SHRI V. NARAYANASAMY (CONTD.): Sir, there is another constituency in Madhya Pradesh from where earlier the hon. Minister was coming. Now, he is representing Haryana. In Hoshangabad Parliamentary constituency, there is only one Assembly segment of Hoshangabad district. That Parliamentary constituency has got five districts. One Parliamentary constituency has got five districts -- Hoshangabad, Narsinghpur, Raisen, Sehore and Dewas. Total five districts are there in one Parliamentary constituency. It is humanly impractical for a Member of Parliament to go to every district headquarters to help his constituency people. There are seven assembly segments in five districts. This is the anomaly which I want to bring to the notice of the hon. Minister. That being the case, that Member cannot go to every district headquarters to get the work done for his constituency people. It should be for the purpose of helping and assisting the people of that area who are voting for that elected representative. Therefore, I want the hon. Minister to consider this. Sir, several hon. Members have raised several queries, several technical questions, several practical questions and also the ground realities have been explained by the hon. Members. One issue which Mr. Shantaram Naik raised is a very vital issue, initially, the Delimitation Commission mainly depended upon the State. In the State administration, if it is by a particular political party, the mapping is being drawn on the basis of the directions given by the State. There should not be any interference by the State administration in delimiting the constituencies by the Delimitation Commission. I would like to say this point very clearly to the hon. Minister because when it suits the ruling party, they take advantage of it. Let it be done by the Delimitation Commission. Even if they want more staff for the purpose of doing the delimitation work, let them take it. But they are solely depending upon the State Election Commission for the purpose of drawing up boundaries of the constituencies. This is my complaint to the hon. Minister. Secondly, when we come to the question of the elected representatives, there are three people in it, the Chairman of the Delimitation Commission, one of the Election Commissioners from the Election Commission of India and a person from the State Election Commission. Three people are there. They have got the voting right. And, the people who are representing as public representatives, the hon. Members of Parliament, or, the hon. Members of the Legislative Assemblies, they are only associate members. They can only go there and suggest ways and means as to how the delimitation has to be carried out. I have got a difference of opinion as far as the procedure that has been adopted is concerned. You should have equal members. When the question of the Members of Parliament or the Members of the Legislative Assemblies comes, all the political parties are represented in the Delimitation Commission. They should have their voice. Their views have to be heard effectively. Since they are only associate members, whatever representations they give, they are only considered and not implemented. These are not implemented by the Delimitation Commission. This is another complaint that I have about the Delimitation Commission, because the Delimitation Commission has been mentioned as a body which has been created by the Parliament. The village people represent in this Parliament. And, when the elected representatives, who are Members of Parliament, give their view, it cannot be ignored; it should not be ignored. They give it in the interest of the State or in the interest of the political parties. All the political parties are represented. That means the Delimitation Commission is not giving due regard to the elected representatives who are representing in the Delimitation Commission. This I have to infer from that. Therefore, Sir, I want the hon. Minister, the voting right, when it comes on the question of division, should be given to the members of the Delimitation Commission who are the associate members. I would like to put this point before the hon. Minister. Sir, I am grateful to the hon. Minister. He has taken keen interest. He has been talking to all of us because whenever there is any problem in the Delimitation Commission, we used to meet him, we used to meet the Delimitation Commission and explain them. (Contd. by ysr-3o)


SHRI V. NARAYANASAMY (CONTD.): But, Sir, the overall procedure, which is being adopted, is not acceptable to most of the States. Most of the States are not accepting the procedure that is being adopted in delimiting the constituencies. This is a major issue I would like to bring to the notice of the hon. Minister. I am very glad, and I am thankful to the hon. Minister that he has openly said that it has to be reviewed. He has said that the change of guidelines may be considered by the Government. Secondly, he said that he would like to go for the consensus of all political parties. The hon. Minister was candid enough and directly accepted that the flaw would be rectified. I am grateful to him personally and also as Member of this House. I want it to be done as early as possible, because the Delimitation Commission is moving very fast. The final hearing of the public is over in most of the States. Now they are sitting with the associate members. Whenever we go to various States, associate members come to us. Their views are being heard, but they are not being reflected in the Commission's Report. Therefore, Sir, I request the hon. Minster that the decision to have the change in guidelines, acceptable to most of the political parties, may kindly be taken as early as possible. This I would like to submit to the hon. Minister. I thank the hon. Minister for giving a very positive reply. Since an assurance has been given by the hon. Minister, I withdraw the Resolution moved by me in this august House. It is a very important Resolution. This has been in the minds of all the hon. Members of Parliament and also public. All the points have been clarified by the hon. Minister. I am grateful to him. I am withdrawing the Resolution. Thank you, Sir. (Ends)

THE VICE-CHAIRMAN (SHRI DINESH TRIVEDI): Does he have the leave of the House to withdraw the Resolution?


