PREVIOUS HOUR

-KLS-SSS-SC/2Q/3.00

֮ ֻ ӛ (֟) : כ ָӛ 13 ӡ ֵָ ֋ , ׾֮֬ ֳ כ , ָ ָ ֵ ֵ, ֮֮-֮֮ ״֮֙ ׾֬ ׸ ֵ 13 סֵ , ׾ֵ֬ ֓ ׻ֵ ֵ ָӛ ָߵ ֮֟ ֙ ָָ ֓ ֵ߅ ׻֋ ֮ ָ ֲ ֵ ֟ , ׾֮֬ ӿ֮ ֟ , ֮ ֮֟ ִ ֮֟ ֤֮ , ֤֮ ָߵ ֮֟ ֙ ֤֮ , ד֟

ֳ֬ ( פ ס־) ߚ߮

֟ ֵ ֮֓ ָ , ӲӬ ֵ ֮֓ ָ ָ ֮ ֛ ֨ ӵ , ׸ãן ֵ ֮֓ ֤õ֟ ֻ ֵ߅ ֮ ֤ ִ ִ ָ , ֤ Żפ ָߵ ֮֟ ֙ ֮ ™ӟ ֵ ֮֓ ߕ ִ ֮֕ן ִ , ןֳ ׮׿֟ ֵ ֮֓ ֲ ֤õ֟ ֵ ׌֟ ֟ ׻֋ ™ , ׻֋ ֙ ׻֋ ֙ ֟Ԯ خ֤ ߤָ , ߤָ ꌿ֮ ߿֮ ֋ ׸ִ ֵօ

ָ : ? ֯ ? ָ , ֙ ? ֯ ? ֮֯ ׿ֵ֟ ׿ֵ֟ ϟֿ , և ָ ׻֋ ׮֮-֟Ԯ ߅

֮ ֻ ӛ : ֯ ֮֕ן ֬֟ ..(־֮֬)..

ָ : ֬֟ ֮־ָ, ֟֟ ֟֟ ֬֟ ӟָ

֮ ֻ ӛ : ֟ ֯ ָ ָߵ ֮֟ ֙ Ͽ ָ ָ ֯ ׮֮ ִ֣Ԯ ָߵ ֮֟ ֙ ֤֮..(־֮֬)..

ָ : ָ ָߵ ֮֟ ֙ ִ֣Ԯ ֮ ׻ ֮ ָӛ ֮֯ ײֻ ֵ֮ ׾ָ ֮ ֵ ֮֓ ֤õ֟ ֓ ݻ׮ , ֲָ֬ ֟ ײֻ ֳ ֮ ׻ֵ ֵ ֮֓ פօ ֵ ֮֓ ֤õ֟ ֮ ָ ײֻ ֟ ֟ ߅ ֟ ֮ , ֻ֟ ֟

֮ ֻ ӛ : ֟ ֯ օ ֵ ֮֓ ָ ָ , ֯ ־֮ , ֟

ֳ֬ ( פ ס־) : ӛ , ֯..(־֮֬)..

֮ ֻ ӛ : , Ͽ ו֋ ִ , ֣-֣ ֋ ָ ֯ ָ ָߵ ֮֟ ֙ , ֤֮ ֟ ֣-֣ ֻ֟ ?..(־֮֬)..

ָ : ֮־ָ, ֋ , ߴ ֳ ֤ ֳ ֤ ָ ֲ ֤ ֳ ֤ ֕ ײֻ ? ߴ ֲָֻ ֳ ֤ ֳ ֤ ..(־֮֬)..

֮ ֻ ӛ : ֯ ָ , ׻י Ù ֤ ֯ ָ ٻִֵ , ֯ ׵֟ ֮֟ ֙ ֢ , ָ ֙ ֢ ֯ ָ Ϥ , ֮֯ ֮ ֵ֮, ֮ ֮ ָӛ ֮ ֵ֮ ִ ..(־֮֬)..

ֳ֬ : ӛ ..(־֮֬)..ָ , ߕ ..(־֮֬)..

ָ : ׾ָ ? ִ֣Ԯ ..(־֮֬)..

0 ִ ӛָ : ָ, ֮ פ ֋

ֳ֬ ( פ ס־) : ָ ָ , ..(־֮֬)..

֮ ֻ ӛ : ִ֮ ..(־֮֬)..

ָ : ײֻ ִ֣Ԯ ..(־֮֬)..

0 ִ ӛָ : ֮ ֟ , ..(־֮֬)..

THE VICE-CHAIRMAN: Nothing will go on record. (Interruptions)

֮ ֻ ӛ : ָ ֻ֟ ִ ׻ֵօ ֵ ֮֓ Ͽ ֻ ֮֯ ֻ֟ ִ ׻ֵօ ..(־֮֬)..֯ ִ֣Ԯ , ֮֯ ֻ֟ ִ ׻ֵ..(־֮֬).. ֯ ֻ֟ ָ ֟..(־֮֬).. ׮ֵ Ӭ Ͽ , Ͽ ™ߵ ßָ , ϳ־ ֜ ϳ־ ָߵ ֮֟ ֙ ֮֟ ֙ ָ ֌ ֵ ׻֋ ֯ ָ ֟ ָ֕ ֵ ֮֓ ֤õ֟ ֮ ׌֟ ™ ׻֋ ֮ ֟ ִ֯ ..(־֮֬)..

