DR. ABHISHEK MANU SINGHVI (CONTD.): Therefore, this concept of affecting the Constitution or moving against the unknown, mysterious, indefinable spirit of the Constitution which, we, as ordinary mortals and legislators, cannot either catch or pinpoint, is a very difficult chimera indeed. A quick global survey and I will then come to some of the hypocritical double standards practised by those who oppose this Bill. A global survey is interesting and it shows that India is not over reacting; India is at all under-reacting. I have given the example of the Great Britain, which says only 200 posts are disqualified and the entire universe of residual possibilities, namely, every other post can be held. That is, a far larger universe is available to the MPs in England than the limited universe in India. But, let us look elsewhere. The Parliament of Canada Act has had a very well-known Royal Commission, known as the Lortie Commission in 1992, which subsequently recommended the elimination, the abandonment and the repeal of the entire concept of the Office of Profit. And, that is the country which follows the English system even before our Constitution was framed. Take the Australian Constitution, Section 44. The Australian Constitution is modelled on the British one. But, even there, there are two Royal Commission Reports which seek a complete elimination and repeal of the Office of Profit concept itself. We hon. Members are doing much less. We hon. Members are doing only that which has continued and being sanctified by time. But here, when I hear the Opposition speak on this subject, I cannot but re-frame and recreate a new definition of hypocrisy in somewhat biblical terms. My new definition of hypocrisy in biblical terms reads like this, "Do not allow others to do that which you have done unto yourself. What is good, Mr. Deputy Chairman, Sir, for Jharkhand, is bad for Delhi. What is necessary for Jharkhand is pernicious for India". Indeed, when that opportune time comes for opposing the Bill for the whole country, at that time, it is necessary to abandon Jharkhand as a mistake. But, this is neither fallibility, nor politics. This has only one word. This is opportunism; this is expediency; this is running with the hare and hunting with the hound; this is preaching without practice. But that is not all. It is not only Jharkhand, although much as they would like to wish it away as a bad dream, as a mistake. I have, hon. Deputy Chairman, Sir, with me an Office Order of 2nd April 1998, issued from no other than the Office of the Prime Minister of this country, and I repeat the date, 2nd April, 1998. May I read it? "The President is pleased to appoint Shri Pramod Mahajan as Political Adviser to the Prime Minister in the rank and status of a Cabinet Minister in the Prime Minister's Office with effect from the forenoon of 2nd April, 1998, until further orders". Well, a few years ago ...(Interruptions)..

SHRI ARUN JAITLEY: He was not a Member of Parliament at that time. You are factually wrong in your example. On 2nd of April, 1998, Mr. Mahajan was not a Member of Parliament. ...(Interruptions)..

DR. ABHISHEK MANU SINGHVI: Just a minute. ...(Interruptions).. He continued in that position subsequently till he became a Member of Parliament. ...(Interruptions).. He continued there.

SHRI ARUN JAITLEY: Again, you are wrong on your second fact. He resigned a day before becoming a Member of Parliament. ...(Interruptions)..

DR. ABHISHEK MANU SINGHVI: Let me give you another example. ...(Interruptions).. Many years ago, the Leader of the Opposition was exempted. I would have expected that those who preach morality to us should first ...(Interruptions)..

SHRI ARUN JAITLEY: The Leader of the Opposition was exempted in 1977 ...(Interruptions)..

ߴ֟ ִ þָ֕ : ֯ ׻֋ օ 1977 ֮֟ ֙ ָָ ߅ ֮ ߛ ֯ו֮̿ ..(־֮֬)..

DR. ABHISHEK MANU SINGHVI: Hon. Members ...(Interruptions).. Hon. Members, did you hear me say that you passed ...(Interruptions)..

(Contd. by 2e-YSR)


DR. ABHISHEK MANU SINGHVI (CONTD.): I have not said that you passed the law of exempting Leader of the Opposition. I did not say so. So, please, don't interrupt me. (Interruptions)

ߴ֟ ִ þָ֕ : ִֵ ߛ וֿ֮֠ ֯ ...(־֮֬)... ָָ ..(־֮֬)..

. ׳ ֮ ֑־ : օ ..(־֮֬).. օ ..(־֮֬)..

MR. DEPUTY CHAIRMAN: It is a maiden speech. (Interruptions) Please, Mr. Narayanasamy. Let us follow certain rules. (Interruptions) ïߓ ״Ù , ָ ֯ ևә ֈ ֯ ֤ ևә ֈ ..(־֮֬).. Please, allow him to speak..(Interruptions)

DR. ABHISHEK MANU SINGHVI: Those of us who have read our law and constitutional history know that the amendment to Leader of the Opposition was passed in 1977, and, therefore, you interrupted me when I only said that the Leader of the Opposition is an exempted post. I never said that you passed that law. But now I want to say something about you. Before you oppose this Bill, if you have the courage of your convictions -- and this is the path shown to you at least by our Leader -- those who occupy the position of Leader of the Opposition must first resign ..(Interruptions).. before they enjoy the exemption of this Act. They must first resign. (Interruptions) It is a very strange hypocrisy that you continue to enjoy the exemptions provided by this and earlier Acts in the Schedule, and you still assail this as an immoral principle. At least your speeches and your preaching would have more value and more effect if you first resign. This reminds me of two couplets. One, of course, has been mentioned yesterday in this House. But I must repeat it, especially in the context of Jharkhand. This was said only yesterday in some other context. ָ , ֟ ִ֤օ ֓ օ Let us rephrase it for Jharkhand. Let us rephrase it for Jharkhand, hon. Members.