The Resolution was, by leave, withdrawn.

THE VICE-CHAIRMAN: Now, the hon. Minister, Shri Pawan Kumar Bansal, is to make a statement. Does the House agree?




THE MINISTER OF STATE IN THE MINISTRY OF FINANCE (SHRI PAWAN KUMAR BANSAL): Sir, I deem it my privilege to make a statement on the status of implementation of recommendations contained in the 28th Report of Departments of Economic Affairs, Expenditure and Disinvestment and 29th and 33rd Reports pertaining to the Department of Revenue of the Standing Committee on Finance (14th Lok Sabha) in pursuance of Direction 32 of the hon. Chairman, Rajya Sabha, vide Rajya Sabha Bulletin, Part II dated 28th September, 2004.

The twenty-eighth Report of the Standing Committee on Finance (14th Lok Sabha) was presented in the Lok Sabha/Rajya Sabha on 22nd December, 2005. It relates to the Action Taken by the Government on the recommendations contained in the 16th Report of the Standing Committee on Finance on Demands for Grants (2005-06) of Ministry of Finance (Departments of Economic Affairs, Expenditure & Disinvestment). In the report, the Committee deliberated on various issues and made 4 recommendations, where action is called for on the part of the Government. These recommendations mainly pertain to the issues like Insurance Regulatory and Development Authority (IRDA), Debt Recovery Tribunal and Disinvestment Policy.

Action taken Statements on the recommendations/observations contained in the Report had been sent to the Standing Committee on Finance on 12th January, 23rd January and 20th March, 2006. Present status of implementation of the recommendations made by the Committee in the 28th Report is indicated in Annexe-1.

The Standing Committee on Finance (14th Lok Sabha) presented its 29th Report on Demands for Grants (2005-2006) of Ministry of Finance (Department of Revenue) to Lok Sabha on 22nd December, 2005 and laid the same in Rajya Sabha on the same date. The report is based on the analysis of the action taken by the Government on the recommendations contained in the 17th Report of the Standing committee on Finance on Demands for Grants (2005-2006) of Ministry of Finance (Department of Revenue). The Committee called for action taken statements from the Department of Revenue on the recommendations contained in the 29th Report. The same were furnished to the Committee on 7th April, 2006. The Committee made seven recommendations in the Report. The Government has accepted six recommendations and partly accepted one recommendation. The action taken is indicated in Annexe-II.

(Contd. by VKK/3P)


SHRI PAWAN KUMAR BANSAL (CONTD.): The Standing Committee on Finance (14th Lok Sabha) presented its 33rd Report on Widening of Tax Base and Evasion of Tax (2005-2006) to the Lok Sabha on 17th February, 2006 and laid the same in Rajya Sabha on the same date. The Committee called for the action taken statements from the Department of Revenue on the recommendations. The same were furnished to the Committee on 22nd May 2006. In all, there were 39 recommendations of the Committee in the Report; out of which, thirty-three have been accepted by the Government and three have been partly accepted. It has not been found feasible to accept the remaining three recommendations. The action taken on these recommendations is indicated in Annex-II.

Sir, I would not like to take the valuable time of the House to read out the contents of these Annexures. I would request that these may be taken as read. Thank you, Sir. (Ends)

THE VICE-CHAIRMAN (SHRI DINESH TRIVEDI): Thank you, Shri Pawan Kumar Bansal. Now, we will take Resolution No.1. Shri C. Ramachandraiah, not here. Now, we will take Resolution No.2. Shrimati Shobhana Bhartia, not here. Now, we will take Resolution No.3. Shri Shantaram Laxman Naik to move the Resolution.






