Government, the State not. true according to you, but at least, you give Governments and the authorities who were us a promise that you would do it. Now, empowered to do that and all the three have suddenly, a statement is made here. I could hear disclaimed that they issued any such order to the tapping. Yesterday, I did not hear it. Now, it tap your telephone. is no longer there. At least I am in • a position to talk over telephone. Sir, therefore, I would SHRI BHUPESH GUPTA: I do not accept again beg of the House, as a responsible it. That is the point at issue. I accuse the Member of the House, let him cause an enquiry Government of denying the charge. I want an to be held and then you come to a conclusion. It enquiry. That is the point at issue. is very difficult for me to prove it, I know. But I leave it to the House. I am conscious of the MR. CHAIRMAN: All right. judgment of the Chairman to deal with this matter because I know for certain that the ___ telephones are being tapped. THE PREVENTIVE DETENTION MR. CHAIRMAN {TO Shri Govind Ballabh (CONTINUANCE) BILL, 1957— Pant): Have you anything to say? continued SHRI SONUSING DHANSING PATIL SHRI GOVIND BALLABH PANT: No (Bombay): Mr. Chairman, nobody should telephone can be tapped except with the giudge the democratic process of criticism approval or under the directions of certain when such laws are before Parliament. The authorities. We have made ample enquiries question before this august House is not to from all the sources and we are assured that judge the propriety or otherwise of these laws; the telephone has not been tapped. I cannot see it is only the extension of the old laws. The any occasion for an enquiry. If any such Preventive Detention Act has been fully dis- tapping had been done, I would have readily cussed as many as three times in both Houses accepted it and put a stop to the practice. But of Parliament and it has been agreed to. Now, no such tapping can be done, as I said, without the question arises whether the situation in the attracting the notice of the authorities. Mr. country as such warrants the extension of Bhupesh Gupta never before sent any these laws. I have heard with a lot of interest complaint to me that his phone was being the criticism which is levelled by the Leader tapped by any of Ihe authorities. He made a of the Opposition. I need not emphasise the statement here and I have referred to the best various aspects of individual liberty which is authorities who could throw light on the enjoyed in the country where from my hon. question. I do not see what more could be friend draws inspiration and where he has got done. his spiritual home. SHRI BHUPESH GUPTA: May I know Sir, the Preventive Detention Act in this which is the authority? land is only baby talk and if I merely refer to certain quotations which are cited in the MR. CHAIRMAN: He says that no Eastern Economist on this point, the House telephone can be tapped without the authority will benefit. It is with reference to the of either the Central Government or the State Communist countries: Government or the authorities authorised for the purpose. He has made enquiries of "But the Indian Preventive Detention Act is baby talk compared with the measures authorised 3317 Preventive Detention [ 20 DEC. 1957 ] (Continuance) Bill, 19573318 against hostile in the 'Communist' countries. whether there was any detention on this First, the life of our Act is limited and must account. If not, it only speaks of the judicious, be reviewed periodically in parliament cautious and moderate use of the Preventive amidst nation-wide discussion and publicity Detention Act. We know the fate of Beria, focussed on its working. If some Indian how he was buried alive and how he was citizen were detained under a genuine error, liquidated in the communist country. Sir, I his friends would have little difficulty in need not give more instances of this kind. But organising such a public outcry that his we know what is the personal liberty enjoyed release would be certain. Secondly, out of in outside countries where there is no right India's 400,000;000 population, at most a even to go on strike, where even one day's few hundreds are likely to find themselves absence is penalised by three months, and detained without trial. Thirdly, our Act where even a small dereliction of duty is makes no provision for forced labour camps visited with very serious penal offences. These in the Damodar Vallay or elsewhere, and are the laws there. Now these curious anybody who got up in parliament and suggested that our Act offers a useful champions of democracy in this twentieth weapon whereby millions could be turned century under the name of people's democracy into slave labourers in order to ensure the try to marshall arguments in favour of success of our Five-Year Plan would be personal liberty. They should search their greeted with shouts of incredulous hearts and find out whether such a degree of laughter." individual liberty is enjoyed in any other country. Sir, instances of other countries are This enly makes it clear that, the Preventive quoted to show that such laws are not there on Detention Act in our country is only a baby their Statute Books. But, Sir, the analogies of talk. other countries are hardly applicable in this country. If we take a country like England, we MR. BHUPESH GUPTA: Sir . will find that there the traditions of democracy have been successfully working for nearly 500 MR. CHAIRMAN: He was never to 600 years and there is complete respect for interrupted in his very powerful speech which law and individual liberty, and also there is a he made; but he wishes to interrupt others. loyal and willing co-operation in the matter of Very bad example. laws. And such a country's laws cannot be compared with the laws in this country where SHRI SONUSING DHANSING PATIL: Sir, we see an open and organised defiance of the the Leader of the Opposition iaid much laws. Sir, my friend has quoted the instance of emphasis on liberty and specially, the personal Maharashtra. But has he ever taken into liberty of the individual. Sir, everybody in this consideration the orgy of violence that shook House will certainly respect liberty, but not the great city of Bombay after the the wanton licence to ,act as one pleases. Even Reorganisation Act was passed by both the the framers of the Constitution have Houses of Parliament? If this is their respect circumscribed the limits of a citizen when they for law, I do not know how this young say in the Preamble "Liberty of thought, democracy in this country will survive. It is a expression, belief, faith and worship." Has my democracy which safeguards the various hon. friend quoted a single instance to show liberties of the people who peacefully enjoy that the use of the Preventive Detention Act those liberties. Sir, as one of the speakers last was with reference to the liberty of thought, time said, expression, belief, faith or worship? I give him a challenge on this point this is just like a surgeon's knife which cuts to cure and hurts to heal 3319 Preventive Detention [ RAJYA SABHA ] (Continuance) Bill, 1957 332O [Shri Sonusing Dhansing Patil.] and such is ed from the inroads by a few agitators. the purpose of this Act. If peaceful citizens in this country really want to enjoy their personal Sir, I may even make a reference to the liberty, there is no bar. But this measure is function of a legislator in a communist only meant for those trou-ble-fomenters and country. He is not a legislator. But he is only agitators who resort to organised violence and an agitator for the party in Parliament. That is where it is impossible to get evidence and the role he plays. He is not answerable to the where people are overawed and intimidated, masses or the constituents whom he and where a group of people work against the represents. whole society. This is meant only for dacoits and antisocial elements whose activities have got to be checked by the Preventive Detention SHRI BHUPESH GUPTA: But he is never a Act. It is a sort of curative measure. It has got permit-holder. a sort of psychological effect. It has got a restraining effect and also a purifying effect. It SHRI SONUSING DHANSING PATIL: is to check the menace of anti-social elements There is no opposition party there. Only one which are rampant in our country. group is there. And when there is a one-party rule, Sir, the very idea of democracy is nega- Sir, I tried to analyse the various provisions tived. It is incompatible with the proletarian and I also tried to analyse the arguments that dictatorship for which my hon. friend has got were advanced by my learned friend opposite. so much love. (Interruption..) He is now championing the cause of personal liberty and He is a Barrister himself. But loud protesta- unrestricted liberty. Sir, even the idea of tions do not prove the fact. That is not citizenship is restricted. A citizen means a evidence.

Load more