ײ ֋, ִ֮ ָ֕ ֟

֮ ֳ Դ֮ ָ֕ ֟

ָӛ ױ ,

, ָ פ ֮ ָ֕ ֟

There is another opposition to this Bill, and that opposition is on the stated ground that they oppose the Bill on the sole ground that the NAC is included in the Bill. There was a very strong opposition to the Bill on the sole ground. I repeat the word 'sole.' When a person opposes this Bill on the 'sole ground' of the NAC, the people of India know that the real opposition is not to this Bill, but the real opposition is to the bete noire of the opposition. The real opposition is to a leader, a person, who whenever chooses to stand for elective office, the only two questions left to ask are: What will be the margin of defeat of the opposite side, and will the opposite side lose its deposit? Now, this curiosity is the only question. And they oppose us today, oppose this Bill, on the sole ground of the NAC. They oppose this Bill on the sole ground of the NAC. They did not think twice before exempting the 22 offices in Jharkhand. (Interruptions)

ֵָ : ֳָ ־ .....(־֮֬)...

ֳ֯ן : ֯ ך ..(־֮֬).. , ֯ ך ..(־֮֬)... ״Ù ֯ ך ...(־֮֬)..

DR. ABHISHEK MANU SINGHVI: Those who oppose this Bill on the ground of the NAC should tell you that the 22 offices which they exempted in Jharkhand included the offices of the State Agricultural Marketing Board, the Mines Board, the Implementation of the 20-point Programme, all clearly in the gift of the Government. They exempted the offices of the Chief Minister of that State..(Interruptions)

ֵָ : ֵ ׮ֵ ...(־֮֬).. ָӛ Ӥ ..(־֮֬).

ֳ֯ן : , ֯ ך ...(־֮֬).. I have to warn you..(Interruptions).. No, I have to warn you..(Interruptions).. ֟ ..(־֮֬) ֯ כׯ׻֮ ..(־֮֬)...

DR. ABHISHEK MANU SINGHVI: Those who..(Interruptions)..

֟־Ο ֟ : ָ, ֵָ ߙ և, ߓ ..(־֮֬).. (Followed by VKK/2F)


DR. ABHISHEK MANU SINGHVI: Those who oppose this Bill should tell you that the Jharkhand Act exempted the Chief Minister as the Head of the Ranchi Development Authority. But they oppose the NAC. What did the NAC do? The NAC successfully took the initiative to bring landmark social welfare legislations in this country. What did the NAC do? It gave to this country, through a great initiative, statutes like the Rural Employment Guarantee Act. It gave to this country the Right to Information Act. And that is the sole ground for opposition to this Bill. That gives you a real clue as to their intent and purpose. The intent and purpose is not the Bill; the intent and purpose is that they cannot digest the popularity of the leaders of our party.

May I, Mr. Deputy Chairman, Sir, in conclusion, remind this august House not to forget that we are not repealing the concept of Office of Profit? May I remind this august House that we are not amending the Constitution? May I remind this august House -- because those who just spoke appeared to have forgotten it -- that we are not creating a licence and a carte blanche for Members of Parliament to go running after any and every Office of Profit. That is not what this Bill does. The disqualification of article 102 and the other Constitutional provisions will still have meaning and will still have content. We must remember not to be so suspicious about our colleagues. We must remember that if we can trust Parliaments with matters of movements, with matters of States and with matters of such high importance, then, we can certainly trust them not to run after every Office of Profit which is clearly and directly a sinecure under the Government. This Bill does not deal with the direct sinecures under the Government. This Bill seeks to deal with the unclear cases, the cases where uncertainty is created by ex-post facto judicial determination. This Bill seeks to deal with those cases which require protection because they have been sanctified by a practice, by the passage of time, by public interest and by governance. That is what this Bill does. That is why, Mr. Deputy Chairman, Sir, I rise in support of this Bill. (Ends)

SHRI SITARAM YECHURY (WEST BENGAL): Mr. Deputy Chairman, Sir, I rise to support this Bill and I will give my reasons as to why I am rising to support this Bill. But, first of all, since my hon. friends and colleagues have raised all these questions about morality and questions about propriety, let me, at least, put that issue to rest. Yes, 18 of these 55 that are listed fall in West Bengal and Tripura. If you are saying the reason why this has been brought about is because to save our people, let me please tell you -- the moral ground that you apply, I am not going into that right now -- we have just concluded elections in Bengal and we have come back with three-fourths majority. If all these people are asked to resign, we will resign and we will come back again. Our point is not to save these seats. These seats can be won back by us and with a bigger margin. (Interruptions) It is a different matter that your party did not make a breakthrough there. You have not won a single MLA seat. That is a different matter in Bengal. But the point is ...(Interruptions)...

ֳ֯ן : , ֯ ך....֯ ך ....(־֮֬)....

ߟִָ : ֟ .... ֟ ....(־֮֬)...

ֳ֯ן : , ֯ ך ...(־֮֬)....

SHRI SATYAVRAT CHATURVEDI: Sir, Bengalis don't like *. Therefore, they rejected them.

ߟִָ : ָ, ֟ ....(־֮֬)... ֋.... (־֮֬)...

ֵָ : ֕ã֮ ....(־֮֬)...

ֳ֯ן : , ֋, ָ-ָ ֯ ֮ ։ ו֋ ֟ ֟ ։ ו֋ ֯ ߻ ։ ו֋ ։ ֲ וִָ

SHRI SITARAM YECHURY: Sir, if I could continue, the issue is, ־ֻ , ־ֻ ָ ײֻ ִ֣Ԯ ֕ ױ ָ ֺ ֛ ֲ ׸և ױ ָ ֋ꅠ ־ֻ (2G/RSS ָ ֿ:)


* Expunged as ordered by the Chair.


