LOK SABHA ___ SYNOPSIS OF DEBATES (Proceedings other than Questions & Answers) ______ Monday, July 14, 2014 / Ashadha 23, 1936 (Saka) ______ *MATTERS UNDER RULE 377 (i) SHRI ASHWINI KUMAR CHOUBEY laid a statement regarding need to provide the allocated share of water of Son River to Bihar under Bansagar agreement and initiate pending work in Kadvan Reservoir Project. (ii) SHRI RAVINDER KUSHAWAHA laid a statement regarding need to repair the bridge over river Ghaghara connecting Deoria district and Ballia district of Uttar Pradesh. (iii) SHRI RAMDAS C. TADAS laid a statement regarding need to provide a special package for providing water for drinking and irrigation purposes in Maharashtra particularly in Wardha Parliamentary Constituency in the state. (iv) DR. MANOJ RAJORIA laid a statement regarding need to implement Chambal Lift Project in Karauli-Dholpur Parliamentary Constituency, Rajasthan. * Laid on the Table as directed by the Speaker. (v) SHRI CHHEDI PASWAN laid a statement regarding need to explore mineral reserves in Sasaram Parliamentary Constituency, Bihar. (vi) SHRIMATI RAMA DEVI laid a statement regarding need to initiate acquisition of land for construction of road along India-Nepal border in Sheohar Parliamentary Constituency, Bihar. (vii) SHRI SANJAY DHOTRE laid a statement regarding need to expedite the gauge conversion of the Ratlam-Fatehabad-Indore-Mhow-Khandwa- Amalkhurd-Akot-Akola Section. (viii) SHRI A.T.NANA PATIL laid a statement regarding need to fix remunerative price of agricultural produce keeping in view the cost of inputs involved. (ix) SHRI DILIPKUMAR MANSUKHLAL GANDHI laid a statement regarding need to improve power situation in Maharashtra State. (x) SHRI KAMLESH PASWAN laid a statement regarding need to declare Dughdeswarnath Temple at Rudrapur in Deoria district, Uttar Pradesh as a tourist place and provide basic facilities at the temple site. (xi) SHRIMATI RANJEET RANJAN laid a statement regarding need to undertake rejuvenation of canals in Bihar to facilitate irrigation of agricultural fields in Bihar. (xii) SHRI KODIKUNNIL SURESH laid a statement regarding need to release balance funds announced under Kuttanad package for mitigation of floods and regulation of flood water in Kuttanadu region of Kerala. (xiii) DR. P. VENUGOPAL laid a statement regarding need to share the additional burden of premium over and above 2 per cent of the sum insured under the National Crop Insurance Programme equally with Government of Tamil Nadu. (xiv) SHRI SUVENDU ADHIKARI laid a statement regarding need to exempt the co-operative banks from the ambit of Income Tax Act. (xv) SHRI RABINDRA KUMAR JENA laid a statement regarding need to provide adequate financial assistance for foolproof maritime security in the coastal region of Odisha. (xvi) SHRI VINAYAK BHAURAO RAUT laid a statement regarding need to acquire the residential Bungalow of Homi J. Bhabha, the eminent nuclear physicist at Malabar Hill in Mumbai and convert it into a National Heritage building. (xvii) SHRI RAM MOHAN NAIDU KINJARAPU a statement regarding need to allocate sufficient funds to tackle the kidney diseases in Uddanam area of Srikakulam district of Andhra Pradesh. (xviii) SHRI P. KARUNAKARAN laid a statement regarding need to increase import duty on rubber. (xix) SHRI P. SRINIVASA REDDY laid a statement regarding need to establish a Steel Plant at Bayyaram in Telangana State. (xx) SHRI JAI PRAKASH NARAYAN YADAV laid a statement regarding need to accord ‘National Fair’ status to Sharavani Mela of Sultanganj, Bihar. STATUTORY RESOLUTION Re: Disapproval of Telecom Regulatory Authority of India (Amendment) Ordinance, 2014 AND TELECOM REGULATORY AUTHORITY OF INDIA (AMENDMENT) BILL, 2014 SHRI ADHIR RANJAN CHOWDHURY initiating said: We have nothing personal agenda with any appointment in this Government. But the fact is, the way the Government has been transgressing the domain of Legislature is a matter of serious concern. This is my humble submission of this Government. It is because heaven would not have fallen upon you had that appointment been done through the regular legislative way. It is your Government, it is NDA Government that, in the year 2000, had amended the TRAI Act to rule out the appointment of chief regulators in any Central and State Government. So, now, the question is that the day the person was appointed, he was not at all qualified for that appointment. In spite of knowing the statutory disqualification of the same person, what had warranted the Government to bulldoze the golden path of legislative procedure? It smacks of a little hidden agenda. I would like to know whether the PMO was unaware of the statutory hurdles of that appointment. Once it was highlighted, the Government did not want to eat the humble pie. The Government resorted to the Ordinance route. I do not question the integrity and honesty of an individual. But only