That this House resolves that no legislation passed by the

Parliament shall be declared as null and void and struck down by the Supreme Court of India or any High Court except by a decision unanimously declared so, by a bench comprising not less than seven Judges in case of the Supreme Court and not less than five Judges in case of the High Courts.


Sir, I am fortunate enough. There was no match-fixing nor I have managed any absentees. I consider that I am fortunate enough to get an opportunity for moving this important Resolution.

Sir, while presenting this Resolution, I would like to say, with due respect to the judiciary that today, due to various circumstances, the power of Parliament to legislate has gone down considerably. If you see, in terms of volume, in ordinary terms -- in visual sense I would say -- kindly see the volume of law that we have enacted and the volume of law which contains in various decisions of the courts. In fact, courts are supposed to interpret the laws passed by Parliament and in the process of interpretation, the law declared by the Supreme Court becomes a law. That is our Constitutional position. In the process of interpretation, that is, while interpreting a law, the courts can say that this is the meaning of what has been passed by Parliament, that is, courts have to explain the meaning of the law passed by Parliament. Courts are not supposed to enact law, create law, independently. But, somehow, the mechanism which is going on these days, it appears, that there is another house of legislature apart from our House which somehow this supreme body of legislature have to give a thought to, as to how we ourselves should retain our supremacy. We fight over several issues. But what is needed today is first to retain our own supremacy. We are taking issues affecting society; we are taking issues affecting the world; but, we are somehow forgetting that our own powers of legislation is getting eroded day by day, whatever may be the reasons. (Contd. by 3q)


SHRI SHANTARAM LAXMAN NAIK (CONTD.): Therefore, this is a very delicate situation, and, with due respect to the other organs, with due respect to the other bodies, we have to find a solution. Again, I will give a written example. We have got article 324 of the Constitution. Under article 324 of the Constitution, the Election Commission is supposed to supervise the process of elections. You see, in the last ten, fifteen years, under the guise of this article, 324, so many guidelines have been issued, and subject to those guidelines, it should have been the subject matter of this legislation in this House. I am telling this to Mr. Gill, our colleague, and also the former Chief Election Commissioner. I said that what was laid down by his predecessor, Mr. Seshan, they have been following and following them without looking into the aspect, what they are doing. And at one stage--I am referring to the earlier Chief Election Commissioner--he was saying that the powers of the Election Commission are above the powers given under the Representation of the People Act, 1951. He went on saying even to that extent that in the organisation the Election Commission, they do not say so, but the trend which was set has been followed. I am giving the parallel aspect of it. Now, take the example of withdrawing the recognition of political parties. This is a vital aspect. Where should this aspect be there? It should have been there in our law, in the election law. Is it there? The power of withdrawal of recognition of a political party, if the code of conduct is not observed, is laid down where. Not in the Act of Parliament. But it was laid down in an Order issued by the Election Commission, under the Symbols Order, 1968. Look at this such aspect. Such a vital power, which is within our domain, is being incorporated in the Symbols Order. Therefore, in one way, the Election Commission has taken away the powers of Parliament to legislate on various aspects; in another way, the courts, in the process of interpretation, are creating a new set of laws for us to follow. Somehow, it is our proof also. We, sometimes, keep a gap. We, sometimes, do not legislate where we have to legislate. Therefore, the courts have, sometimes, observed, "We have to act because the Parliament has not acted." Now, this logic is not very correct. Either you have the power or you do not have the power. You cannot act because the other organ has not acted. Sir, the same logic, in all humility, I say, if courts say, "Because the Executive has not acted, because the Parliament has not acted, we are acting in this particular case," would be fallacious. In the same logic, supposing, tomorrow, the Executive starts saying "Okay. Let us give the parallel example. Lakhs of cases are pending in the courts. I am going to dispose of these cases." "Because cases are pending, I am going to dispose of them!" Can it be done? It can't be done. Similarly, because one organ is not exercising the power, the other organ cannot exercise. If that organ has powers, it can exercise. That should be the logic. Therefore, this is a vital aspect which has to be considered by one and all.

