COMMITTEE OF PRIVILEGES (FOURTEENTH LOK SABHA) 9 NINTH REPORT (Presented to Speaker, Lok Sabha on 20 November, 2007) (Laid on the table of Lok Sabha on 22 November, 2007) SEAL LOK SABHA SECRETARIAT NEW DELHI November, 2007/Kartika, 1929 (Saka) COMMITTEE OF PRIVILEGES (FOURTEENTH LOK SABHA) NINTH REPORT (Presented to Speaker, Lok Sabha on 20 November, 2007) (Laid on the table of Lok Sabha on 22 November, 2007) SEAL LOK SABHA SECRETARIAT NEW DELHI November, 2007/Kartika, 1929(Saka) CONTENTS PAGE Personnel of the Committee…………………………………………….(ii) Report…………………………………………………………………...(1) *Minutes of sittings of Committee……………………..……………… *Minutes of Evidence………………………………………………….. *Appendices…………………………………………………………… ____________________________________________________ * being appended in the printed copies of the report PERSONNEL OF THE COMMITTEE OF PRIVILEGES (14TH Lok Sabha) Shri V.Kishore Chandra S.Deo - Chairman MEMBERS 2. Shri Omar Abdullah 3. Shri Sartaj Singh Chhatwal 4. Shri Anantkumar Hegde 5. Shri Virendra Kumar 6. Shri Hemlal Murmu 7. Shri Brajesh Pathak 8. Shri Shriniwas Patil 9. Dr. Sebastian Paul 10. Shri Varkala Radhakrishnan 11. Shri Raju Rana 12. Shri D. Vittal Rao 13. Shri Iqbal Ahmed Saradgi 14. Choudhary Bijendra Singh 15. Shri Beni Prasad Verma SECRETARIAT 1. Shri P.D.T. Achary - Secretary General 2. Shri V.K. Sharma - Joint Secretary 3. Shri Ravindra Garimella - Deputy Secretary 4. Shri Ashok Sajwan - Deputy Secretary-II NINTH REPORT OF THE COMMITTEE OF PRIVILEGES (FOURTEENTH LOK SABHA) I. Introduction and Procedure I, the Chairman of the Committee of Privileges, having been authorized by the Committee to submit the Report on their behalf, present this their Ninth Report to the Speaker on the question of casting of aspersions on members of Parliament by Shri Ronen Sen, India’s Ambassador in USA in an interview. 2. The Committee held four sittings. The relevant minutes of these sittings form part of the Report and are appended hereto. 3. At their first sitting held on 23 July,2007, the Committee considered the matter and decided to hear the members who had given notices of question of privilege against Shri Ronen Sen in the matter. 4. At their second sitting held on 14 September,2007, the Committee examined on oath Sarvashri Gurudas Dasgupta, Rupchand Pal and Ajoy Chakraborty, MPs. The Committee decided that it might not be necessary for Shri Varkala Radhakrishnan, a member of the Committee who had also given notice of question of privilege to give his evidence before the Committee. The Committee also decided that since Shri Varkala Radhakrishnan had no personal interest in the matter, he could attend the sittings of the Committee during the consideration of the matter by the Committee. 5. At their third sitting held on 29 October,2007, the Committee examined on oath Shri Ronen Sen, Indian Ambassador in USA. 6. At their fourth sitting held on 16 November,2007 the Committee considered their draft Report and adopted the same. II. Facts of the Case 7. On 21 August,2007 Sarvashri Varkala Radhakrishnan, Ajoy Chakraborty, P. Karunakaran, Rupchand Pal, Basudeb Acharia and Gurudas Dasgupta, MPs and on 22 August,2007 Shri P.C. Thomas and Shri Anant G. Geete, MPs gave notices of question of privilege alleging that Shri Ronen Sen, India’s Ambassador in USA had cast aspersions on members of Parliament in an interview given to Rediff News Agency on India-US civil nuclear agreement. Elaborating, the members stated that Shri Sen in the impugned interview had stated that “the Parliamentarians are like headless chickens…The Parliamentarians don’t even seem to be aware of what they are saying, the import of what they are saying”. The members also enclosed copies of the transcript of the said interview, given by Shri Ronen Sen, in support of their contention. In the transcript of the said interview captioned ‘ Sen calls N-critics headless chickens’, it was inter alia reported that “ Prime Minister Manmohan Singh’s key man for the civil nuclear energy agreement in Washington, Ambassador Ronen Sen, has attacked India’s parliamentarians for opposing the deal. ‘It has been approved here (in Washington D.C.) by the President and there (in New Delhi), it has been approved by the Indian Cabinet. So why do we have all this running around like headless chickens, looking for a comment here or a comment there, and these little storms in a teacup?’ ” 8. On 21 August, 2007, several members raised the matter in the House with the permission of the Speaker. Thereafter, Shri Pranab Mukherjee, Leader of the House and Minister of External Affairs, who was present in the House, stated,“…I have contacted our Ambassador who has informed me that certain comments, either deliberately or through misunderstanding, were published by the Correspondent. The Correspondent has also misquoted our Ambassador in several respects. I have asked our Ambassador to issue a clarification. These comments, if made by our Ambassador, and reported correctly, are totally unwarranted and unacceptable. In democracy, there will always be dissension and divergence of opinions. Nobody can accuse others who hold divergent views. I regret the alleged comments which have hurt the feelings of hon. Members…” When the House met again at 1400 hrs. on the same day, Shri Pranab Mukherjee informed the House that he has received a communication from Ambassador Sen stating as follows :- “…I have received several queries about a report datelined Washington DC, August 20, 2007 by Mr. Aziz Haniffa of Rediff India Abroad, which quoted me extensively on the India-US Civil Nuclear Agreement. I had an off the record conversation with the Correspondent giving some assessments on this subject. A number of the comments were, however, either misunderstood or misquoted or quoted out of context. For instance, I did not say that the Hyde Act could not be renegotiated, but said that the bilateral agreement could not , in my view, be renegotiated. With reference to the Hyde Act, I had expressed my assessment it would not be amended in the foreseeable future…Some of the comments attributed to me in this off-the-record conversation were made by me in my personal capacity and do not reflect the positions of the Government…I fully recognize that such personal views, even in a private conversation, should have been expressed with better judgment and due decorum. For instance, my comment about ‘running around like a headless chicken looking for a comment here or a comment there’ was a tactless observation on some of my media friends and most certainly not with reference to any hon. Member of Parliament, it was certainly not my intention to cast aspersions on any individual or organization. However, if I have unwittingly hurt any sentiments, I offer my unqualified apologies…” 9. The Ministry of External Affairs were requested to furnish comments of Shri Ronen Sen in the matter. The Foreign Secretary vide his communication dated 23 August, 2007, forwarded the comments of Shri Ronen Sen in the matter. Shri Ronen Sen, in his comments, furnished through the Ministry of External Affairs, stated as follows:- “ I would at the outset like to say that I did not give an interview to Mr. Aziz Haniffa. I had conversations on my mobile telephone with Mr. Aziz Haniffa of Rediff India Abroad and with Mr. Chidanand Rajghatta of ‘The Times of India’ during last weekend on either 18 or 19 August, 2007. At the beginning of both these conversations, I recall stating that I could not give comments on record and that people should not be looking for a comment here or a comment there. I had, prior to these conversations, also instructed my colleagues in the Embassy not to make any statements or observations to the media on the debate on various interpretations on the India-US civil nuclear agreement. Several of these comments in the off-the-record conversation were made by me in my personal capacity and do not reflect the positions of the Government of India. I do not have a total recollection of every word I uttered, and cannot deny having made many of the comments attributed to me. However, I did not make any statements about ‘parliamentarians running around like headless chicken’ or about ‘parliamentarians having childish tantrums’. Yet, I fully recognize that a number of my personal observations, even in private conversations, were couched in a tactless manner and demonstrated poor taste. Such observations should have been expressed with better judgment, greater restraint and due decorum, particularly by a former civil servant holding public office. It was most certainly not my intention to cast aspersions on any individuals or any organization, let alone the august institution of Parliament. I would like to reiterate that if I have unwittingly hurt any sentiments , I offer my sincere and unqualified apologies.” The Foreign Secretary stated in his communication that “the Ministry have no choice but to crave the indulgence of the Hon’ble Speaker in the error of judgement by Ambassador Ronen Sen and to request that his unqualified apologies be accepted.” 10. On 30 August,2007, the Speaker, Lok Sabha in exercise of his powers under Rule 227 of the Rules of Procedure and Conduct of Business in Lok Sabha , referred the matter to the Committee of Privileges for examination, investigation and report. III. EVIDENCE Evidence of Shri Gurudas Dasgupta, MP 11. Shri Gurudas Dasgupta, MP during his evidence on 14 September, 2007, inter-alia stated as follows: “… The whole intention of our raising this matter is this. What is the mandate of an Ambassador? The Ambassador has his jurisdiction, constitutional, legal, moral and administrative. In this case, he has gone beyond his mandate. Why? When there is a political controversy in the country with regard to a deal, which is the atomic deal with America and when he is the Ambassador of India in America, when the political circles are divided in India, when they are debating the issue, some in favour and some against, the first wrong that he has done is to take part in the debate.