ֳ֬ : ӛ , ֯ ֮ ָ ו֋, ֟ և

֮ ֻ ӛ : ײֻ ֮ ָ ײֻ ִ֣Ԯ ׻֋ ߟִָ ִ֣Ԯ (2ָ ָ ֿ:)

MP/2R/3.05

֮ ֻ ӛ (֟) : ׸֟ þֺ ֮ ֋ ֮ ׸֟ þֺ , ׻֋ ֯֙ ևә ٻִֵ ֮ ׻֋ ֻ ׾־֤ ֋ ׾ֳָ þ֣ , ׻֋ ָָ ֮ ׾֬ ָ ִֵ-ִֵ ָ ֮ ӿ֮ , ׻֋ ß ׮֮ , ֲ ֣, ׾֬ ִ֣Ԯ (ִ֯)

ӟ ־ (ָ™) : ֤ߵ ֳ֬ , ֮ ֮ ִ֣Ԯ ׻֋ ֛ ֮ ֵ, ָ ֟, ָ - ־֮ , ֲ֕ ֤ ֻ֮ פ ֵ ֮ ָ ٛ ֵ ֟֠ , ׾ָ ״ ևԅ ֟ ִ֮ ָָ ָ ׾ֿ ׬־֮ ֵ ֵ

ֳ֬ , ױ ױ terminology , ָ ױ ױ ױ پ ֋, ָ ӿ֮ ָ ׾ָ֓ ֋, ֵ֤ ָ , "ױ" ֲ ֮֟ ô ׾ֱ֟ ֟ ױ ֮ ׻֋ ֟ , ׻֋ ֟ , ֱ ֮ ׻֋ ֟ ßãן , ã֮ ָָ ֻ, ã֮ ԤԮ ״ֻ, ã֮ ָָ ӲӬ , ִ ִ֕ ֻ, ֕ ֳ , ׾ֵ ã֮ פ ֋ , ׾ֵ ֵ ״ֻ, ׻֋ ֤ ֤õ ֟ , 녠 ָ ֕֯ ֋, þ֣ ֋, ׮þ֣ , ־֮ ֟ , ֲ ָ ־֮ ã֮ ׾ , ׾ֵ ׾ , ׾ֵ Ӳ׬֟ - ֟ , ֟ ׻֋ ֮ ָ ߾֮ ־, - ֟ӡ , ֨ןֵ , ָ ־, ã ֳ ã ֵ ִ֮ , ֵ֜ ֋

, ߴ֟ ֵ ֮֓ և , ױ ֮ ׻֋ և 㴲և ֟ , 㴲և ֵ֮ ֵ , ֻ ֲ ֻ ֮֓ ׸ָ ֳ ׻֋ ִ օ ָ ֻ , ִ֕־֤ ֙ , ִ֕־֤ ֙ ֤õ , ׻ ֤ ֤õ , ־֮ ָ ֌ ֛  ָ ׻ָ֙ ֵ ֣ ֛ ֵ ֟ ֵ , ֮֕ן ֟ ֵ , ָ Ԯ ָ ִ ֟ , Ԯ ֓ , ִ ֛, ֋ - ߴ֟ ֮֓ , ׮ֵ ß߱ ֛ ֲ ֙֋ , ו֮ ָ ֤ ָ ׾ָ֓ ֛, ֤ ׾ָ֓ ֛ ֮ ֮֮ ֛օ

(2 S/ASC ָ ֿ:)

ASC-USY/3.10/2S

ӟ ־ (֟) : ֳ֬ , ֳ ׸ ָ, ֮ ß ֱ ֟ , ߯ ׸ϕי , ֳ ו ׸ד֟ ֳ ָ֮ ִ ׌ ׌ ֲֻ֟ ֱ - ӟԟ ֳ ֟ ֟ , ו֮ ӲӬ , ֟ ־ ϳ׾֟ , ׌ ׾ֿ ϳ׾֟ , ִֵ ϳ׾֟ , ֳ ֟ ׌ ֟ ߴ ױ ßֻ ױ פ ֯ ױ ֮ ׻֋ ֮֬ פ ֵ ױ ָ ָ ֻ ױ ׻֋ ֯ ׸ ֛߅ ֕ ֮ ִ֣Ԯ , ֯ ֵ֜ ֋ ֤ ִ֮ ֮ ֛օ ֮ ֻ ִֵ ֤ ֤õ ֋, ָ 55 ׻Ù ֵ֤ ִ ֋Ӆ ִ֮ ֵ ׾ֵ ֋, ֮ ׾ֵ ֋, ׾ֵ ֋, áߵ ӿ֮ ׾ֵ ֋, וִ ׾ֵ֠ ֤ ֤õ ֮ ֛ 55 ׻Ù , ֌ ׻֋ ֮ ׻Ù ֜֟ ֮, օ ֮ ֮֯ օ ֮ ־-ïֿ , ֮ ֤ ֤õ ָ ֟ ׻֋ ֮ ӡ ײֻ ֛, ֤ ֤õ , ֤õ֟ ֮֓ ׻֋ ֛, ֮֟ ֮֟ ן ׮֬׸ ׻֋ ֛օ ֮֟ ׌ ׾ֿ ׻֋ ֮֮ ֮ , ׻ ֮֟ دֻ֯ ֵ ָ دֻ֯ ֵ ױ ߸ ߸ ֮֟ ߸ ߸ ֮ - ָ߅ ֤ פ ܟ -ֻ֯ ָ ֤ פ ֆ ָָ ֮ ֛ פ ֮ ֻ֮ ֻ֯ ָ ֤ פ ֮ ָ ֟ ֋ ֻ֯ ߅ ߬ Ӥ ֮ ֮ ָ ֮ פօ ֟ , ֮ ֯ ֻ֯ ׸ ֲ ֯ ָ, ֯ Ӥ ֟ ֮ ָ և ױ ָ ׸ ָ ׻ ָ Ӥ ֮ - ֟ כֻ ֿ֮ ׻֋ ָ ֋ ױ ׻֋ ֮ ֤֮ ֛ -ֻ֯ ֣ Ӥ ָ ֲ ׮ֻ֮ ֛օ ֕ ֻ֟ ָ ߸ ߸ ô ßֻ , ָ ֤ , ֠ ֮֓ ֤ , ׮ֵ ֤ ֤ ֳ ֋, ֋ ֮ ߸ ֜֋Ӆ ֤ ֤õ ׮֕ ã֮ , ֮-֮ , ߻ ֟ , ֯ ֳ ֤ ֟ (ֿ: 2T ָ)