SHRI SITARAM YECHURY (CONTD.): The issue is actually one of principle where we believe, my party believes very sincerely that many Members of Parliament will have to discharge their responsibilities by working on many of these boards, and we do not consider them as an office of profit. An issue has been made out about the Tripura Khadi and Village Industries Board. "Yes, our party has consciously decided that the Member of Parliament will head that board because that will save the North-Eastern States." Shrimati Sushma Swaraj will know that. We have visited all these States. They do not have money there. We will save these States from sending another representative to liaise with Delhi. We use our Member of Parliament to save the money of the State. It is not an office of profit. We could have had our own member using that office and given it as a privilege to somebody else. But, it is our reasoning. Therefore, let us come down to the basic question.

פݾֵ֕ : ן׮֮?

ߟִָ : ײֻ ן׮֮ ... (־֮֬) ֮֯ ׻֋ ־ֻ ֵ , ־ֲ ֯ ִ ֟ և, ױ - - ֋ ֮֯ , ... (־֮֬)

פݾֵ֕ : ֮ ֮֯ օ

ߟִָ : ӳ߸ ֟ , ׸ ־ֻ

This was a law that was enacted way back in 1959, and while doing so, the Constitution has given you the provision in article 102 very correctly on the question of an office of profit. Now, so far, in all these years, unfortunately, there is no authentic definition of an office of profit, and that is the problem. If we seriously want to address ourselves to it, we have to actually address ourselves to it. How do we define an office of profit? Now, that is where all of us will have to get together.

SHRI N. JOTHI: There are Supreme Court judgments on this point.

SHRI SITARAM YECHURY: No, Sir. The judgment is not the issue. The law is the issue. What is the law on the office of profit? Do you have a law? No, Sir. There is no law on an office of profit today, as we stand here... (Interruptions)...

ߴ֟ ִ þָ֕ : Yes, re-define

SHRI SITARAM YECHURY: That is the point. The point is, that definition is necessary, and till that definition is necessary, when I rise to support this Bill, I am rising to support it with a condition that we think that a Parliamentary Committee should be established which will define what will be an office of profit, and that should go along with the adoption of this Bill so that in future, we do not fall into this trap of always providing lists after lists. So, let us define what an office of profit is. "Yes, I must compliment Mr. Singhvi for his maiden speech." He has given a lot of information about what is happening in other countries and how they deal with this problem. But, for heaven's sake, in our own country, let us come with our own wisdom, with our understanding of what we consider as an office of profit, and till we do not have that definition, I think, the practice that has been followed so far, which all the Governments have in one way or the other adhered to, is that those who, as Members of Parliament, are holding these offices, they have been exempted by law, again, as per the constitutional provision. It is not violative of the Constitution. This is as per the constitutional provision. By listing it out, you are allowing these people to hold these offices, and that I think is entirely according to law, and according to the Constitution. Therefore, when I am supporting this Bill, I am supporting this with this intention. I do not want to go into high moral ground, and what you defined, the Common Minimum Profit...(Interruptions)...

SHRI DIGVIJAY SINGH: Common Maximum Profit...(Interruptions)..

SHRI SITARAM YECHURY: Sir, I have answered this question. The question is that we do not consider any of these posts as an office of profit. But, that is my opinion. You may consider it. That may be your opinion. But, let us have a common opinion as to what the definition of office of profit is. You argue it from that point of view. "Yes, that is why we want the Parliamentary Committee to be set up so that we will have an understanding of this whole issue properly."

Secondly, on the issue of principle. Now, where does the office of profit issue come about in our understanding? You have the role of the Judiciary, you have the role of the Legislature, you have the role of the Executive in a Parliamentary Democracy. Now, the role of the Legislature is to be the watchdog or to actually supervise the work of the Executive. Now, any job that the Executive gives, which the Legislature in its capacity can influence in discharge of its duty as a proper watchdog of the Executive, there is a compromise involved, there is a conflict of interest. Now, what are these positions, that is the principle involved? If that principle is involved, where is the Executive giving it? In addition to this, I have another point. This point has been elaborated earlier. I am not going into the details of it. In addition to this, there is also another point that I think, the House must consider. (contd. by 2h)


SHRI SITARAM YECHURY (CONTD.): It is not only a question of conflict of interests between the Legislative and the Executive. When you are talking of high morals, there is also a necessity for this House to examine whether the Members of this House or of the Lower House can also be members of Boards of Directors of private companies simultaneously. That moral position why are you not talking of? Can Members of Parliament, while they are holding, also practise in the court as a lawyer? Is there no conflict of interests there? Whose cases are they taking up? Are there no conflicts of interests as Members of this House? Are these not issues that have to be discussed and debated? And I seriously want those issues to be debated. In the United States of America, for instance, if you are a Senator, you cannot be on the Board of Directors of any company. Why don't you accept that poition if you are talking of morality? ....(Interruptions)... If you are talking of morality, bring it in the private sector. ...(Interruptions)... Bring it in the private sector also. ...(Interruptions)...

SHRI DIGVIJAY SINGH: If you bring that, I will be happy to accept that. ...(Interruptions)...

ֳ֯ן : ֯ ך ... (־֮֬) ...

֟־Ο ֟ : ѓ ו֋ ... (־֮֬) ...

SHRI ARUN JAITLEY: Sir, if the CPI is going to follow some good precedent from the USA, I think, it is a very good precedent!

SHRI SITARAM YECHURY: It is a very rare precedent. ...(Interruptions)... It is a very rare precedent. Very few good precedents are there. ...(Interruptions)... Mr. Arun Jaitley, we follow whatever is good wherever it comes from. If it is good, yes, we follow it.

But, Sir, the point which I am making is this. Sir, I want this to be seriously taken into consideration. Mr. Ram Jethmalani is a good friend of mine; I have a very great regard for his legal acumen. So is Mr. Jaitley. And so are many other Members of this House. I have nothing against them personally. But the question is, if you are seriously debating an issue of principle, if you are debating an issue of principle of office of profit, if you are debating an issue of conflict of interests then you will have to bring into the ambit of that discussion also issues concerning the positions held in the private sector, the positions held in professional terms, whether, as Members of Parliament, they can also simultaneously practise the law. These are issues that demand attention. I am not here passing any judgments, neither am I here personally casting any aspersions. No; I am only raising the attention of this House to an issue which needs to be considered. Therefore, if all these issues need to be considered, I think, a proper parliamentary Committee will have to be appointed to go into this and settle this issue once-and-for-all by defining what is an office of profit. ...(Interruptions)...