integrity cannot be the sole criteria for promulgation of any Ordinance. It could be the first instance in the annals of Indian Legislative Institution where a Government at the Centre promulgated an Ordinance even before proving its majority on the Floor of the House. Your Party had objected many Ordinances brought by UPA Government for example, the Food Security Act, the Anti- Corruption legislation, etc. I am simply drawing the attention of the hon. Minister and this House that this kind of Ordinance should not be brought in such a way. I hope it will shun from pursuing this Ordinance route because Ordinance can be promulgated only on extraordinary situation. They are referring to other financial institutions where this kind of restriction has not been imposed. This Government should not resort to this kind of an Ordinance simply on the pretext of other regulators. So the Government’s intention is very obscure. That is why I am vehemently opposing this kind of a legislation. SHRI RAJIV PRATAP RUDY: I rise to speak on the Telecom Regulatory Authority of India (Amendment) Bill, 2014. Basically, this amendment relates to Clause (5). A question is being raised as to why the amendment is being made and it was provided that any member of TRAI after his retirement cannot hold any position in Central, state government or any public sector undertaking. I would like to make the Members recall that this Bill was passed in the year 1997. At that time, a restriction was imposed that the Chairman of the Authority cannot join any Government or the private sector. The whole purpose was to bring transparency. This amendment in Clause (5) is to rectify that the person could join any position in the Government after two years of his retirement. I fail to understand as to why this is being opposed as there are so many other regulatory authorities where such a restriction does not exist. The AIRA, the Pension Regulatory Development Authority, the Insurance Regulatory Development Authority, the Competition Commission of India, the Central Electricity Authority, the Petroleum and Natural Gas Board, SEBI, the Central Information Commission and the Warehousing Development Authority are such institutions where there is no restriction on Members to join any Government or private sector after their retirement. If any such mistake was ever committed or any such anomaly exists then the Government is well within its right to rectify it. In fact, this was with the basic intent to create a consistency in Legislation. The second issue relates to as to why the Ordinance has been brought about. If the Prime Minister feels that some particular individual should work in his office and there is some hindrance in his appointment then the same hindrance cannot be removed. This situation is not acceptable. It was an over-sight. An over-sight has been attempted to be corrected. All the inadequacies have been corrected. We shall respect the competent and honest officers in the Government. Why should we shun a talent because there is a rule against it and that rule needs to be corrected. In your Government also there were competent and honest officers and they are working in this Government as well. We would like to bring in meritorious people in the Government and we have resolved that we shall never compromise with the merit. In UPA Government, the bureaucracy was in shambles. With this decision, a message has gone down in the bureaucracy that competent and honest officers would get the pride of place in the Government. DR. M. THAMBIDURAI: Some Opposition Member objected to the Telecom Regulatory Authority of India (Amendment) Bill, 2014. But in a democratic country, when the new Government comes and whoever heads that Government, he may have the choice to select his personnel. There is nothing wrong in that. The Prime Minister or the Cabinet decided to chose a person, if at all there is any rule against it or any hindrance against that, they have come forward to change that. That is the thing. Therefore, there is nothing wrong in that. The same person, served in the UPA Government as the Chairman of the TRAI. I do not know what objection they are raising against him now. I do not know if this is the reason because he submitted a report which sometimes may hit them. Somewhere he raised certain issues which they overcame, violated and implemented them through his predecessor. Ordinance may come due to many reasons. I do not think there is any objection to that. Therefore, let this Bill be passed. SHRI SUDIP BANDYOPADHYAY: I rise to speak on the Bill of Telecom Regulatory Authority of India Bill. At the moment, when the TRAI ordinance is being converted into a Bill, I fully agree with Dr. Thambidurai ji that Prime Minister can choose any officer, whom he feels fit for the position. We do not object it and we do not oppose it because of the greater interest of the governance.