VP/NB/3.15/2T

ӟ ־ (֟) : , ֛ ֟ , ָ ׻֋ ֯ פ ֋, ֯ ֮ ֋ ô ߸ ߸ ֮֓ ׻֋ ײֻ ֵ , ָ ֓ ֋ ֮ ֕ ָ ֻ , ױ ־ֻ , ױ ӳ߸ Ͽ , ֋-֋ ׾ֵ , ֋-֋ ־֮֬ , ו֮ ־֮֬ ׻֋ ֮ ױ ӿ֮ ֛օ ִ ֺ ֟ , ו֮ ׻֋ ֵ֤ ֳ ֣ ײ֚, ֲ ֵ , ײֻ ֯ ӿ֮ ִ ֤֮ ϵ , օ ֪ׯ ײֻ ֻ , ױ ִ֣Ԯ ߤ ׸׬ ֵ֜ ֋ ׸ ֋, ֮ ֻ ל ױ 2006 ֤ ֤õ , ָ ֤ ӳ߸ ֟, ֮ ֻ ־֮ ֵ֤ ֓ ֟, ֮ , ײֻ ִ֣Ԯ ֮־֤ (ִ֯)

SHRI C. RAMACHANDRAIAH (ANDHRA PRADESH): Thank you, Sir, for giving me this opportunity to speak on this Bill. I was rather astonished as I was under the impression that there is a limit even to degenerate an Institution. I never thought that this supreme body, the Indian Parliament, would be abused in this way to protect the skin of certain individuals. Sir, I have come to the conclusion, if anybody is honest, he does not have the opportunity to commit. That is the only conclusion I can draw. Sir, do we need this Bill? Why do we need it? Is this Bill needed to provide some relief to the victims of the calamities? A special session has been convened when the Government does not have the Business and the Opposition does not have the issues. What is the purpose of convening this session? Is this issue so urgent? It is quite clear, it is apparent that it is only to save the skin of certain individuals. Sir, the Constitution has clearly provided that the elected representatives either in the Assemblies or in the Parliament should be more independent, should discharge their duties without any favour, with free mind they should participate in the debates and enactments, and they should not get undue favours from the political executive to enable them to discharge their duties perfectly, independently in the interest of the public. We have been trying to dilute the very spirit of these articles 102 and 103 of the Constitution. Is it necessary? I was wondering that with one billion population, is there any dearth of talent in this country that these so called politicians have to be nominated to these boards? Is there any dearth of talent in this country? Let us be apprised of the talents of these individuals occupying these posts. Are we not getting more talented persons in this country who are more patriotic than these people to subserve the interest of the country? This Bill has been brought to subserve our own interest, not in the interest of the nation. It is detrimental to the democratic fabric of this nation. I am honestly saying this. And, we are prepared to go to any extent to dilute the Constitution. We are prepared for it. Of course, you have got a majority. (Continued by PB/2U)

PB/2U/3.20

SHRI C. RAMACHANDRAIAH (CONTD.): You have got the majority. The majority has been provided to provide good governance, not to adopt bad practices. But what have you been doing here? Heavens are not going to fall if these forty and odd institutions are not protected. Heavens are not going to fall if these persons continue in the Boards. Hence it is ridiculous, Sir, that certain individuals have been protected. What are the yardsticks that have been adopted in selecting these forty and odd institutions which have been mentioned in this Bill? What are the yardsticks that have been adopted? Is there any rationality? Are there any guidelines? I have read the reply which was given by the Minister in the other House. Sir, they have sought the suggestions from all political parties. A broad consensus has been achieved. Unfortunately, we are unable to arrive at the consensus on the issues which are confronting this nation to eradicate poverty, to provide more employment opportunities to the people, to provide two square meals a day to the poorer sections of the country, and we have been trying to arrive at a consensus to subserve our interest, and the people's scepticism is being intensified about the polity of this country. If we adopt these types of methods, they would be more cynical and, rightfully so. This is an Amendment Bill. I don't think it is an amendment; it is a dilution of the Constitution. I should admit it honestly. Sir, the legal luminaries have made their arguments very eloquently. They have put forth their points very well. But there are inherent contradictions in their own behaviours, and the persons who have piloted this Bill have tried to block the signature of the Amendment Bill that has been introduced in Uttar Pradesh. Sir, the persons who have very eloquently spoke against this Bill have opposed it only for argument's sake, but they have followed a different way; they have practised it in a different way in Jharkhand to save the twenty-four and odd Legislators. They have pre-empted its effect, and they have introduced the legislation. ...(Interruptions)... No exception. ...(Interruptions)... At least, I have got the courage to comment on them. Have you got the courage to comment on your own supporters when they are committing mistakes? You don't have the courage. You don't have the courage. I have got the courage.

SHRI N. JOTHI: What is the spelling of 'courage' for them? They don't know the spelling of the word 'courage'.

SHRI C. RAMACHANDRAIAH: Sir, the very spirit with which article 102 has been introduced is to keep the Legislators, the people's representatives, free and independent. And, if they happen to hold an Office of Profit, they are likely to get favours from the political executive which makes them to succumb to pressures of situations. And, they may not be in a position to perfectly discharge their duties towards the people of this country who are electing them. Sir, there are other countries which have been following the Westminster form of parliamentary system. Sir, in the United States of America, the American Constitution has an `ineligibility clause' which imposes an absolute bar, with no exception. I quote, "No person holding any office under the United States shall be a Member of either House during his continuance in Office." There is no exception. And, in the United Kingdom also, in the House of Commons, a large number of public offices, judicial and executive, have been exempted. Sir, they don't have the habit of updating themselves everyday according to the needs of their political system. But, here, we are updating it everyday. Suppose, we want to do a favour to 'x', exempt his post. Suppose, we want to do a favour to 'y', exempt his post. What is this? You are making a mockery of the democracy, parliamentary democracy in this country. (Contd. 2w/SKC)

2W/3.25/SKC-HMS

SHRI C. RAMACHANDRAIAH (CONTD.): And nobody has the right to abuse the parliamentary forum for this purpose. Sir, I shall now come to a different point.