SHRIMATI SUSHMA SWARAJ: Already, there is a Committee on Office of Profit. ...(Interruptions)...

SHRI SITARAM YECHURY: Secondly, Sir, I am, sometimes, pained. ...(Interruptions)... Yes, on morality, on moral grounds, all of us want to stand together. Yes, and it is not only on television screens; I mean, on television screens, all of us have said many things; many of us have said many things; I do not want to go into that or what was said yesterday. But, Sir, what happened in Jharkhand? Our leaders, here, cannot say, "We did not know about it!" That was what was said, yesterday, on the television screen. But the question is, double standards of this nature do not do any good to anybody in this country. And these are the double standards, and such opportunism will not give any credit to the issue that we are debating. Therefore, in all seriousness of the issue, yes, we have a situation today, an anomalous situation, where you, Members of Parliament, are also holding on to certain positions, but they have to be exempted. Therefore, I rise to support this Bill, but, at the same time, with a caveat that there has to be a Parliamentary Committee which will examine this thing, in full detail, and only on that basis, my support should be understood, the support of our party should be understood, that it comes with that caveat that a Parliamentary Committee be set up in order to go into the entire definition. ...(Interruptions)...

MR. DEPUTY CHAIRMAN: There is already a parliamentary Committee on this.

SHRI SITARAM YECHURY: I know that; there is already a parliamentary Committee; they have given their Report as late as December 2005, but, I think, the terms of reference of that Committee will also have to be re-examined, and it is not only a question on which, from time to time, we have to give a definition, but there has to be an omnibus definition of what we consider to be 'an office of profit', and that is, Sir, what I will plead. And with that, I would suggest, let this House, in the seriousness and the gravity of it, not get into who is occupying what. Various parties have done it. All of them had done it when they were in the ruling party. They had also brought an addition to this list. ...(Interruptions)...

SHRI DIGVIJAY SINGH: Not a single addition. ...(Interruptions)... The NDA Government did not bring a single addition. ...(Interruptions)...

SHRI SITARAM YECHURY: In 2000, what were the amendments? ...(Interruptions)... What about the 2000 amendment?

SHRI DIGVIJAY SINGH: 2000? Show me. ...(Interruptions)... You do not know a, b, c of it. ...(Interruptions)... Not a single amendment we have brought! Not a single amendment. (Followed by 2J)


פݾֵ֕ (֟): ֮ ֟ , ֌ ָ ֆ? ...(־֮֬)

ߟִָ : ָ, ָ֮ ׿ֿ ֟ ֯ ֮ ֟ ֆ, ־ֻ ߛ כ ߛ ֤ ֯ ֵ ...(־֮֬)..

פݾֵ֕ : 77 օ

ߟִָ : 77 ֮Ӥ ָ ..(־֮֬).

פݾֵ֕ : ֯ ֯ ?

ߟִָ : ֯ ָָ ...(־֮֬)... ֯ ָָ ? ֯ ָָ

פݾֵ֕ : Ӆ ..(־֮֬)...

ߟִָ : ֯ ֲ ָָ , ֯ ֋ ..(־֮֬)... ־ֻ ָָ , ֲ ֺ ֛ ֋ ֯ ָ ֟ ׸ ָָ , ִ֣ ֯ ֋ ײֻ ֋ և ײֻ ֋ ֟ , ֯ ָָ כ ָ ָ כև ױ ױ ָ֬ ָ ל

ױֻ ָ ֕ ׮־ֵ ײֻ ִ֣Ԯ , ײֻ ׸ , ָ ־ ֮ ָָ ָ ־ ֮ , ָ֬ ָ ֻ I support this Bill with this suggestion and caveat, please also announce a Parliamentary Committee and its terms of reference. That is the way we should move ahead. Thank you. (Ends)

ִ֤ Ͼֻ : ֳ֯ן , ״֮֙ ...(־֮֬)... ֮֮ ָ֬ ָ ֯ ֮ ֟ ֮ ָ ֮ ֤ ײֻ ךև ? ֯ ָߕ ָ ֤ ? ָ ֲ ִ ֋, ֤ ? (ִ֯)

ֳ֯ן : ָ

ָ (ָ Ϥ) : ֳ֯ן , ײֻ ִ֣Ԯ ׻֋ ֛ ֣-֣ ָ ףֵ ָ ףֵ ֛ ׾ִ֮ϟ ֤ ֣ օ

ָ ׾֮֫ ףֵ, ָ ׾׬־ ָ ׾׬־ - ָٳ֟ ֌־ , ֮ ֜-׻ ׌ ֤ ִ ֟߅ Ӥ ֛ ݻ׮ ֛ ִ ײֻ ֳ ݻ׮ ִ ׻֋ ֤ ָ ֣ ֵ ֮֓, ֤ ßָ ִӟ , ֤ ֵԾ ֤֮ օ ָ ֮ ףֵ ֕ ֙ ָ ׾ֹ ׿ֵ֟ ֵ, ָ ׾ֹ ׿ֵ֟ ֵ? ָ ֮ ֛ ֮ ֣ ײֻ ָӛ ֵ פ ׾ָ ? ֤֯ ? ֮ ףֵ ֌־ ׾ִ֮ϟ ֣ Ͼ֌ ֌־ פ ߾ ֮֕ן ã֮ ? ָ Ϥ ֻ֕֯ , ֲ ָ ײֻ ָ Ϥ ׾֬׵ ָ ׸ ֵ, ײֻ ß֟ ָ ֻ֕֯ ָ Ϥ ׾֬׵ ָ ׸ ׾֬ ָ ß֟ ֕ ײֻ ִ֣Ԯ ? ...(־֮֬)... ֤֯ ֟ ָ ָ

ָ ֟ ִ֣Ԯ ...(־֮֬)...

