<b>XI LOK SABHA DEBATES, <i> Session IV (Budget) </i> </b> XI LOK SABHA DEBATES, Session IV (Budget) Monday , March 03, 1997 / Phalguna 12, 1918 (Saka)
Type of Debate: NO-DAY-YET-NAMED MOTION (RULE-184)
Title: Regarding issue of admissibility of notice of motion under Rule 184 regarding constitutional crisis in Uttar Pradesh and recalling of Governor. TEXT : SHRI JASWANT SINGH (CHITTORGARH): Mr. Speaker, Sir, I reiterate what I had started submitting on Friday last when you very kindly suggested that you would grant permission to me to raise this matter today. The matter that I am raising is a submission to you, Sir, on a motion under Rule 184 which, for the sake of bringing focus to my submission, I find necessary to read the text of. I have submitted :"That this House taking serious note of the constitutional crisis in the State of U.P. evidenced amongst others by widespread lawlessness described by the Union Home Minister as bordering "chaos, anarchy and destruction"; the rejection of this assessment of the Central Government by the Governor, and his clarification that "he has spoken to the Prime Minister"; therefore, this House do now resolve that the Governor of U.P. be recalled forthwith".
Sir, I am not on the substance or the merits of my submission. I am simply on the facts and my submission to you that this House has only limited means to discuss dignitaries in high office. What, Sir, are the facts of the matter? The Union Home Minister has - it is not denied; it is a matter of record of the House - described the conditions in the State of Uttar Pradesh as bordering 'chaos, anarchy and destruction'.
Thereafter, in reaction to what the Union Home Minister said, His Excellency, the Governor of Uttar Pradesh on various occasions - I will not cite all of them - has found it fit to say :
"I have spoken to the Prime Minister and he is quite satisfied with the law and order situation."
He has also said that the Prime Minister had crime figures of Uttar Pradesh much before the Home Minister made the statement in the Lok Sabha. There are assumptions and suggestions behind this particular averment which I find extremely disturbing. Thirdly, he has said : "I did not ask the Home Minister on what basis he had made the statement on the U.P. situation."
Thereafter, not content with this, His Excellency, the Governor on a second occasion in a Press interview has said a word to the effect that perhaps because the Union Home Minister wanted to create a consensus he said that. Now, consensus about what? He has denied the factual basis of the Union Home Minister's statement and then he says that he was trying to create a consensus.
Then, not content with this, the Chief Secretary of U.P. has found it fit not only to write the following but to release what he has written to the Press. The Chief Secretary has said :
"We are shocked and surprised to read newspaper reports from New Delhi regarding alleged deterioration in law and order situation in U.P."
The gist, therefore, of what I am submitting is that His Excellency, the Governor of Uttar Pradesh is asserting that what the Union Home Minister has said in the Lok Sabha is not based on facts, that the hon. Prime Minister is thoroughly satisfied with not only the conditions in the State of Uttar Pradesh but the Governor has also spoken to the Prime Minister in this regard, that the Prime Minister had the crime figures, that the Home Minister has made a completely unnecessary and gratuitous observation and that there is nothing amazing about the crime figures of Uttar Pradesh.
Now, Sir, I am not on law and order situation of Uttar Pradesh. Quite rightly, the law and order situation can be discussed when it comes to the question of discussing the budget of the State of Uttar Pradesh, or what now seems imminent, as to whether the President's rule should be revoked, extended or the Assembly dissolved or whatever. I am also not on the question of collective responsibility of the Cabinet and whether the Union Home Minister can have a view point different from the hon. Prime Minister or yet another Minister of the Cabinet. Ministers of the Cabinet, particularly of this kind of a Government, will have different view points. Whether they have a right to express their view points in public or not again becomes a different inquiry, not necessarily under what is discussed now.
I am, Sir, on the focussed subject of the conduct of the Governor and what is the constitutional position of the Governor. Here, I refer to page 931 of Kaul and Shakdher and request you to kindly glance at pages 930 and 931 to 934. Here, it says that the function of the Governor inter alia amongst other things is to be the chief executive during the President's rule acting for the President. Then, I take you to page 931. It says :
"The Governor functions for most purposes as a part of the State apparatus; but he has at the same time, a duty to report to the Union.
I quote further as regards the Governor's duty to report.