THE VICE-CHAIRMAN (SHRI DINEH TRIVEDI): Mr. Ramachandraiah, your time is getting over. As per the schedule, you had only three minutes. Please, conclude.

SHRI C. RAMACHANDRAIAH: I shall take a few more minutes, Sir.

The Office of Profit issue is being discussed only for Legislators and Members of Parliament. The concept of Office of Profit has been embedded in our Constitution, but eliminated to avoid possible conflict between public duty and private duty. This is true for MPs and equally true for Ministers.

MR. N. JOTHI: It is all the more true for them.

SHRI C. RAMACHANDRAIAH: In fact, it is more applicable to the Ministers because they hold offices of profit but are protected. The MLAs and MPs would not be protected unless such legislation is passed, whereas the Ministers are continuously, perpetually, being protected from being disqualified under the Prevention of Disqualification Act if they hold an Office of Profit. It is, therefore, Sir, that I feel it is highly essential and desirable that their public duties and private interests are kept separate. Their private interests should never get into conflict with their public duties as Ministers. If at all I hold an organisation, a private organisation, in which I have got a pivotal interest, as a Minister, my duties should not get into conflict with the business I am carrying on as a private individual.

Sir, if I am allowed to quote, I can quote names of persons. There are a number of persons in the Cabinet...(interruptions)...How can a person who runs an empire of television company be a Minister holding that portfolio?...(interruptions)...Don't you think his private interests are getting in conflict with his official duties?...(interruptions)...How can you allow it just because it is not visible? Just because it is not visible, you are trying to perpetuate it. I am prepared to quote the names of a number of persons whose private empires and private businesses are getting into conflict with their official duties. I would request the Government to kindly ponder over it and take it very seriously. There is no dearth of talent. After all you have to manage a coalition Government; I understand the limitations of a coalition government. You may try to satisfy a person in a different way. There are other ways of satisfying him. If you do not know how, kindly contact Shri Vajpayeeji, he was very efficient in running a coalition Government.

SHRIMATI BRINDA KARAT: Is that why you left him?

SHRI C. RAMACHANDRAIAH: At least, he was an expert in running a coalition Government.

SHRI N. JOTHI: You are also going to leave them shortly. You shall leave them.

SHRIMATI BRINDA KARAT: Not because somebody is efficient or non-efficient.

SHRI C. RAMACHANDRAIAH: That is why they have inherited a legacy of 8 per cent growth.

THE VICE-CHAIRMAN (SHRI DINEH TRIVEDI): Mr. Ramachandraiah, please conclude.

SHRI C. RAMACHANDRAIAH: Sir, my request to the Government is, it should be applicable not only to MLAs and MPs, but for Ministers as well. Also, kindly ensure that their private interests do not get into conflict with the official duties that they are going to perform. Only then can we build a very good polity in this country. (Ends)

ֳ֬: פݾֵ֕

RE. ANOTHER MILITANTS' ATTACK IN DODA DISTRICT

0 ֮ (ָ Ϥ) : , ֯ ׾ֵ ָ ״֮֙ ֮ ן ֋ - ֮ ״ֻ ױ ã֮ ָ ֻ ו ׌ 韵 ֵ ӳ߸ ֵֻ ֋

ֳ֬ , ָ ׾ֵ ָ ֤ ؓ֟ ָ ֮ ™ օ ֲ ֮֮ߵ ӡ ֮ פ -- ֋ ֳ ָ ־ã֋ , פ-פ ֲ ׾ßָ , ֕ ִֵ ֟ ־ã ֻ֮֯ ֵ ָ ֮ ׿ ָ ֋? ָָ ֻ֟ ׾ֵ ָ ֤ ßãן ֟ ֋ ֟֋ ãן , ־ã ֵ ָ ֋? ֣ ֟֋ ֱֵ ֵ ? ֵ֟ ֵ , ֈӛ ׸׻֙ ״ֻ ׻֋ Ϥ ָָ ߤ ֋ ָ ִֻ ӳֻ כÙ ׸ ֟ Ͽ֮ ֋

ֳ֬ ( פ ס־) : פݾֵ֕

ָ ֻ ӛ־ֻ : , ֕ ӡ ֟ ӟִ֕ , ֤ ...(־֮֬)...

(2X/ߋ־ ָ ֿ:)

PSV-HK/2x/3.30

ֳ֬ : ָָ ִ ִ֟ ָָ ߅ ...(־֮֬)... פݾֵ֕ ! ...(־֮֬)...

פݾֵ֕ : ֯ ֈ , ֲ х ...(־֮֬)...

ֳ֬ : , ֮֯ ִ߸ ֟ ֤ ֟ ֵ ӡ ִ֟ ֤ ִ֮ ֮ , ֋ ָև ֻ פݾֵ֕ ! ...(־֮֬)... ִ כ֮ ...(־֮֬)...

0 ֮ : ָ ֵ֟ ֋? ֤ ֮ ...(־֮֬)... ֯ ֟֋ ִֵ ֟֋ ...(־֮֬)...

ָ֕ ָ֕ : ָ, ֮֯ ߓ ։ օ ...(־֮֬)... ׸ ָ ...(־֮֬)...

ֳ֬ : ։ , ֛ ...(־֮֬)... I have not allowed him. ...(־֮֬)...

ָ֕ ָ֕ : ָָ ߓ ֛ ...(־֮֬)... This is not the way. ...(־֮֬)... You have been the minister, please follow the norms. ...(־֮֬)...

0 ֮ : *

THE VICE-CHAIRMAN: Digvijay Ji, Nothing is going on record. You please carry on. ..(Interruptions).. Nothing is going on record.

* Not recorded.