(2//߾ߋ ָ ֿ:)


ָ (֟) : ֋, ֯ ֮ ׾ִ֮ϟ ֻ֮ ֟ , ...(־֮֬)...

THE MINISTER OF LAW AND JUSTICE (SHRI HANSRAJ BHARDWAJ): Sir, Governor's name should not be included in the debate.

SHRI N. JOTHI: What is wrong in it? ...(Interruptions)...

SHRI HANSRAJ BHARDWAJ: I have lodged my protest. Let the Chair decide it.

ָ : ֛ ֤ ֣, ֛ ׾ִ֮ϟ ֣ ֕ ׯֻ ֟õֵ֮ ֤ ִӟ ׾־֤ ׻- ָ ֜ ևՅ ׿ ָ פ ׌֟ ֤ פօ ߴ֟ ֵ ֮֓ ߴ֟ ׯֻ ֟õֵ֮ ֤ ? ָ ֮֓ , ...(־֮֬)...

֮ ֻ ӛ : ֤õ֟ ֤ ...(־֮֬)... ߤ ...(־֮֬)...

ָ : , ֤ ߤ Յ ֮ ? ֤֯ ֟ , ֤֯ ֮֕ן ֮ ׾֬ ֲ ֮ ׻ֵ օ ֕ ײֻ ִ֣Ԯ ֱ ׻֋ ׻֋ ֛ ו ָ ָӛ ָ ףֵ ײֻ ֵ, ֮ ָ Ϥ ײֻ ֵօ ָ Ϥ ֮ ׾֮֬ ֳ ֤õ ֮֓ ׻֋ ײֻ ֋, ָ ֣ ײֻ ִ֣Ԯ ֋ ֯ ֤ ִ ֮ ֮ օ ֮ ֵ֮ פ ߾ ֮֕ן ֋ ױ ֋ ֋ ֯ ֮֓ ׻֋, ֯ ֤õ֟ ֮֓ ׻֋ ײֻ ֵ ו ָ ָ ֣ ߟִָ ִ֟ ׻֋ ֤ ֤ ָ ד֟ ױ ׾ ׸֤ ߴ֟ ֵ ֮֓ ִ , ֡㑮 ֮ ִ ? ֡㑮 ֮ , ֤ ߴ֟ ֵ ֮֓ Յ ױ ִ׮֟ , ױ ֮ ָ֬ , ֕֯ , ־֕ ֵ ֮֓ ֵ ֤֤ ֮ ֤ ָ ׻ֵ օ ߴ ֤ ߴ - ֤ ֵ ָ ֮֯ ֢ ׻ֵ , ׾֬ , ֯ ױ ױ ןִ ׮Ե , ִ ֵ , ױ ױ ߴ ׮Ե ֲ ׻֋ ו֮ ָ ָ , ָׯ֟ , ֲ ױ ױ , ֵָ ֟ ָ ױ ױ ֵָ ֟ , ִ ֲ ָ ֲ ָ֬ , ײֻ ֮ ֺ ? ֻ֮ ևָ ֈֻ ײֻ ױ ־ ֲֻ֟ ? ײֻ ָ ׾֮֫ ״֡ ֤ߵ ָ֕ , ֕ ֮פ , ֬և ֛ ֤ ֣ ָ֕ , ֯ ײֻ ׻ ־ , ־ ֓ , ֓ ֮֓ ׻֋ ֤õ֟ ֋, ׻י , ׻֋ ײֻ ֮ ֺ ׻֋ ֛-֛ ֤ ָ ߮ ֛-֛ ׻֋ ײֻ ֮ ֺ , ױ ־ ֛ - ֺ ? ױ ׻֤֮ ָ֬ ...(־֮֬)... ֵ ֋ ׻֤֮ ָ֬ օ ָ֬ ֓־ ׻֤֮ օ ׻֤֮ ָ֬, ֣ ֻ օ ...(־֮֬)...

Ͼ ™ֻ : ָ֬ օ ...(־֮֬)... ָ֬ օ ...(־֮֬)...

֮֮ߵ ֤õ : *

ֳ֯ן : ™ֻ , ֯ ך ...(־֮֬)...

ָ : ָ ...(־֮֬)...

֮֮ߵ ֤õ : 00 ӛ օ ...(־֮֬)...

ָ : 00 ӛ ָ֬ ? ...(־֮֬)... 00 ӛ ֟ ֟ և ...(־֮֬)... 00 ӛ ָ֬ ...(־֮֬)... ֯ ֟ 㯟 ָ֬ ߴ פ , ָ ֯ ֯ ך ...(־֮֬)...

ֳ֯ן : ָ , ֯ ֲ ָ և ...(־֮֬)...

ָ : -֮ ִ ֯ ׻֋ ָ֬ ...(־֮֬)... ׻֋ ԇ ֟! ...(־֮֬)... ׻֤֮ ,


* Expunged as ordered by the Chair.

ׯ׮ֵ֮ ײֻ ׻ ־ֿ ֓ ֓, ֕ ֓, ׻י ֓, ׻֋ ײֻ ֵ ן֯פ ִ ֲ ֤ ו֮ ָ ֛-֛ ߮ , ו֮ ־ ֛, ֤ ֵ ֵ ...(־֮֬)...

SHRI V. NARAYANASAMY: Why did you want exemption?