(Contd. by TMV/3R)


SHRI SHANTARAM LAXMAN NAIK (CONTD.): Now, Sir, the question is: From where does our competency come? We have three sets of lists given in the Constitution. Under those three lists, the Union List, the State List and the Concurrent List, various items are mentioned. The competency of the legislatures is basically decided on the basis of the items given in the lists and nothing beyond that. Therefore, basically the courts have to see whether it falls within their competence or the powers given by the Constitution. If the courts start looking into various other aspects, then there is no limit. I don't say that the fundamental rights of the citizens should not be protected. They have to be protected. If a fundamental right is violated, then the courts have to intervene. Again, a question arises about the interpretation of each of the rights. It differs from Judge to Judge, from Bench to Bench and from High Court to High Court. Therefore, this aspect of competence of judiciary, as far as looking into the legislation on the basis of violation of fundamental rights is concerned, has also to be examined because you can't have any limit on interpretation. Take, for example, the right to equality. The point whether a particular legislation violates the right to equality or not is such a very vast subject that you can interpret it in any manner to show that in a particular case there is no element of equality. In fact, nobody can lay down any criterion as such. Of course, the judiciary has to put some restriction on itself while examining these aspects.

The second point is that when the Parliament legislates, Members feel the pulse of people's wishes, people's aspirations. When they legislate a law, they represent the people and they know what the people want. When they are the true representatives of the people, the product of a legislation, which is passed after ascertaining their views, should have sanctity. Is that sanctity given today while examining the legislations passed by the Parliament? The legislations should not be taken lightly when the courts examine these aspects because Members of Parliament are elected democratically and they represent specific areas. Maybe, in a matter of legislation, there may be some flaws here. There are bound to be flaws. But the vital question is whether the spirit of the people's aspirations is reflected in that or not.

Thirdly, this country has got an important, vital and experienced bureaucratic machinery. I say so, though ultimately it is we who pass the legislation, because there is one organ, that is, the bureaucracy, which puts in the labour to prepare a draft legislation. I think, our officers in various Departments are one of those vastly experienced people. Sometimes, the services of our officers are taken by the newly-born neighbouring countries when the need arises. (Contd. by RG/3S)


SHRI SHANTARAM LAXMAN NAIK (contd.): Therefore, legislations, which are passed by Indian Parliament, are well-drafted legislations. No doubt, there could be some flaws in some provisions, clauses, etc. But they are well-drafted legislations. So, this aspect should be taken into consideration by the Courts while examining the legislations.

Now, when we look at the powers of the Legislature as well as the Executive, today, who has the power to decide what industries should be established and where they should be set up? Is Parliament deciding it, or, is it the Executive which decides it? Even if we decide a location for a particular type of industry, we are not sure whether our decision is final, whether the legislation, which creates that industrial area, will be upheld, and whether the executive order, which will be passed to create the industrial area, will be upheld or not. Somebody might go before the Courts and file a petition saying that that particular industry creates pollution in that area. Now, the Courts are also technical in this aspect. If they find that certain amount of pollution is being emanated from such and such industries, they will order the industries to be closed down. They are not going to look into this aspect that these twenty lakhs or so of employees of these industrial units are going to be thrown on the streets, that their children are going to starve and suffer. The courts of law are not concerned with these aspects. It is Parliament of India which is concerned with that. Therefore, when legislation is scrutinised by the courts of law, this human aspect, apart from fundamental rights, environmental aspects, water pollution, air pollution, etc. has to be examined by them. Otherwise, I don't think that any legislation would stand the test of the law. Now, Sir, in our country, it has become a fashion to file a PIL on every issue. The common people also have started saying, "It is good; the Government has been taught a lesson." When such orders started going, and when the common man was getting affected, they started realising that it was some industries which were getting affected till yesterday, but, as of today, they are the affected persons. Therefore, while scrutinising legislations, the courts of law have to consider this aspect as well.

Then, in the matter of construction of dams, who decides about the location of dams as well as the height of these dams? It is not the Prime Minister who decides it. Not even the engineers are deciding it. Actually, it is the job of the administration. But we have seen that even the height of the dams is being decided by the court of law. The location of dam will be decided by the court of law. How much water should be released to whom and what should be the water level, every aspect of irrigation, everything is being decided by the courts of law. We are not deciding anything.