..(Interruptions).. ֯ ָ ? ...(־֮֬)... ߕ, ߕ ...(־֮֬)... ...(־֮֬)... ֻ ...(־֮֬)... ֋, ...(־֮֬)... , ֯ ׮ֵָ ֤õ ֮֯ ֤ ָ֮ ߅ ӡ ֋

֤ߵ ֵ ӡֵֻ ֕ ӡ ( ֓) : ֤ߵ ֳ֬ , ݵ֮֕ ֙֋ , ִ֮ ։ ׾ßָ ֓ ֕ ֙ , ו ָ֮ ִ׮֟ ֤õ , ׮Ӥ ֟Ԯߵ , ׮֮ߵ ָ֮ ֮֮ߵ ӡ ־ֿ ׾ִֻ ָև ׻֋ օ (ִ֯)

0 ֮ : *

ֳ֬ ( פ ס־): ׾ֵ ֟ ֵօ ...(־֮֬)... ׾ֵ ֟ ֵօ ...(־֮֬)... Nothing is going on record. ..(Interruptions)... פݾֵ֕ , ߕ ֯ ֮ ֟ ו֋ ...(־֮֬)... ֵ ...(־֮֬)... ߕ, ...(־֮֬)... Nothing is going on record. ..(Interruptions)... ֯ ׻֋

THE PARLIAMENT (PREVENTION OF

DISQUALIFICATION) AMENDMENT BILL, 2006 -- (contd.)

פݾֵ֕ (ָӛ) :ֳ֬ , ֕ ָ֕ ֮ פ ֬և ׻֋ ֛ , ...(־֮֬)...

ָ֕ ָ֕ : ֯ ֛ , ...(־֮֬)... ׻֋ פօ ...(־֮֬)...

פݾֵ֕ : ֟ ו ײֻ ֯ ֋ , ׾ָ ֛ ׾ָ ׻֋ ֛ ו ֤ ֲ , ֤ ֲ ֤ ָ ß֮ ֤ ֆ ϟ ...(־֮֬)... ...(־֮֬)... ֯ ...(־֮֬)... ...(־֮֬)... ֯ ...(־֮֬)... ׻֋ ! ...(־֮֬)... ֳ֬ , ײֻ ׾ָ ׻֋ ֟ ו ֤ ֲ , ֠

 

* Not recorded.

֤ ־쓓 ֤ ֲ ֕ ֳ , ֕ ֳ ֲֻ֟ ֤ ֤ ß֮ ֤ ֆ ϟ ֵ֤ ׻֋ ֲ ֤֕ ״ֻ , כ ־ ֻ ֤֕ ß֮ ֮ ô֟ ֕ ִ֕և ߅ ô֟ ֕ ִ֮֕ ֲֻ֟ Ϭ֮ ӡ ֮֮ , ׻ ֤֕ ß֮ ֤ ָ ֜, ֟ ֵ ֕ ִ֕և և ߅ ֕ ֲ ָָ ָ ָ ײֻ ֵ , ו ײֻ ָ ָ , , ֮֮ߵ ֤õ ײֻ ӟ™ ׻֋ ֵ ֵ , ֟ ֕֋ ײֻ ָ ֟, ָӛ ײֻ ֵ ֵօ (2և/000 ָ ֿ:)

2Y/klg-ksk/3.35

פݾֵ֕ (֟) : ֟ ײֻ ײֻ ָӛ ֵ ֵ , ֮ ֮֮ߵ ֤õ ָָ ֤ 韾 ׻֋ ֮ ָӛ ׻֋ ֮ ? ָӛ , ß ָ ֤ ֻ֮ ? ָ ß ָ ֻ֮ , ֟ ֮ ׵֟ ׮־ ֤ ֵ ױ ױ ߕ ֋ ָ ִ և ֋߅ ֟ߕ֮ ָ ָӛ Ӥ ײֻ ֻ֟ , ָָ ֯ ֲ֕ ߅ ֟ ֋ ָָ, ָָ ִܾܾ ָ, ײ ֓ ָ, ֮ ָ ָ ָָ ִ ֮ , ָָ ֟ , ֻ ָָ ָ , ָ ֙ ָָ ָ ֮֟ ָߵ ֮֟ ֙ ֮ ָ , ֟ ֮ ֤ ֮ ׵֟ ׮־ ׵֟ ׮־ ֺ ֟ ֮ օ ֟ ֵ ׻֋ ָӛ ֵ, ָ Ϥ ֵ, ָ Ϥ ֵ, ִֵ ָָ פ, ׻֋ ֲ֕ ָ ִ֣Ԯ ֛ ָ ֮ ֟ ׻֋ , ֯ ֲ ֟ ߤ ָ ִ֯ӣ ֮ ִ֯ӣ ףֵ ָ ֯ ֤֯ ? ֤ ֤õ ֮֯ ֱ ׻֋ ׮ֻ פ ӓ ָ ֋ ֵ ֵօ ִ ף֌ ָ ֻ , ף֌ ֻ , ָ ָ ֤ ֵ ֟ ? ׾ָ օ ..(־֮֬)

ߴ֟ Ӥ ָ : ״֮֙ Sir, even earlier, this speaker had tried to make a comparison between a straight case of corruption which has been examined by this hon. House, in which a Member of Bhartiya Janata Party was seen taking money for asking questions. This is wrong. This is not an accusation made by the CMP. This is shown on television, and decided by the Ethics Committee set up by the hon. House. Now, unfortunately, our hon. Member, Shri Digvijay Singh, probably, does not understand the actual need of adoption...(Inerruptions).

SHRI DIGVIJAY SINGH: Let me complete. I understand...(Interruptions). I thought she is giving some point.

SHRIMATI BRINDA KARAT: You have made the accusation against my party. Let me speak...(Interruptions).

THE VICE-CHAIRMAN (SHRI DINESH TRIVEDI): Mrs. Karat, you have made your point...(Interruptions).

SHRI SURENDRA LATH: We have condemned it.