ָ : ...(־֮֬)... ֻ֟ ֙ ֤õ ָ ֟ ָӛ פ ׾ָ ָ Ϥ , ׻֋ פ (2/000 ָ ֿ:)


ָ (֟) : פ ִ֣Ԯ ׻֋ ֛ ָ ָ Ϥ ֯ ָ ִ֣Ԯ , ֕ ָ פ ֯ ִ֣Ԯ ֯ ׮ؿ֟ .. (־֮֬).. ߕ, ֯ ӟ ֕ ֯ ֤ ֮ .. (־֮֬)

AN HON. MEMBER: Would the hon. Member yield for a minute?

ָ : , , , ֯ ֤ ֟ ֯ ֤ ֮ ו֮ ָ ߿ , ָ ָ ָ֟ ָ ׻֋ ֯ ָ ֋ ֕ ֙ ײֻ , ֲ֕ ׿ֵ֟ ֵ ֮֓ ֤õ֟ ׻֤֮ օ ..(־֮֬).. ֯ ֮ ו֋ ֲ ֯ , ߓ ? .. (־֮֬)

MR. DEPUTY CHAIRMAN: Mr. Narayanasamy, let him speak...(Interruptions) Mr. Naik, please...(Interruptions) Allow the Member...(Interruptions) If there is any objection, you can bring it to the notice, but not everything...(Interruptions)

SHRI C. RAMACHANDRAIAH: Continuous interruption is very bad...(Interruptions)

ֳ֯ן : ߕ, ֯ ך ..(־֮֬).. ֯ ך ߕօ ..(־֮֬) I am on my legs...(Interruptions)

ֵԙ ן ӡ (ߴ֟ ״ ) : ָ ֯ ֟ ֮ և ֮ , ־ֲ ..(־֮֬).. ֯ ִ֮֟ ֲ ߅ ..(־֮֬)

ָ : ָ, ֤ߵ ֤õ , ֲָ ָ ֙ ׿ֵ֟ ֵ ֮֓ ֤õ֟ ..(־֮֬)

֤ߵ ֵ ӡֵֻ ֕ ӡ ( ֓) : ֙ ߅ ..(־֮֬)..

ָ : և ָ ߅ .. (־֮֬).. և ָ ߅ ..(־֮֬)

ֳ֯ן : , , ֯ ך ..(־֮֬).. ֯ ך, ֯ ך ָ , ך ..(־֮֬).. ߕօ ...(־֮֬).. ߕ, ָ ך ֋ ..(־֮֬).. ֯ ך ..(־֮֬).. ָ ߅ ..(־֮֬).. ָ ߅..(־֮֬) ָ , ߕօ.. (־֮֬).. ֯ ָ ך, ߕօ , , , ֯ ך ..(־֮֬).. ֯ ך, ߕօ ֯ ָ ך ..(־֮֬)..

ִ ֕ʹ : ֙ ֮ ..(־֮֬)


ֳ֯ן : ֯ ך ̴֕ , ֯ ך ..(־֮֬).. I am on my legs. ֋, ־ֻ ֵ ֵ ֯ " ֙" ..(־֮֬)

ָ : ָ, և ָ ׿ֵ֟ ֻ ..(־֮֬)

ֳ֯ן : ֯ ך

SHRI RAVULA CHANDRA SEKAR REDDY: Congress word is not unparliamentary.

MR. DEPUTY CHAIRMAN: Did I say so?(Interruptions) Please sit down...(Interruptions) I didn't say, 'unparliamentary'. Don't put words into my mouth. I am only requesting Members not to use any words which would provoke the Members...(Interruptions) ָ ׮֋ ..(־֮֬). ֯ ֮ , ֟ ..(־֮֬) I have to conduct the House. The only thing I wanted to tell you is, the objection was raised when you said that the Congress (I) party had filed a petition. You clarify it...(Interruptions)

ָ : , I I concede. Let me put it this way. The official Congress (I) candidate and an elected AICC member, filed the complaint against Mrs. Bachchan. (Continued by 2M)


MR. DEPUTY CHAIRMAN: Mr. Narayanasamy, please. (Interruptions) Let there be some seriousness. (Interruptions) I appeal to the hon. Members. (Interruptions) Mr. Narayanasamy, no. If you interrupt, it is wrong. If they do it, that is also wrong. (Interruptions) I just request you to... (Interruptions) No, Mr. Naik. Please sit down. (Interruptions) Please sit down.

ָ : ֳ֯ן , ֮ ֯ ָ , ֮ և ֓ ֻ ֮֟ , ߛ ֵ ֮֓ ׾ֹ ׬ ϟֿ ֻ ָߵ ׮־ד֟ ֤õ ׿ֵ֟ ֤õ֟ ևԅ ָ ײֻ ß , ו֮ ïߓ , ֕ Ӥ ײֻ ֺ , ֟ ֮ , ָ ֣ ߟִָ ֺ , כݮ֙ , ָ ׸ױ ֮ ֮ ֟օ ָ ֮ ֟ ׌, ֤ ֮ ֳ ֤ ׸׬ ֟ , ֟ ߅ ױ ױ ״֙ ֮

֕ ײֻ ֟ ׻ , ִ ׻ :-

"Nothing contained in sub-section (1) shall be construed

as to entitle any person who has vacated a seat owing to

any order or judgment as aforesaid, to claim any re-

instatement or any other claim in that behalf."


ֱ ߴ֟ ֵ ֮֓ ׻֋ ֵ , ָ ߴ ׸ߕ֮ ֮֟ ߙ և, ֮֟ ™ן ß֟ פ, ֕ פ ݻ׮ ִ ֟ ֕ ߴ֟ ֵ ֮֓ 0 (ߴ֟) ׯֻ ֟õֵ֮ ֋ ֕ ָ֯ ֤ ָ™ ..(־֮֬)..

0 ϳ : ָ, ָ և? .(־֮֬)..

ߴ֟ ׾֯־ : ָ և? ..(־֮֬)..