Then, Sir, if you look at certain other minor aspects, take, for instance, the sports events. On the question of giving rights to TV channels, the Government does not have any power; the Information and Broadcasting Ministry does not have any power. (Continued by 3T)


SHRI SHANTARAM LAXMAN NAIK (CONTD.): Nobody has that power. Whether a particular T.V. channel will have the right to show a particular game or not is ultimately being decided by courts of law. Is there no way that the Government should convince courts of law about the limited powers of the Judiciary? Sometimes, it appears that we are not able to convince the courts with respect to the limited powers of the Judiciary. Sometimes, whether it is possible or not, I don't know. The Government also would not like to hurt the sentiments of the Judiciary which has taken up such matters. And, we succumb to their jurisdiction. We don't tell about their jurisdiction. We argue our case. We don't tell them that they don't have jurisdiction over this issue. We argue the merits of the case. If we start telling courts of law on the preliminary points that the competency of the court in this matter is not there, then it can be helpful. I hardly hear such kind of things, because we hear all these things from newspaper reports. I hardly hear anything that the Government has challenged the jurisdiction of courts of law on all these aspects. It succumbs to the jurisdiction and argues the case on merits, whatever the Government of India wants to say in a particular matter. For example, you take the case of the Mid-Day Meals Scheme. What should be the content of the rice, what type of items should be given in mid-day meals, how much calories, etc., are being decided by the court. The guidelines for the Mid-Day Meals Scheme are not contained in executive guidelines. The guidelines for the Mid-Day Meals Scheme are not there in any legislation. The guidelines for the Mid-Day Meals Scheme for the entire country are contained in one judgement. Again, there is a problem, as far as reading these judgements is concerned. As far as the legislations are concerned, a common man can go through it and understand it. In order to know what are those 20 or 25 guidelines, one has to read 500 pages. After reading 500 pages, he will come to know what are those 20 guidelines. Sir, in the past, I had raised the issue and demanded that all the judgements of courts of law, which are laws today, as per the Constitution, should be examined, and whatever is acceptable to us should be codified. Supposing, a judgement contains some good propositions, please accept them; amend our respective laws and include them in the laws. And, whatever propositions are not acceptable to us, please reject them by bringing in amendments in the law. I am suggesting this because if legal literacy has to be developed, if the common man has to know the law of the land, then, it should be in the form of Acts and rules. It should be available in regional languages, English or other languages. But, if our major laws contain in judgements, forget about the common man, it is difficult for us to know it. I have still not read the judgement which lays down the Mid-Day Meals Scheme. I wanted to know about it, but I have to find out where the judgement is, and what the guidelines are. Therefore, this suggestion was made to the Government. The hon. Law Minister was kind enough to say that my suggestion will be forwarded to the next Law Commission, as the term of the present Law Commission is going to expire. So, it will be presented to the next Law Commission. Fine. But, this is a vital aspect which has to be considered.

Now, for the last six months or one year -- Aggarwalji has also come at the nick of the time -- considering the enormous situation which was prevailing in Delhi, we have passed a law. Somehow, we are or everybody is in a soup. The position is such that the Parliament of India is being taught how to enact a law. Now, to meet a particular situation, a law has been enacted. While scrutinising this law, if human aspect is not considered, only technical aspect of the Fundamental Rights or only technical aspect of some other point is considered, then, what will be the fate of the law? (Contd. by kgg/3u)


SHRI SHANTARAM LAXMAN NAIK (CONTD.): One can imagine. Nobody has passed this law for pleasure. A situation had arisen where a temporary halt was needed when lakhs of people were suffering and the business too was suffering. Therefore, it was the Parliament of India which realised the difficulties faced by the people and came to the rescue of the people. If the other organs do not understand, do not take into consideration these aspects and take only a very technical view, what would be the fate of the country? This is only an example. There are several other aspects.

Sir, while scrutinising laws or when we speak about judges, we have got our own rules. We speak with respect. We speak with dignity. When we mention about the courts in any matter also, we have got a sense or feeling that whenever we mention any judge or court of law, we should mention it with all respect and dignity. No word should go out from here which hurts or insults anybody. This is the feeling of the Parliament even with the most less-learned Member of Parliament; even he also would keep in mind the ethos of ours. But what has hurt a Member of Parliament the other day was when the remark was made, "Was Parliament sleeping?" This was the remark made in a court of law while examining the legislation regarding Delhi. But, again, nobody said a word regarding this. We raise so many issues during the zero hour. Nobody utters a word because of the dignity, the highest respect that we give to the judiciary. But do we deserve such a remark, is a question. The Law Minister should take suo motu the case, in whatever manner that he can, with the highest judicial body.