ֳ֬ : ֯ ך ..(־֮֬) .. ֮֮ߵ ֤õ, ֯ ך

פݾֵ֕ : ֳ֯ן , ֟ ו֋ ֲ ֤ ֤ ֻ֟ ִ ֵ ֵ, ף֌ ֻ , ָ ֤ þָ ׻ֵ ִ ֙ ִֻ ֵ ֵօ ֻ ߕ ֣ , ֤ ֙ ֣ , ָ ֙ ֣ օ ֱ ֮ ֲ ״ֻ ֤ ֤ , ֙ ָ ֛ ֙ ָ ֛ ß פ֮ ׿ֿ և ֕ ײֻ ִ֬ , ֟ ֟ ָ֬ ָ ײֻ , ׻֋ ֟, ִ׮֟ , ֮ ֟ ָ֬ ָ ֻ ׻ֵ ֵ , 39 ӿ֮ ֟ ָ֬ ָ ֻ ׻ֵ ֵ ֵֵֻ ׮Ե ֤ פ ֋ ֟ ׻֋ ֯ ִ֮ , ִ ֕ ֤ ִ֬ , ß֮ , ִ ײֻ ׻֋ ֤ , ֤ ֵ֓

֮־ָ, ֯ ִ֬ ֮֮ߵ ֮ ӡ ׸ ֯ ײֻ ֋ , ß֮ ׌ֵ , ֜־ , ו ָ֬ ӓ ָ ֮֯ ׾֮֬ ֵ֮ ׌ ֜־ , ו ֤֟ כ ־ ֻ ֤֕ ִֵ ׾ֿ פֵ ֮ ô֟ ֕ ִ֕և ô֟ ֕ ִ֮֕ ֌־ , פ , ֟ ׻ ֮֓ ׻֋ ֤ ָ ֜ ֮ ֻ , ֤ ֻ ֮ ׸ ֮֓ ׻֋ , ׻ ֮ ֮֓ ׻֋, ֮ ֤ ֮֓ ׻֋ ֮ ӿ֮ ׻֋ ֯ ׸ ֟..(־֮֬).. ֮ ӳ߸ ָ ֮ , ֮ ֺ

2 ָ

AKA-GSP/2Z/2:40

פݾֵ֕ (֟) : ֯ ֮ ֺ ֯ ֲ ֻ ָ ָ ֮֕ן ֟ , ֯ ִ ֺ ָ ֮֕ן ֟ ָ ־Դ֮ ׮Ե ֋?

׾׬ ֵ ӡ ( ָ֕ ָ֕) : ֯ ֮ և ֟ , ֯ ָ, Ԯֻ, ֲ ֕ , ֲ֮ ָ ֟ , ִ ָ ָ֯ ׻֋ ֯ ָ ꅠ , ֟ , ֯ ִ ֟և? ֯ ߛ ߴ֟ ִ þָ֕ ֟ , ߴ֟ ִ þָ֕ ֟ ߅ ߛ , ָ ֮֟ ꅠ ֙ և , ֟ ִ ߛ ꆸ ? ..(־֮֬).

ֵ֮ ֻ ָ : ֳ֬ , ֟ ..(־֮֬).. ָ ߛ ..(־֮֬)..

׾ ִ : ֯ ߛ ..(־֮֬)..

פݾֵ֕ : ָ֕ , ֯ ָ ָ օ ..(־֮֬)..

ָ֕ ָ֕ : ֳ ..(־֮֬).. ֟ ֻ օ ..(־֮֬)..

פݾֵ֕ : ָ֕ , ֯ ֟ օ

ָ֕ ָ֕ : ד׽ , ..(־֮֬)..

THE VICE-CHAIRMAN (SHRI DINESH TRIVEDI): Bhardwajji, please don't get instigated. You are a Minister. (Interruptions) Kindly don't get instigated. (Interruptions) Let us please proceed.

֕ ָ֕ : ֟ ֲ ד׽ ..(־֮֬)..

THE VICE-CHAIRMAN: Nothing will go on record. (Interruptions) Nothing is going on record. (Interruptions)

פݾֵ֕ : ָ֕ , ֯ ֟ ׻֋ ֟ , ׻֋ ֟ ־ֻ ֮ ™ߵ ֠ ָ Ϭִ֮ӡ ֜ ִ ֟ ֙ ֟߅ ָ ֮֕ן ָ ֵ ֵ , Ϭִ֮ӡ ָ ֵ ֟ ָ ™ߵ ן ֮֮ ׻֋, ֟ ֟ ֙ ֟߅ ֯ ָ ו , ֮֯ ִ ٙ , ֮֯ ֟ ׿ֿ , ָ ׸ï ״ֻ, ָ ־ֲ ꅠ Ϭִ֮ӡ ߤ Ϭִ֮ӡ ™ߵ ן ֮֮ ִ ֲ-ֲ ָ ִõ և ָ ִ , ֵ ֟ ֟߅ ׻֋ ֯ օ

ߟִָ ֟ ٻִֵ ֮ ֋, ֮ ֻ ָ ֮ ִֵ , ֻ, ָ ִ֓ ִֻ ӳ߸ ִ ٻִֵ ֮ ֋ ֻ ֋, ֤ ֵ ֋, þָ ׻ֵ ֋, օ ׻֋ ֲֻ֟ , ִ ֟օ

֮֮ߵ ֮ ӡ , ֯ ָ ִ֓ ֟ ָ ӳ߸ , ֯ ֮ ֺ ײֻ ֯ ֋ ֟ ֻ ָ ֯ , ֟ ֟ߕ ׮, ָ ֯ ִ, 413 ֤ ֋ 1984 1989 ֮֯ ֟ߕ ׻ֵօ ִ ָ߲ ֆ ָ , 1971 ֤ ֯ ֟, ןև ֟ ״ֻ 1977 ֮֯ ֟ߕ ׻ֵօ ׻֋ ָ ֯ ֟ ָ֬ ָ ֮ ײֻ ֟ ֯ ֮ ׻֋ ֆ ֆ, ֤ ׸ ֯ ֙ֆ, ֮ ֯ ָ ִ֓ ִ֯ ׾־ ָ ׾־ ײֻ ֕ ֯ ׿ֿ ו֋ ָ ..(־֮֬)..