ָ : , ..(־֮֬)..

ߴ֟ ׾֯־ : ָ և? ..(־֮֬)..

ָ : ֯ , , ׻֋ ָ ֻ ևԅ

ֳ֯ן , ֤ , ָ֯ ֛-֛ - ׬š , ָ™ , , ֤ ߸ ֵ, ֵԤ ֵօ

֟־Ο ֟ : ֯ ֮ ִ֮ ֤ ֮ֆ

ߴ֟ ִ þָ֕ : ֤ ִ׮֟ ߅

֟־Ο ֟ : ו Ӥ ָ ֟ , Ӥ ֯ ִ֮ ִ֟

ߴ֟ ִ þָ֕ : ֮֯ , ֤ ֟ ֮ֆꅠ ֤ ִ׮֟ ߅ ..(־֮֬)..

פݾֵ֕ : ֯ ֮ , ָ֕ ָ ֮ ֟ ׻֋ ..(־֮֬)..

ֳ֯ן : ֯ ך ..(־֮֬).. ֟ , ֯ ך ߕ̅

ָ : ִֵ , ָ֯ , ֆ ֣ ֛-֛ ףֵ, ָףֵ ãן ֵ , ֕ ָ 0 , ָ֕ , ־ӟ , ֛-֛ ֳ֤ ֳָ ..(־֮֬).. ֣ ֵ օ ֣ ֵ , ֮ , ? ֵ ߔ ֮ , ֮ ֻֿ :֮ ? ׾µ ..(־֮֬)..

֮ ֻ ӛ : , ֲ ָ™ ִ ָ ָߵ ֮֟ ֙ ָ ..(־֮֬)..

ߴ֟ ֵ : ָ , ֯ ֮ ִ , ֯ ֣ ? ֯ ֣ օ ('2N/SCH' ָ )


ָ : ֮, :֮ ָ™ ...(־֮֬) ׾֮֟ , ײֻ ֮ ׻֋ ִ֣Ԯ ֛ , ָ ߸ ָӛ ׾ָ , ׻֋ ׻֋ ֛ , ݻ׮ ִ ֣ ײֻ ִ֣Ԯ ߴ֟ ֵ ֮֓ ֤õ֟ ֓ ֋ , ׳ ֑־ , ֵ -

ִ֟ , ֵָ, ֮օ

׿ֵ ֻ ֵ, ֤ ָ


SHRI V. NARAYANASAMY: Sir, ...(Interruptions)...

MR. DEPUTY CHAIRMAN: No, Mr. Narayanasamy. I have permitted Dr. Singhvi because he has to give personal explanation. ...(Interruptions)...

DR. ABHISHEK MANU SINGHVI: Sir, I was seeking the hon. Member's permission to yield, but he did not yield. ...(Interruptions)... I did not want to interrupt him. I listened to his comments. ...(Interruptions)... I have just two clarifications to seek from the hon. Member. ...(Interruptions)... It is wrong that the Congress Party, this being the common view, ...(Interruptions)... Sir, an election petition is always an election petition by the losing candidate. ...(Interruptions)...

MR. DEPUTY CHAIRMAN: He is giving some personal clarifications. ...(Interruptions)... Now, Shri N. Jothi. ...(Interruptions)...

DR. ABHISHEK MANU SINGHVI: Mrs. Jaya Bachchan was...(Interruptions)...

SHRI N. JOTHI (TAMIL NADU): Sir, this Bill lacks bona fides. This Bill was not brought in any public interest. This was intended only to...


MR. DEPUTY CHAIRMAN: Please listen to him. Every Member will not say what you want him to say. Let him express his views. This is Parliament. ...(Interruptions)...

SHRI SHAHID SIDDIQUI: Sir, they want the whole House to read. ...(Interruptions)... They want us to become readers, not leaders. ...(Interruptions)...

SHRI N. JOTHI: Sir, this Bill lacks sanctity. This Bill is intended. It is not an amendment but a bailment. This Bill intends to bailout somebody who is in deep trouble now. This is, actually, intended to bailout those people. Only for that purpose, this House is being misused by the Treasury Benches. Sir, our conscience will not permit us to associate ourselves with this kind of work. We are accountable to the public. As no public interest is involved in this Bill. So, we are opposing this Bill.

Sir, let me illustrate why we are opposing it. Sir, somebody has doubted a question and posed a question as to what the Office of Profit is. Sir, the Law Minister is piloting this Bill. He himself is a practising lawyer in the Supreme Court. He must be knowing it. The Office of Profit has been well defined in several judgements. In fact, in the judgement reported in 1971, Volume III, Supreme Court Cases, page 870. At page 875, five illustrations have been given by Justice Hegde on the ground through which the Office of Profit can be identified. Let me now quote only those five illustrations given by the learned judge. It says, "The Court in several decisions has laid down the tests for finding out whether an office in question is an office under a Government and whether it is an Office of Profit. Those tests are: (1) Whether the Government has the right to remove or dismiss the holder; (2) Whether the Government makes the appointment; (3) Whether the Government pays the remuneration; (4) What are the functions of the holder? Does he perform them for the Government and (5) Does the Government exercise any control over the performance of those functions?" Sir, these are the illustrations through which an Office of Profit can be identified. This has been indicated in Shivamurthy Swami Vs. Agadi Sanganna Andanappa case arising from Karnataka. (Contd. by 2O)


SHRI N. JOTHI (contd.): Sir, when things are very clear, you want to go contrary to the well laid out principles! Why? They have made no secrets of it. Sir, in this Bill, in items 16-45 we have 18 items which refer to the West Bengal offices. They want to bail out people who are in trouble in West Bengal. Those MPs get elected from West Bengal and you want to bail them out through this amendment. And, above all, you want to bail out the Chairperson of the UPA also through this.