"The duty to report flows from Article 365 and is specifically mentioned in Article 356. The Union Government has the duty to ensure that the Government of every State is carried on in accordance with the provisions of the Constitution."
Sir, now I take you to page 932 of Kaul and Shakdar which is of great relevance:
"...the Constitutional duty of a State to so exercise its executive power as to ensure compliance with the laws made by the Parliament and, secondly, as not to impede or prejudice the exercise of the executive power of the Union."
I find it necessary to repeat this last sentence:
"...as not to impede or prejudice the exercise of the executive power of the Union"
This is the Constitutional provision. I find that before we come to the substantive part of how and why we have to discuss the role of the Governor I wish to say, what can we do in this House. Here again I draw your attention to page 817 of Kaul and Shakdar. If we have to discuss the role and function of the Governor what is it that the rules and procedures of Parliament permit us to do. It says:
"Conduct of high dignitaries cannot be questioned incidentally..."
We are not questioning this incidentally. It further says:
"The Constitution provides for discussion on the conduct of some of the authorities in the manner indicated therein."
Sir, we can discuss, President, Vice-President and also the conduct of the Speaker, Deputy-Speaker, Judges of the Supreme Court and High Courts. We have done it in this House. We can even discuss the Comptroller and Auditor General of India and Chief Election Commissioner. Then there is a specific mention and I quote:
"Other high functionaries such as Governors, Ministers, Statutory authorities can be discussed on appropriate motions drawn in a form approved by the Speaker."
Then Sir, I wish to cite to you that the House has indeed discussed Governors in this very House. There are precedents of discussing simply the role, functions and the conduct of the Governor. The Fifth Lok Sabha simultaneously discussed two Governors of the State of Uttar Pradesh and the the State of Bihar. It is a classic example. As it happens that discussion also took place on 23rd February in 1970.
Now, if we are to do it, what is my submission? My submission is that here a situation has arisen in which His Excellency, the Governor of Uttar Pradesh has acted in a manner that has both impeded and prejudiced the exercise of the Executive power of the Union. He has made assertions which rebut and go contrary to what the Union Government hence the Parliament hence the Executive authority to which he is answerable. He has rebutted and therefore that is called into question. He has caused his Chief Secretary in writing and in public to question the authority of the Union Home Minister which directly again impede the functioning of the executive authority of the State as also questioning the role and functions of the Parliament. As to whether the state of law and order is satisfactory or not satisfactory, whether the Cabinet is of one voice on this or not of one voice is altogether a separate enquiry. Clearly, Sir, the Governor has exceeded norms. Clearly, therefore, it is my submission that the Parliament must discuss that. Therefore, thirdly, the only option available to us is to discuss it under a substantive motion. That substantive motion, I have submitted for your consideration under Rule 184. It is a substantive motion and it is only a motion under which we can discuss the role and conduct of a Governor.
Sir, that is my submission. I would be very grateful for the grant of your assent to this motion. Thank you.
MR. SPEAKER : I do not think we need to go into too much details because it has already been discussed earlier. This is just a few additional points.
SHRI K.P.SINGH DEO (DHENKANAL): Sir, I am not going into too much details. But I would certainly like to draw your kind attention and that of the House. I do not want a debate because I am mindful of the fact that this is a very sensitive issue. What my submission to you and through you to my colleagues and peers is that there is a time tested and well established procedure which has stood the test of time from 15th of August, 1947 since the day the Indian Army was born.
A decision was taken by the Government of India, only three days back. MR. SPEAKER: Shri Singh Deo, just a minute. At this point, we are on this issue relating to Uttar Pradesh.
SHRI K.P. SINGH DEO (DHENKANAL): I am sorry.
MR. SPEAKER: I thought you are on the same subject. I will call you later. Is there anybody who wants to speak on the same subject?