Sir, as I said, the laws laid down by courts of law are some times, or many times, in fact, are not there in the basic legislation; in the sense, while interpreting a law, we will not find the things declared by the court anywhere in the law. In a sense, as I said, courts are there only to explain the meaning of a section giving respect to the legislature saying, "This is the law passed by the legislature and, we think, the meaning of this section is this." Some times, as a young lawyer, I think about the basic structure of the Constitution. We do not find any declaration of the basic structure anywhere. Our forefathers, those who worked for drafting the Constitution, have not put a label on the basic structure. All of a sudden, after many years, this aspect came into being--there is what is called as basic structure in the Constitution. If it was there, it should be there from the beginning. If it was there, it should have been known to the people of the country that there is what is known as basic structure in the Constitution which you cannot touch. The basic structure has come during the course of interpretations. During the course of interpretation of the Constitution of India, the concept of basic structure has come. It is not a mere explanation of a thing or creation of something and above all, it is not said that this and this is the basic structure and you cannot do anything which alters the basic structure. (Contd. by kls/3w)


SHRI SHANTARAM LAXMAN NAIK (CONTD): Such a restraint on Parliament by interpreting an article is something that cannot be understood. This is not a process of interpretation. This enactment of law is foreign to our Constitution; it is a foreign body in a sense that you have a body; some foreign object is there. The basic structure was not there as is being conceptualised as basic structure and you cannot amend it. Today we are at this position. Now in this regard, I want to know whether our hon. Law Minister and the Government of India are proposing to do anything in this connection. Fortunately, the time did not come for us to enact any amendment, which requires that the so-called basic structure be amended. No such thing has come, so far so good. But some eventuality may occur whereby there may be a need to alter, to make an amendment, which according to the court of law may hurt the basic structure. What are we going to do at that stage? At that time, we will realise that this aspect should have been dealt with long, long back rather than waiting for the last minute. Therefore, Sir, I have moved this Resolution that several Acts of ours which go for the scrutiny of the court of law as per the Constitution, no doubt, are required to be scrutinised, but if finality of every legislation depends upon the judgement of the court of law, then the very basic structure of the Constitution which has been laid down is getting affected. I do not say that basic structure existed but if for every legislation the court of law is entitled to scrutinise and strike down, then this is something, which goes against the basic structure of the Constitution. Therefore, without questioning the power of the court of law, I have said in my Resolution that in case a law is required to be struck down, then that decision of the Supreme Court be a unanimous decision of Seven-Member Bench and in the case of High Courts by Five-Member Bench because sometimes High Courts are smaller and they do not have that much of number. So, when unanimously a decision is given, we will also find that we have faulted somewhere and there is something wrong in our legislation because judges unanimously say so. Therefore, to give sanctity to our legislation, I have moved this Resolution for the consideration of the House so that in future no legislation is struck down just by two against three or three against two or two against one in that manner. The judiciary has to give the highest respect and regard to the legislations passed by us and they are to be struck down only in that eventuality. Thank you.

The question was proposed.

(Followed by 3X)


. ϳ (֕ã֮) : ֮־֤ ֳ֬ ߅ ֵ ֮ ß , ֮ ֯ ֯ ִ߸ ׾ֵ , ֕ ו ָ ׯ֔ ִֻ , , ָև ֵ֯׻ֆ ֤־ ֵ , ו ֕ ֮֟ , ֮ ָ ִ߸

, ֮ ָ֮ , ֟ , ָ ׾׬ ӡ , þֵ ׾׬־ ֤ ֤õ , ֮ ֛ ָ֮ , ֤ ֳ , ֮-ן׮׬ ֵ֟ , ו֮ ָ ֮֟ ־ָ , ֮֟ ִõֆ ָָ ָ֬ ָ ֤ - ֮ ֮ , ׾֮֬ ֵ , ׮ , ו ׮ ׻֋ ׾֮֬ ׮ ־׸ ֟ ׾ֵ ֕ ֵ ß־ ָ ־ֻ ֵ , ß־ ִ֣Ԯ ֮ ֟ ָ ߅