֮ ֻ ӛ : , פݾֵ֕ ָ֮ NDA ָָ ӡ ߱ ׾ ֮֓ ׻֋ ־ã ? ִֵ ן , ן ֵ, ֤֯ ֻ, ֟և? ('3A/SCH' ָ )

SCH/SK/3.45/3A

פݾֵ֕ : ֮ ֻ ӛ , ֯ ֮ ֟ , ...(־֮֬)

ֳ֬ ( פ ס־): פݾֵ֕ , ֯ ߕ ָ ו֋

פݾֵ֕ : ־ֻ , ִֵ , ֟ ֮ ֻ ֵ ֤ , ֻ ֋ ...(־֮֬)

֮ ֻ ӛ: ֈ , ֯ ...(־֮֬)

פݾֵ֕ : -, ֤ ֟ ֛ߋ ָָ ָ ױ ױ ׻֋ ֵ ֵ ֯ ָ֮ ׻֋ ֟ , ׻֋ ֯ ָ ָ ...(־֮֬)

ֳ֬: פݾֵ֕ , ֯ ־ֲ ׻֋ ֬

ִ֤ Ͼֻ: ֳ֬ ,

ֳ֬: ֋, ָ ִֵ

ִ֤ Ͼֻ: ֳ֬ , ֮֮ߵ ӡ ֟ , פ ֮ ׿ֿ ִ ן ֮, ִ ׾֯ ֣ , ָ ֲ , ׾֯ ֲ ֳ ֮-֮ ֆ ֮֟ ֲ ׮ֻ פ ֮ ֯ ֤ ֮ ֲ ™֯ Ͽ ֛ , ׾֯ ָָ ֣ ״ֻ , ״ֻ ִ ֯ ֺ ֯ ײֻ ֋, ײֻ ֟Ԯ ݵ , ִ ׾֯ ֯ ֣ ױ ...(־֮֬) ױ ֯ ֮֯ ׾֯ , ײֻ ד֟ ֟

ֳ֬: ׸ ֯ע֮֕ , ׮ֻ

ִ֤ Ͼֻ: ֳ֬ , ׾֯ ָ ֮ ֛ ָ ֮ ...(־֮֬)

ֳ֬ ( פ ס־): ֋, ִֵ , ײֻ ־ , ׻֋ ֯ ׻֋ ...(־֮֬)

ִ֤ Ͼֻ: -, ־ֻ , ָ ׾֯ , ׾֯ , , -ָ ֲ ־ֿ ײֻ ֵ㌟ פ ־ֿ ...(־֮֬)

ֳ֬: ײֻ ָ ؙ פݾֵ֕ , ֯ ߻ ֟ ו֋, ֮ ֯ ֟ ו֋

פݾֵ֕ : , ߻ ֻ, ֕ ָ֕ ֮פ , ׻֋ ֲ ֛ , ߻ ֵ, ָ ׻֋ ߻ ֻ օ ָ, ֮ ӡ , ֟ , ָ ֮ ֜ פօ ֟ , ֱ ֮ ֯ ו ײֻ ָ ֋ , ײֻ ָָ ֟ ֜ ֻ ֤ ֟ ֜ ֻ ָ ֯ ֮ ָָ ֟ ֮֜ ׻֋ ִ֓ ӳ߸ ֤ ֟ ֮֜ ׻֋ ִ֓ ӳ߸ , ֯ ß ֯ ײֻ ִֵ ׻֋ ϵ ו֋ ָ ױ ִ ן ֮֮ ß ֮և ֲ ָָ ִ ׻֋ ָ , ו ϕ֮֟ ׌ ֻ ״ֻ֟ ꅠ ֲ ִ ׻֋ ָ , ו ֤ ׸ ֻ ״ֻ֟ , : ֟ ֻ֟ ֤ ׸ ָ ָָ ׸ ָ

ֲ ֤ : ֟ Ӥ ָ , ֯ ֮ ָ֕ ֋, : ֯ : ׻֋ ֤ ׾ָ ־֕ ׮Ù ֙ ߤ ֮ ׾ָ ־֕ ߤ ֯ ־ֻ ָ ֛ ֮ ֟ , ו֮ ־ֻ ֟ ׸ : ֟ ֻ ֯ և ...(־֮֬) ֯ ֻ և ׻֋ ֟ ֲ ֤ ..(־֮֬)

ߴ֟ Ӥ ָ: פݾֵ֕ , ֯ ִ ױ ֮ ...(־֮֬)

פݾֵ֕ : , ֯ ׻֋

ߴ֟ Ӥ ָ: ָ, ָ פݾֵ֕ ֤ ֮֕ן ׮ֵָ , ߕ ...(־֮֬) ֻ ֋ ™ָ֓ ׸ , ֋ ֟ ־ ֣ ָ ֣ , ߯ߋ ֯ߕ , וִָ ӳֻ ָ ֓ ֓ , ָ ֟

ָ ֟ ָ ֯ ו֮ ָٿ֟ ֣ ו ֤ ֣ ߯ߋ ֯ ֮ ו֮ ߟ , ״ֻ ָ, ֟ , ָ פ , ו ָ "" ֲ ßֻ , ָ ײ֟ , ֟֋, ָ פ ֟ ֯ ָ ֮ օ

פݾֵ֕ : ׻֋ ָ ߤ ֯ Ӭ

ֳ֬ ( פ ס־): ߕ, ߕ, ֯ ...(־֮֬)

ߴ֟ Ӥ ָ: .. ...(־֮֬)

פݾֵ֕ : ָ ߤ ֯ ׻֋ Ӭ , ֯ ...(־֮֬) MCM/3B ָ

-SK/YSR-MCM/3.50/3B

ߴ֟ Ӥ ָ : ֋, ֮֯ ֲ ßֻ օ......(־֮֬) ָ, .....(־֮֬)