¸ÉÒ ®úɨɺÉÉMÉ®ú (¤ÉÉ®úɤÉÆEòÒ) : ¨ÉÉxÉxÉÒªÉ +vªÉIÉ VÉÒ, +¦ÉÒ +ÉèÊSÉiªÉ EòÉ ¨ÉɨɱÉÉ =`öɪÉÉ MɪÉÉ* =SSÉiÉ¨É xªÉɪÉÉ±ÉªÉ Eòä xªÉɪÉÉvÉÒ¶É, ¨É½þɨÉʽþ¨É ®úɹ]Å{ÉÊiÉ ¨É½þÉänùªÉ, ={É®úɹ]Å{ÉÊiÉ +Éè®ú ®úÉVªÉ{ÉÉ±É Eòä ¤ÉÉ®úä ¨ÉäÆ ºÉ¨¨ÉÉÊxÉiÉ ºÉnùxÉ EòÒ EòÖUô {É®ú¨{É®úÉBÆ ®ú½þÒ ½þèÆ*
+vªÉIÉ ¨É½þÉänùªÉ, +É{ɺÉä {ɽþ±Éä VÉ¤É +Énù®úhÉÒªÉ Ê¶É´É®úÉVÉ {ÉÉÊ]õ±É VÉÒ +vªÉIÉ lÉä, =ºÉ ºÉ¨ÉªÉ =SSÉiÉ¨É xªÉɪÉÉ±ÉªÉ Eòä xªÉɪÉÉvÉÒ¶É Eòä ¤ÉÉ®úä ¨ÉäÆ SÉSÉÉÇ Eò®úxÉä EòÉ BEò ¨ÉɨɱÉÉ ±ÉÉäEò ºÉ¦ÉÉ ¨ÉäÆ =`öɪÉÉ MɪÉÉ lÉÉ* =x½þÉäÆxÉä {É®ú¨{É®úÉ+ÉäÆ Eòä +xÉÖºÉÉ®ú =ºÉ {É®ú SÉSÉÉÇ EòÒ <VÉÉVÉiÉ xɽþÒÆ nùÒ lÉÒ* BäºÉÉ Eò®úEòä ºÉnùxÉ ¨ÉäÆ BEò =SSÉ {É®ú¨{É®úÉ ºlÉÉÊ{ÉiÉ EòÒ MÉ<Ç lÉÒ* ªÉ½þ ¨ÉÉxÉÉ ÊEò =iiÉ®ú |Énùä¶É ¨ÉäÆ BEò ®úÉVÉxÉèÊiÉEò ½þiªÉÉ ½þÖ<Ç ½þè
... (´ªÉ´ÉvÉÉxÉ)
MR. SPEAKER: Let him have his say.
SHRI RAMSAGAR (BARABANKI):
¸ÉÒ ®úɨɺÉÉMÉ®ú (¤ÉÉ®úɤÉÆEòÒ) : +É{É ºÉÖxÉ iÉÉä ±ÉÉä* +JɤÉÉ®úÉäÆ ¨ÉäÆ ¦ÉÒ ªÉ½þ ¤ÉÉiÉ +É ®ú½þÒ ½þè ... (+vªÉIÉ{ÉÒ`ö Eòä +Énùä¶ÉÉxÉÖºÉÉ®ú EòɪÉÇ´ÉɽþÒ-´ÞÉiiÉÉxiÉ ºÉä ÊxÉEòÉ±É ÊnùªÉÉ MɪÉÉ*)
ªÉ½þÉÆ {É®ú ´ÉÉVÉ{ÉäªÉÒ VÉÒ, VɺɴÉxiÉ ÊºÉƽþ VÉÒ +Éè®ú ¦ÉÉ®úiÉÒªÉ VÉxÉiÉÉ {ÉÉ]õÒÇ Eòä ºÉnùºªÉÉäÆ xÉä ´É½þÉÆ EòÒ EòÉxÉÚxÉ +Éè®ú ´ªÉ´ÉºlÉÉ EòÒ ÊºlÉÊiÉ EòÉ ÊVÉFò ÊEòªÉÉ
... (´ªÉ´ÉvÉÉxÉ)
SHRI HARIN PATHAK (AHMEDABAD): Sir, it is highly objectionable.
MR. SPEAKER: Please confine yourself to the issue.