, ֋, ִ߸ ִֻ ֤ ֳ ֮֕ן , ׾׳֮ ׾֮֫ , ֮֟ ֮-ן׮׬ ֮֟ ־֮ ָ ֮ ׻֋, ֮ ִ ׾ָ֓-׾ִֿ, ֓ ֤ ֤ ָ ֮ ֮֋ ֟ , ֤ ׸ ֟ , ׸ ֤ ֮ ֌ , פ ָ ֻ ִֻ , ָ ֵ֯׻ֆ ָ ֤ ׻ֵ ֋ ָ י ֋, ֮ ֮ãֻ , ִ֮֮ , ֣ ֵ֯׻ ֵԤ ֟ , ֵ֯׻ ִ֮ , ־ ִ֮ ֟ ֮ ֵ ׻֋ ָ ָ ֟ ָ ֤ ָ ָ ֟ , ֵ֬߿ ָ ֟ , ֵ ׻֋ ָ ָ ֵ ֮ãֻ , ֤ ׾ֳ֮֬֋ , ָ ֮ ֮֋ ֟ , ֛ ִ߸ ֻ פ ֮ ֮ ׸ , ׯ֔ פ פ ו ָ - ׳ֵ֮ ֵֻ ֵ, ֤ ֮ ־֮ ֧ ̸֕ ׾ָ֓ ֮ ׸ ָ ָ ֵ֯׻ , ߴ ָ י ֟ ֮֟ס ֻ ׸ ׾֮֬ ֵ֮ ֵ , ֮ ֵ֮ ֵ , ָ ָ ָ֟ י ֟ , ֤ , ־ã , ס ֻ -- ִ֮ (3և ָ ֿ:)


0 ϳ (֟) : ֣ ֟ ֵ ֵ ֮֮ ֑֟ ֟ ׻֋ ָ י ֟ , ׻֋ ֲ ֵ ׾ֵ ֮ ׾ָ֓ ֮ ִֵ ֮ ֮ ֵ֮ ֮ ׾ָ֓ ֋, ß , ִ ֤ ָ ֟ ׯ֔ ו ָ ָ ֵ֯׻ֆ יֵ ִ֮ ֟ , ֟ ִ֮ ֟ ו֮ ֵԯ׻ ֵԤ ֑֟ ֟ ֟ ֑֟ ֟ ָ ׻֋ ו ָ ֵ֯׻ ִ֮ ֮֋ ֮ ֺ ֲ ִ֮ , ָ ã֮ ֮ ֮֋ ֟ , ִ֮ ֮ , ׻֋ ֵ֯׻ֆ ָ ֮ ׾

, ָ ֣ ִָ֮ ֵ , ָ ֟ ֮- ד ד֋ ֕ ֮ דֆ ִ ָ ׮ þ֣ ָ ָ ד֋ ־ֵ ֟ ֮ ד֋ ֟ , פ ִ֓ ֮֟ ׮ ֿ ֵԾ ָ ֵ֯׻֋ ߔ , ו ָ ֟ ֵ ֵ ָ֮ Ӥ פ ֋ Ϥ ֜ ֤ ֵ ֮ Ӥ ֋ ֵԾָ ֮ , ߴ֟ ָ ֵԾָ ֮ , ߴ֟ ָ ֮ Ϥ֟ , ֲָ ֟ ֵԾָ ֟ ֻ ׯ֋Ӆ ֟ ׌ , ָ ִ ֟ ֮ ֵ, ֵ߅ ֳ ? ֻ֟ ָ ֵ ֮֮ , ֮ ֮֮ ֵ ֠ ָ ֋ ָ ִ߮ ָ֟ ׮ֻ ו ֕ ꮵ ָ ָ ֛ ֕ ָ ָ ״ֻ օ ָ ֋, ִ֟ ָ ֵ ִ֮ ֟ ? ãן ָ ֵ֯׻֋ ׬ Ӿֿ߻ ֮ ã֮ ָ ֮ ׬ ֋ ֮ ָ þן ֋ ־ã ִֻ ָ , ָ Ӿֿ߻֟ ׾ָ֓ ֤ ָ ֵԾ ֵ֮ ֮ ִ