Sir, this House is now sought to be converted into a fatal attack on the public. What was the necessity? What was the urgency in bringing this Bill? You have not brought it any time earlier. Now, you are bringing it suddenly and pass it. Why, Sir? You have not shown this much of enthusiasm in the public interest, in public matters, in matters of poverty. When people are dying in Maharashtra, Karnataka and Andhra Pradesh out of poverty, without food and malnutrition, is there any public interest in this move? You are not worried about that. You want to save somebody else, especially one Minister who is occupying the office of the Chairmanship of Tirumala Tirupathi Devasthanams Board, Shri Subbirami Reddy. You want to save him also. Somebody has said...

SHRI E.M. SUDARSANA NATCHIAPPAN: One clarification I seek. Mr. Jothi's name also appears in the Asian Age newspaper of 26th April, 2006. There is a complaint against him also. The same also must be considered.

SHRI N. JOTHI: It is a wrong complaint and I will face it. I will not bring any amendment like this and I will face it. I have the courage to face it. (Interruptions) I will not take shelter under the Bill and I know how to defend myself. (Interruptions) I am not a coward.

Sir, Shri Subbirami Reddy is sought to be bailed out.

MR. DEPUTY CHAIRMAN: Do not take his name.

SHRI N. JOTHI: He is there in the House, Sir!

SHRI C. RAMACHANDRAIAH: He wishes to be named!

SHRI N. JOTHI: The only thing is that they have not indicated his name, that is all. Sir, I heard Shri Sitaram Yechuri saying that the Khadi Board is a poor organisation and MPs are there and that it can meet the travelling allowance. If that is the analogy, then Tirumala Tirupathi Devasthanam Board is not poor, that is the richest institution and Mr. Subbarami Reddy also is the richest person. What is the correlation they want to make in this Bill? This is very unfortunate.

Sir, clause 4 is provided to give retrospective effect and also to supersede the judgments rendered by various courts including the Supreme Court. Sir, I caution here. There are so many people to advise and the Law Minister himself is a man in law and there is Shri Jethmalani, now nominated. My reading is, the retrospective effect will be given in fiscal matters to avoid undue enrichment given to some people and to avoid taxation litigation. To safeguard the public money it is given. But what is the public interest involved in this? What will happen if these MPs go? They get elected, as they claim now! Let them go. None is indispensable in this world. Anybody can be displaced. Our country is big enough to give many people. If I am not here, the seat will be occupied by somebody else. We are not here to sit permanently, for ever. Our life itself is not for ever. People are watching us, people understand it. People are watching your performance. (Contd. by 2p)


SHRI N. JOTHI (CONTD): People are watching you. Please do not ask us to mingle with you. We will not aid and we will not be a party and we will not be an ally to this kind of misuse and abuse of this House. This is nothing but abuse of this House. You may have majority to pass this Bill but real majority is the pubic. Crores and crores of people are watching you. I hereby again appeal to the Treasury Benches, please leave your passions away, and think over it. This is an Elders' House. Please think loudly once again. There is nothing wrong in having a rethinking on this issue. Why are you identifying these offices? It is done because some of the Members of Parliament who are holding these offices are in trouble, and only for that purpose these offices have been identified in the Bill. Sir, do you mean to say that we should be a party to this and we should be approver of this? Sorry, Sir, my conscience does not permit me; my party's conscience does not permit.

Therefore, we oppose this Bill. Thank you. (Ends)

֮ ֻ ӛ (ײָ) : ֮֮ߵ ֳ֯ן , ָ ׾׬־ , ֤ߵ ֻ֮ , ִ֟ ָ ֮ , ֮ ֟ ֤ ֣ ... ָ ߅ ֮֮ߵ ֤õ ֮ ֟ , ָ ֮ ֟ ָߵ ֮֟ ֙ ֮׮ ֟ ָߵ ֮֟ ֙ ֤õ ֤ ֮׮ ָ -߮ ֟ ׾֮֬ 㓔 102 ױ ױ ӲӬ ־֮֬ , ָ ߟִָ ן ֌ ׸֟ ׸֟ ָ ׾ֳָ ׻֋ ִ þ֣ ׾ֳָ ֟ ֟ þ֣ ׾ֳָ ָ פ ֟ , ׸֟ ֮ ֟ ٻִֵ ׸ӛ֮ ָ֬ ָ ײֻ ֺ ָ ײֻ ֤ ֵ , ֠ ևә ٻִֵ ֮֮ ױ ׾ֿ ״ן ֮֮ , ָ ן ִ֣Ԯ

ָ ֟ ָߵ ֮֟ ֙ ׾ָ , ... ׾ָ ִ֟ ׮ֵ Ӭ ֛ ֮ ֛ ֵ , ׮ֵ ׌֟ ֜ , ׯϵ֟ ֜ ֲֵָ ֮֙ և , ֻ֟ ֣ , ߛ ׻֋ ֮֙ ֻ֟, ֣ ֻ֟, ߛ ֻ֟ .. ׾ָ , ֮ ֟ 1969 ֮  ӿ֮ ׻֋ ֵ , Ӿ׮ ... ָ ֮֮ߵ ׾׬ ӡ ֳ ãן ï™ ã Ӿ׮ Ùֵָ , ֚ ֵԯ׻ יױ֮ ֵ ׻֋ ã ָ פ ָ ׾ָ , ׮׿֟ ׮ֵ ָ ֮ ֵ , ײֵ , ו ֟ , ׻֋ ׾ָ

ָ ֟ ָ , ֛ 1942 ֮ , ֛ 1947 ֮ 괲 ٻִֵ ָ , 괲 ױ ױ ִֻ כև ־֕ ִ ׾֮֬ ״ֵ ׮׿֟ כև ָ 㓔 ֳָ ״ֵ ָ ״ֵ , ָӛ ָ ֟ , כ , ֳ כ (2 ָ ָ)