SHRI RAMSAGAR (BARABANKI):
¸ÉÒ ®úɨɺÉÉMÉ®ú (¤ÉÉ®úɤÉÆEòÒ) : ¨ÉèÆ ºÉnùxÉ EòÉ ºÉnùºªÉ lÉÉ
... (´ªÉ´ÉvÉÉxÉ)
MÉÉä®úJÉ{ÉÖ®ú ¨ÉäÆ ¶ÉÉ®únùÉ |ɺÉÉnù ®úÉ´ÉiÉ VÉÉä ÊEò Ê´ÉvÉɪÉEò lÉä, ¨ÉÆjÉÒ ¦ÉÒ lÉä +Éè®ú {ÉÚ®úä {ÉÚ´ÉÉÇÆSÉ±É Eòä xÉäiÉÉ lÉä, =xÉEòÒ ½þiªÉÉ Eò±ªÉÉhÉ ÊºÉƽþ VÉÒ Eòä ºÉ¨ÉªÉ ¨ÉäÆ ½þÖ<Ç lÉÒ... (´ªÉ´ÉvÉÉxÉ)
SHRI JANESHWAR MISHRA:
+vªÉIÉ ¨É½þÉänùªÉ : ªÉ½þ ¤ÉÉiÉ <ºÉºÉä iÉɱ±ÉÖEò xɽþÒÆ ®úJÉiÉÒ* +¦ÉÒ ÊxÉªÉ¨É 184 Eòä +vÉÒxÉ SÉSÉÉÇ ½þÉä ®ú½þÒ ½þè*
SHRI RAMSAGAR (BARABANKI):
¸ÉÒ ®úɨɺÉÉMÉ®ú (¤ÉÉ®úɤÉÆEòÒ) : Eòä´É±É ¤ÉnùxÉÉ¨É Eò®úxÉä Eòä ʱÉB ½þÒ =iiÉ®ú |Énùä¶É ¨ÉäÆ BEò ®úÉVÉxÉèÊiÉEò ½þiªÉÉ ½þÖ<Ç ... (+vªÉIÉ{ÉÒ`ö Eòä +Énùä¶ÉÉxÉÖºÉÉ®ú EòɪÉÇ´ÉɽþÒ-´ÞÉiiÉÉxiÉ ºÉä ÊxÉEòÉ±É ÊnùªÉÉ MɪÉÉ*)
... (´ªÉ´ÉvÉÉxÉ)
SHRI JANESHWAR MISHRA:
+vªÉIÉ ¨É½þÉänùªÉ : BäºÉÉ xɽþÒÆ ½þè* +É{É BEò ¤ÉÉiÉ ºÉÖÊxÉB *
... (´ªÉ´ÉvÉÉxÉ)
SHRI RAMSAGAR (BARABANKI):
¸ÉÒ ®úɨɺÉÉMÉ®ú (¤ÉÉ®úɤÉÆEòÒ) : +vªÉIÉ ¨É½þÉänùªÉ, ºÉnùxÉ EòÒ EòÖUô {É®ú¨{É®úÉBÆ ½þèÆ*
+vªÉIÉ ¨É½þÉänùªÉ : ªÉ½þ ¤ÉÉnù ¨ÉäÆ ½þÉäMÉÉ
... (´ªÉ´ÉvÉÉxÉ)
MR. SPEAKER: Why are you complicating it? Let me handle it.
SHRI RAMSAGAR (BARABANKI):
¸ÉÒ ®úɨɺÉÉMÉ®ú (¤ÉÉ®úɤÉÆEòÒ) : +vªÉIÉ ¨É½þÉänùªÉ, ... (+vªÉIÉ{ÉÒ`ö Eòä +Énùä¶ÉÉxÉÖºÉÉ®ú EòɪÉÇ´ÉɽþÒ-´ÞÉiiÉÉxiÉ ºÉä ÊxÉEòÉ±É ÊnùªÉÉ MɪÉÉ*) ¨ÉÉxÉxÉÒªÉ ºÉnùxÉ EòÒ EòÖUô {É®ú¨{É®úÉBÆ ½þèÆ SÉɽþä ®úɹ]Å{ÉÊiÉ EòÉ ºÉ´ÉÉ±É ½þÉä, SÉɽþä ={É®úɹ]Å{ÉÊiÉ EòÉ ºÉ´ÉÉ±É ½þÉä ªÉÉ ®úÉVªÉ{ÉÉ±É EòÉ ºÉ´ÉÉ±É ½þÉä, <xÉEòÒ BEò ¨ÉªÉÉÇnùÉ ½þè* ´Éä ®úÉVÉ {ÉÖ¯û¹É ½þèÆ* ´ÉÉVÉ{ÉäªÉÒ VÉÒ +Éè®ú =xÉEòä nù±É Eòä ±ÉÉäMÉ =xÉEòä ¤ÉÉ®úä ¨ÉäÆ ºÉnùxÉ Eòä ¤Éɽþ®ú +ɱÉÉäSÉxÉÉ Eò®ú ®ú½þä ½þèÆ* ªÉ½þ ʤɱEòÖ±É MɱÉiÉ ¤ÉÉiÉ ½þè*
... (´ªÉ´ÉvÉÉxÉ)
MR. SPEAKER: He is speaking on the issue now.