THE VICE-CHAIRMAN: Madam, you have made your point. פݾוֵ , ߕ ֯ ִֵ ִ֯ օ......(־֮֬)

פݾֵ֕ : ֮ ֟ ִ֯ ֟ ױ ׻֋ ֻ ֵ ֮֓ ߠ Ӥ ָ ו֮ ֟ ו , ׻ֵ ֣ ֤ ׻ֵ, ָ ֮֮ ֵ ֮֓ ֟ ֜ , ֤ ִ ֵօ ֮ ֮ , ֤ , ָٿ֟ ֤ؕ ߟ , ֮ ָ ׻֋ ֮ ֤ ֕֟ ֋ ֮֮ߵ ֮ ӡ , ֕ ֮ ֮ פ ָ ײֻ ׯ 녠 ֮־֤ (ִ֯)

ֳ֬ ( פ ס־) : - ֮־֤ פݾֵ֕ ߅ ִ ֻ֮߅

SHRI RAM JETHMALANI (NOMINATED): Sir, rarely has it happened in my parliamentary life that I have come to this House not yet having made up my mind what I ultimately should do about this Bill. But, Sir, I have serious complaints to make, serious concerns to express, which I wish to share with my friend, the hon. Law Minister, and every other person who has supported this Bill. Maybe that in their last speeches I will have a satisfactory answer to some of the doubts which I am raising. Maybe my concern will be met and I shall certainly support the Bill. But it seems to me that I will ultimately support the Bill because of my sense of futility. My concern is that this Bill is immoral. But my equal concern is that when most parties are united on thinking that it is moral, does it cease to be immoral?

(MR DEPUTY CHAIRMAN in the Chair)

I wish to seek light on my second doubt. On the first, I have none. Sir, let us first understand the importance of this notion of Office of Profit. My friend pointed out that it existed in the American Constitution of 1774. They have never created exceptions. The British had experienced how these offices of profits were used by the Crown to suppress democracy, to buy up votes, and ultimately preserve royal power against the power of the people. Sir, the British, when they passed the Government of India Act of 1935, brought this notion into the Government of India Act itself. Give credit to those people that what they had found a useful principle in England, they incorporated it in the Government of India Act. Sir, look at the Constituent Assembly debates. When this proposal was moved, there was not one dissenting voice which said that we ought not to have this provision or that it was not suitable to Indian conditions. Therefore, Sir, the philosophy behind article 102 is unquestionable. I was glad to learn from my young friend, Dr. Abhishek, that article 102 is not being repealed by this Bill, and that remains intact. (Contd. by VKK/3C)

VKK/3c/3.55

SHRI RAM JETHMALANI (CONTD.): Now, the trouble is, Sir, these 50 and odd Offices of Profit which are Offices of Profit according to the draftsmen of this Bill are now being exempted from the disqualification which they would normally attract. I would have expected that there should have been a serious debate and discussion, at least, since it is a technical subject. I don't claim that lawyers are in any way superior to any other Member of Parliament. Perhaps, we are, in a sense, inferior to others because we have less experience of more important things that other people have. But being a technical subject, I would have expected a serious discussion to take place in the corridors of the Law Ministry and the Home Ministry of the Government of India. Why are we all the times to look slavishly to the Supreme Court for evolving a definition and meaning of 'Office of Profit'? Why is this Parliament not competent to provide its own sensible definition of 'Office of Profit' and give it to the judiciary? Let the judiciary mull over it. Let them discuss it and let us see whether they are prepared to differ from the view which this House expresses in a serious Parliamentary legislation. This was an occasion and, Sir, this is my second serious concern: Why was this opportunity not used by Parliament and the draftsmen of this Bill to evolve a sensible and workable definition of 'Office of Profit' which should be free from ambiguity and doubt? Sir, I believe that the Supreme Court has not yet spoken finally on what an 'Office of Profit' is. They have only so far stated two propositions. The first proposition which they have settled is that if a job is substantially and significantly an honorary job, it is not an 'Office of Profit'. In other words, if you provide travelling allowance, if you provide some moderate sitting fee, if you provide out of pocket expenses, transport, travel and maybe, that some little emoluments for the time which you employ in your work, it is not an 'Office of Profit'. But, Sir, so far the Supreme Court has addressed itself only to the profit element. The second element which the Supreme Court has dealt with is which happened, unfortunately the other day in the matter of Shrimati Jaya Bachchan who went to the Supreme Court. I don't know what kind of an argument was made. The only argument made was that she has not drawn the profit though the profit is payable and the Supreme Court very rightly rejected that. I don't blame the Supreme Court. But, Sir, the most important thing is the definition and which should be considered by this House and this Bill should wait till you evolve that definition. The definition is, first of all, it should be an office. Sir, all that you have to take up is a small black dictionary, law dictionary, and that will tell you what an office is. Private office is only a geographical location. It is a block; it is a building; it is a tenement. A private office is not an office. An office in law means that office which carries some power to do certain things against some people in respect of some people against their wishes and without their consent. In other words, first of all, an Office of Profit must be an office. It must carry some compulsory, statutory and mandatory powers which you are in a position to exercise against your fellow citizens.

Sir, I regret that I get no information from this Bill about 50 and odd offices. Are they offices at all in the first place? The only information which is supplied in this Bill is about the Chairperson of the National Advisory Council which has led to so much heat and so much controversy. Sir, since that information has been supplied about the office which Sonia Gandhi was holding, she was not holding an Office of Profit at all. I am surprised that the poor lady was asked to resign and the poor lady was asked to go through the election campaign in Rae Bareli. Of course, it has certainly raised her stature in the country. She has come out with flying colours. But why was she allowed to go through this kind of a menace? She needed better advice than what she has been able to get. She was not holding an Office of Profit at all.

(Contd. by RSS/3d)

 

PREVIOUS HOUR
MAIN
NEXT HOUR