<b>XI LOK SABHA DEBATES, <i> Session IV (Budget) </i> </b> XI LOK SABHA DEBATES, Session IV (Budget) Wednesday , May 14, 1997 / Vaisakha 24, 1919 (Saka)
Type of Debate: QUESTION OF PRIVILEGE
Title: Submissions by members on the Priviledge notice of Shri P.R. Dasmunsi regarding alleged disclosures by CBI of its investigations in Bofors Case. TEXT : 12.29 hoursMR. CHAIRMAN: Now, Zero Hour. Shri Vijay Patel.
... (Interruptions)
ºÉ¦ÉÉ{ÉÊiÉ ¨É½þÉänùªÉ : EÞò{ɪÉÉ ½þÉ=ºÉ ¨ÉäÆ ¶ÉÉÆÊiÉ ¤ÉxÉɪÉä ®úJÉäÆ iÉÉÊEò ºÉ¤ÉEòÉä ¤ÉÉä±ÉxÉä EòÉ ¨ÉÉèEòÉ Ê¨É±Éä*
... (Interruptions)
SHRI P.R. DASMUNSI: Madam, I have given a privilege notice. ... (Interruptions) I have given a privilege notice this morning. ... (Interruptions)
MR. CHAIRMAN: Your privilege notice is with the hon. Speaker.
... (Interruptions)
SHRI P.R. DASMUNSI : What does it mean? ... (Interruptions) The privilege notice gets the highest precedence than all other things. My privilege notice is about a very important matter. ... (Interruptions)
MR. CHAIRMAN: Shri Dasmunsi, your privilege notice is with the hon. Speaker and it is his under active consideration.
... (Interruptions)
SHRI P.R. DASMUNSI : It is a very serious thing. Let the hon. Speaker decide as to whether it will be accepted or not. But I must be allowed to say why I gave a notice for the privilege motion.
This is a serious matter....(interruptions)
ºÉ¦ÉÉ{ÉÊiÉ ¨É½þÉänùªÉ : º{ÉÒEò®ú ºÉɽþ¤É EòÒ +xÉÖ¨ÉÊiÉ Ê¨É±ÉxÉä {É®ú, +É{É +{ÉxÉä Ê|ÉʴɱÉäVÉ ¨Éè]õ®ú EòÉä ®úäVÉ Eò®ú ±ÉÒÊVÉB *
SHRI P.R. DASMUNSI (HOWRAH):
¸ÉÒ {ÉÒ.+É®ú.nùɺɨÉÖƶÉÒ : Ê¡ò®ú Eò¤É ¨ÉÉèEòÉ Ê¨É±ÉäMÉÉ*
Madam, the practice of the House is that privilege notice gets precedence over other things. I do not understand taking up any other business.
MR. CHAIRMAN: All right. You may make your submission.
SHRI P.R. DASMUNSI : Madam, I gave the privilege notice today. I would like to make it very clear that the Government, till the last on the issue of Bofors, on many occasions, made a categorical announcement - it was made by this Government, the previous Government headed by Shri Deve Gowda and the earlier Government of Shri Narasimha Rao - about the details to be informed to the House so far as investigations are concerned. The House is on now.
I gave the notice today about how the Director of CBI, day in and day out, being an appropriate agency of the Government who could come and take the House into confidence, has been leaking out news classified and titled as `top secret' partially to the media and thereby bypassing the Parliament without taking the House into confidence. I would like to say about the observation of the hon. Speaker who gave the ruling on 26th February. The Speaker asked the Minister whether the names were being leaked out or not. Then the Minister said:
"There was a lot of kite flying going on. The newspapers were publishing so many things...
Therefore, the CBI thought it proper to inform the country that these were the entire set of names which they have received."
When asked to specify those names, the Minister added:
"They are before everybody."
Then the Speaker's observation was:
"It is, however, not clear why the CBI took an inconsistent stand and thought it proper to disclose the names, which the Parliament, as it turns now, is not entitled to know. This is therefore a serious matter to be taken note of by the Government and appropriate action taken by them under intimation to the House."