SHRI RAMSAGAR (BARABANKI):
¸ÉÒ ®úɨɺÉÉMÉ®ú (¤ÉÉ®úɤÉÆEòÒ) : {É®ú¨{É®úÉ+ÉäÆ Eòä +xÉÖºÉÉ®ú ®úɹ]Å{ÉÊiÉ +Éè®ú ®úÉVªÉ{ÉÉ±É Eòä ¤ÉÉ®úä ¨ÉäÆ BäºÉÉ xɽþÒÆ Eò½þÉ VÉÉ ºÉEòiÉÉ*
... (´ªÉ´ÉvÉÉxÉ)
SHRI RAM NAIK (MUMBAI NORTH): Will it go on record?
¨ÉÉxÉxÉÒªÉ ºÉnùºªÉ xÉä VÉÉä Eò½þÉ, ªÉ½þ Ê®úEòÉìb÷Ç ¨ÉäÆ xɽþÒÆ VÉÉxÉÉ SÉÉʽþB*
SHRI BHAGWAN SHANKAR RAWAT (AGRA):
¸ÉÒ ¦ÉMÉ´ÉÉxÉ ¶ÉÆEò®ú ®úÉ´ÉiÉ (+ÉMÉ®úÉ) : +vªÉIÉ ¨É½þÉänùªÉ, <xÉEòÉ +É®úÉä{É +É{ÉÊiiÉVÉxÉEò ½þè* +¤É ½þiªÉÉ®úÉäÆ EòÉä ¤ÉSÉÉxÉä EòÉ ¹ÉbªÉÆjÉ ®úSÉÉ VÉÉ ®ú½þÉ ½þè
... (´ªÉ´ÉvÉÉxÉ)
MR. SPEAKER: I will certainly go through the record.
... (Interruptions)
MR. SPEAKER: I have promised that I will go through the record.
SHRI CHANDRA SHEKHAR (BALLIA):
¸ÉÒ SÉxpù¶ÉäJÉ®ú (¤ÉʱɪÉÉ) : +vªÉIÉ ¨É½þÉänùªÉ, ¨ÉèÆ ÊxÉ´ÉänùxÉ Eò°üÆMÉÉ ÊEò ¨ÉÉxÉxÉÒªÉ ºÉnùºªÉ xÉä VÉÉä Eò½þÉ ½þè, ´É½þ =ºÉä =ºÉÒ iÉ®ú½þ ºÉä ´ÉÉ{ÉºÉ ±Éä ±ÉäÆ iÉÉä +SUôÉ ½þÉäMÉÉ* ºÉnùxÉ ¨ÉäÆ <ºÉ iÉ®ú½þ EòÒ ¤ÉÉiÉäÆ Eò½þxÉÉ MɱÉiÉ ½þè* ªÉ½þÉÆ EòÖUô ¨ÉªÉÉÇnùÉ ®úJÉxÉÒ SÉÉʽþB* +MÉ®ú <ºÉ iÉ®ú½þ EòÒ ¤ÉÉiÉäÆ EòÒ VÉÉBÆMÉÒ iÉÉä ÊEòºÉÒ ½þiªÉÉ EòÒ {ÉÖʹ]õ xɽþÒÆ ½þÉä ºÉEòäMÉÒ* ¨ÉÖZÉä ªÉÉnù ½þè
... (´ªÉ´ÉvÉÉxÉ)
SHRI ATAL BIHARI VAJPAYEE (LUCKNOW):
¸ÉÒ +]õ±É ʤɽþÉ®úÒ ´ÉÉVÉ{ÉäªÉÒ (±ÉJÉxÉ>ð) : =ºÉ ¨ÉɨɱÉä EòÒ ºÉÒ.¤ÉÒ.+É<Ç. VÉÉÆSÉ Eò®ú ®ú½þÒ ½þè*
SHRI CHANDRA SHEKHAR (BALLIA):