, ֵ֯׻ֆ ן ִ֮ ֣ ֤ ֮ ֮ ֮ ֋-֋ ӿ֮ ִ֮ ֟ , ֮ ӿ֮ ֟ , ֵ֯׻ֆ ִֻ ײ֟ ֛ ו֮ ָ ֻ֟ ֵԾ , ָ ֟ ָֻ֟ ִֻ , ִֻ ֤֟ ִֻ - ִֻ ײ֟ (3 /ߋ־ ָ ֿ:)


0 ϳ (֟): ֮ ߛֵ֤ ֮ , ִ ֤ ׻֋ ֵ ֯ օ ֮֟ , ֟֟ , ֵ֯׻ֆ ֌ ֙ , ׮ֻ֓ ֻ֟ ָ ֻ֟ ֮ ָ ֮ ָ ִ-ѕ Ѿ ָ ֮ ִֵ ֲԤ ױ ָ ֵ ד֟ ֟ , ֮֟ , ֟֟ ָ ֮ ֮֟ , ֲ ֳ ִ ֤ ״ֻ ֵ ֵ ֲ , ֲ ׸ ֵ ״ֻ ָ ֕ , , ָֻ֟ , ֤֟ ׿ָ ѓ- ֵ ״ֻ ֣ ֤ ֵ ״ֻ , ֵ ? ֵ , ִֵ ָ ״ֻ ִֵ-ߴ , וִ ֵ ״ֻꅠ ֵ֯׻֋ ָ ָ , ָ ׾׬ ӡ ׾ִָ֮֕ , ׾֮֫ , þֵ ָ ֟ ִ֟ , ֮ ִ ֟ , ֟ ֺ ָ ׵ ֮ ֻ ֕ Ù , ֆ ִֻ , ִֻ , ֵ , ֲ , ױ ׵ ֟ - ׾ִֻ , ו ִ ֤ ֵ֮ ֵ ד֟ ֟ ִ߮ ִֻ ֮ ֌ ֙ , - ֵ ״ֻ ֟

, ֳ֮־֮ ִ֟ ֵ֯׻ֆ ֵ֬߿ , ֤ ׸ ׬ ִ, ֮ ֮֋ ֟ פ þֵ ׸ ֱ , ׾֬ , ֮ ֵ֮ ֟ , ָ ִ ָ ֵ֯׻ ׾ , ױ ִ ֮֟ ׾ ? , ֮ ֵ , ו֮ 껵֮ ß , ֵ , ֮ ׬ָ , ׬ָ ָָ , Ͽ֮ וִָ , ֮ וִָ , ֮ ׬ָ פ -ָ ׬ָ ָ ן -ָ ׬ָ- ִ , ֲ, -ָ , ֵԤ , ֻֻ, þã ָָ ֻ , ֑֟ ֟ ָ ִֻ, ָ ֟ ֮ ֟ ֤־ ֺ ֵ ֳ ָ ֟ פ ԙ ִֻ , ׿ָ ִֻ ִ߮ ן ִֻ ָ ִ ß , ױ ֟ , ֟ ֟ , ו ִ , ֛ ִ , ָ ֟ ִֻ ׵ ֛ ׸ ן פև ֟ ֲ ִֻ ָ , ִֻ ֮ פ ֟օ ֲ ֟ ֮ ֲ ׻֋ ֲָָ ֛ , ֮ ֲ ׻֋ -ֲָָ ָ ִֻ ֲ ֟ , ִ ֮֟ ֵֿ ֟ ִֻ , ֮ ߮ , ִ ֮ ן פև ? ִ-ִָ ß ֵ֟ , ו֮ ִ ִ , ׻֋ ֮ ֮- ׬ ֟ ? ֲ ִ ֤ ִֻ ֟ , ִ ֮ ֟ ߅ ߕ פև ָ ׾ָ֓ ֮ ֺ

, ӟ ֻ ֯ 껵֮ ִ֣Ԯ , ו ֤ ׸ ֮ , ֵԯ׻ ׸ ֮ ֮ ֵ֯׻ ׸ ֮ ֮ ֲ ֮-֮ ׬ָ ִ֟ ִ , -ָ ׸ ִ֟ ִ -ָ ִ֟ ִ (4/000 ָ ֿ:)