¸ÉÒ SÉxpù¶ÉäJÉ®ú (¤ÉʱɪÉÉ) : ¨ÉÖZÉä ªÉÉnù ½þè ÊEò ¨ÉÖ±ÉÉªÉ¨É ÊºÉƽþ VÉÒ ¦ÉÒ Eò½þÉ lÉÉ ÊEò ªÉ½þ ½þiªÉÉ ¤Éc÷É VÉPÉxªÉ +{É®úÉvÉ ½þè +Éè®ú <ºÉEòÒ ºÉÒ.¤ÉÒ.+É<Ç. uÉ®úÉ VÉÉÆSÉ ½þÉäxÉÒ SÉÉʽþB*
]õÒ uÉ®úÉ VÉÉ®úÒ
¸ÉÒ SÉxpù¶ÉäJÉ®ú VÉÉ®úÒ
<ºÉ ʺlÉÊiÉ ¨ÉäÆ VÉ¤É =ºÉ ¤ÉÉ®úä ¨ÉäÆ VÉÉä ¦ÉÒ +JɤÉÉ®úÉäÆ ¨ÉäÆ +É ®ú½þÉ ½þÉä, ºÉ¤É EòÉä ºÉƺÉnù ¨ÉäÆ Eò½þxÉä EòÒ ÊVɨ¨ÉänùÉ®úÒ xɽþÒÆ ½þè +Éè®ú xÉ ½þÒ EòÉä<Ç +ÉèÊSÉiªÉ ½þÉäiÉÉ ½þè* Eò¨É ºÉä Eò¨É ´É½þ {ÉÉä¶ÉÇxÉ ´ÉÉ{ÉºÉ ±ÉäxÉÉ SÉÉʽþªÉä* <ºÉ ºÉnùxÉ EòÒ ¨ÉªÉÉÇnùÉ ½þè* =xÉ ¨ÉɨɱÉÉäÆ ¨ÉäÆ <xÉEòÒ EªÉÉ ®úÉªÉ ½þè?
SHRI RAMSAGAR (BARABANKI):
¸ÉÒ ®úɨɺÉÉMÉ®ú (¤ÉÉ®úɤÉÆEòÒ) : +vªÉIÉ ¨É½þÉänùªÉ, +MÉ®ú <ºÉ iÉ®ú½þ EòÒ ¤ÉÉiÉ ½þè iÉÉä =ºÉä ¨ÉèÆ ´ÉÉ{ÉºÉ ±Éä ®ú½þÉ ½þÚÆ ±ÉäÊEòxÉ VÉ¤É +JɤÉÉ®úÉäÆ ¨ÉäÆ +É ®ú½þÉ ½þè....
... (´ªÉ´ÉvÉÉxÉ)
+vªÉIÉ ¨É½þÉänùªÉ : ´Éä ´ÉÉ{ÉºÉ ±Éä ®ú½þä ½þèÆ*
It will not be on record. I can say that.
SHRI SATYA PAL JAIN (CHANDIGARH):
¸ÉÒ ºÉiªÉ {ÉÉ±É VÉèxÉ (SÉhb÷ÒMÉgø) : +vªÉIÉ ¨É½þÉänùªÉ, ´Éä ´ÉÉ{ÉºÉ ±Éä ®ú½þä ½þèÆ ±ÉäÊEòxÉ Eò½þ ¦ÉÒ ®ú½þä ½þèÆ ÊEò +JɤÉÉ®úÉäÆ ¨ÉäÆ +É ®ú½þÉ ½þè +Éè®ú <x½þÒ ±ÉÉäMÉÉäÆ xÉä ÊEòªÉÉ ½þè....
SHRI ATAL BIHARI VAJPAYEE (LUCKNOW): ¸ÉÒ +]õ±É ʤɽþÉ®úÒ ´ÉÉVÉ{ÉäªÉÒ (±ÉJÉxÉ>ð) : +vªÉIÉ ¨É½þÉänùªÉ, ¨ÉèÆ VªÉÉnùÉ ºÉ¨ÉªÉ xɽþÒÆ ±ÉÚÆMÉÉ ±ÉäÊEòxÉ ¸ÉÒ VɺɴÉÆiÉ ÊºÉƽþ VÉÒ xÉä ʴɺiÉÉ®ú ºÉä Eò½þ ÊnùªÉÉ ½þè* <ºÉ ºÉ¨ÉªÉ VÉÉä ¨ÉɨɱÉÉ Ê´ÉSÉÉ®úÉvÉÒxÉ ½þè, ´É½þ ¤É½þÖiÉ ºÉÒʨÉiÉ ½þè ÊEò EªÉÉ ®úÉVªÉ{ÉÉ±É Eòä +ÉSÉ®úhÉ {É®ú ºÉnùxÉ ¨ÉäÆ SÉSÉÉÇ ½þÉä ºÉEòiÉÒ ½þè?
MR. SPEAKER : You do not have to answer that.
SHRI ATAL BIHARI VAJPAYEE (LUCKNOW):
¸ÉÒ +]õ±É ʤɽþÉ®úÒ ´ÉÉVÉ{ÉäªÉÒ (±ÉJÉxÉ>ð) : ¨ÉèÆ 40 ºÉÉ±É ºÉä {ÉÉʱÉǪÉɨÉäÆ]õ EòÉ ¨É訤ɮú ½þÚÆ* VÉèºÉÉ ¸ÉÒ VɺɴÉÆiÉ ÊºÉƽþ VÉÒ xÉä ¤ÉiÉɪÉÉ ÊEò ½þ¨É ®úÉVªÉ{ÉÉ±É Eòä +ÉSÉ®úhÉ {É®ú SÉSÉÉÇ Eò®ú SÉÖEòä ½þèÆ +Éè®ú <ºÉʱɪÉä ¨Éä®úÉ ÊxÉ´ÉänùxÉ ½þè ÊEò ʴɺiÉÉ®ú ¨ÉäÆ VÉÉxÉä EòÒ +ɶªÉEòiÉÉ xɽþÒÆ ½þè* +É{É ½þ¨ÉäÆ +xÉÖ¨ÉÊiÉ nùÒÊVɪÉä* =vÉ®ú ¤É½þÖ¨ÉiÉ ½þè iÉÉä Ê¡ò®ú b÷®ú Eòɽþä EòÉ ½þè? ºÉSSÉÉ<Ç EòÉ b÷®ú iÉÉä xɽþÒÆ ½þÉäxÉÉ SÉÉʽþªÉä EªÉÉäÆÊEò ºÉSSÉÉ<Ç EòÉ ¡òèºÉ±ÉÉ ªÉ½þÉÆ ¤É½þÖ¨ÉiÉ ºÉä ½þÉäiÉÉ ½þè, +±{ɨÉiÉ ºÉä xɽþÒÆ*
SHRI SHATRUGHAN PRASAD SINGH (BALIA):
¸ÉÒ ¶ÉjÉÖPxÉ |ɺÉÉnù ʺÉƽþ (¤ÉʱɪÉÉ) (ʤɽþÉ®ú) : +vªÉIÉ ¨É½þÉänùªÉ, EòÉä<Ç b÷®ú xɽþÒÆ ½þè, SÉSÉÉÇ ½þÉä +Éè®ú VɨÉEò®ú SÉSÉÉÇ ½þÉä*
SHRI JASWANT SINGH (CHITTORGARH): I wish to clarify that the establishment of an advisory committee is totally unrelated. On the specific issue of Rule 193 versus 184, I am sure my hon. friend and good colleague knows very well that we would like to discuss this only under a substantive motion. Rule 193 is not a substantive motion. It is simply a short duration discussion. You can talk this issue out. You cannot discuss a Governor's conduct under Rule 193. The only means available is Rule 184. That is my submission.
SHRI CHANDRA SHEKHAR (BALLIA): I am sorry that I have to say something which may not be liked by my friend Shri Jaswant Singh. I know that something has happened in this House and outside which is quite disturbing, especially the statement of Shri Indrajit Gupta, the Home Minister of India and contradiction by the Governor of Uttar Pradesh and also contradition in some way by the Chief Secretary of Uttar Pradesh. This is not expected in a parliamentary democracy. I do not know what are the norms being followed between the Government of India and the Government of Uttar Pradesh and I also do not know that if you begin to discuss this matter, whether we like it or not, how things will come about the conduct of the Governor. Shri Jaswant Singh said that he does not want to discuss the conduct of the Governor but only this specific issue.
[NEXT PAGE]