This was the Speaker's observation on 26th February on the issue of admissibility of notice of motion under Rule 184 given by Shri Jaswant Singh in this House.
Now, the commitment given by Shri Narasimha Rao was referred by Shri Jaswant Singh again. The commitment was that things will be monitored by him and will be informed to the House. Then, a commitment was made by Shri V.P. Singh which I had quoted in my own speech on 25th February. I quote:
"I would like to assure the House that this matter will be pursued to its logical conclusion keeping the Parliament and the people informed of progress."
And the Law Minister, Shri Ramakant Khalap gave an assurance, when Shri Deve Gowda was the Prime Minister, during his intervention to the debate. The Speaker asked a pointed question as to why CBI disclosed the names. Then Shri Ramakant Khalap told:
"Please allow us to complete the investigation. Please see that the undertaking which we have given to the foreign authority of that country is obeyed and only then, we shall come."
The Law Minister said this in this House.
Now, if the investigation is complete, the House has the right to know about it and the Minister has the duty to inform the House. If the investigation is still classified and marked `top secret', then how is it that a part of that investigation is leaked out in the media? Is Shri Joginder Singh above Parliament? Is the Director's office more than the office of the Prime Minister? Now, I am not in a mood to quote anybody wrongly. There is a news which has appeared in Indian Express today. It is titled `Rajiv named as accused in CBI's Bofors chargesheet' - the poor man who is not alive today. It says that the 300-page top secret Bofors chargesheet is awaiting Government's formal clearance.
"Highly placed sources in the Cabinet Secretariat said today that CBI Director, Joginder Singh has sent the "top secret" Bofors chargesheet for the Government's formal clearance."
MR. CHAIRMAN : Are you quoting from a newspaper?
S HRI P.R. DASMUNSI : Yes, Madam. Everybody quotes from newspapers. Yesterday also, somebody quoted from the newspaper.
"Although Rajiv Gandhi cannot be prosecuted as he was assassinated in May 1991, the CBI's proposed chargesheet holds him guilty of hatching a conspiracy to cause willful loss to the state exchequer and allowing middlemen - Quattrocchi, Win Chadha and unknown persons - to make money.
However, the CBI's 330-page report, proposed chargesheet admits its failure to prove that Rajiv Gandhi himself benefited financially in the gun deal."
The last part is very interesting.
"In fact, it was L. Revennasiddiah, who as head of the Special Investigation Team (SIT) on Bofors got photographs and related evidence to establish Quattrocchi's access with the Gandhi family, Revennasiddiah who was a trusted lieutenant of former Prime Minister H.D. Deve Gowda sought his transfer to Bangalore before the change of guard at the Centre."
I would like to know from the House, whether it is the way to deal with the top secret matters. I am not questioning the bona fides of any gentleman. I am not questioning why Revennasiddiah came. We all know that there are two SITs. One of the SITs was to deal with how Shri Rajiv Gandhi was killed and who killed him. Till this day, the entire nation does not know as to how he was killed. What is the role of SIT? The SIT, however, could not get the benefit of Shri Rajiv Gandhi's presence in the country as he was dead, but it could get some photographs. I know many of the hon. Members, who are sitting here, whose photographs appear with so many other persons. I know a number of persons who have been highlighted in the Bofors gun deal and who have been found with the top leaders in London and Davos only a few months before. This too is revealed by the great lady, Shrimati Chitra Subramaniam, for whom I have great respect.
I would not like to bring those issues here. But is it the way to behave? On the one hand you say, `admit the failures' and on the other hand you say that it is top secret. Yet he is there. I call it witch hunting, a deliberate step to malign and destabilise the whole thing. You can hang anybody you like, we are not to defend here, right from Italy to here, whether it is Quattrocchi, Ram or Rahim. The DG, CBI goes on disposing his responsibility in this manner, taking everything in his hands, defying the Parliament, the Cabinet and the Prime Minister and using the Media like this. I will never blame the Media. The Media has got a right to admonition. Nobody should question the source of Media from where it gets the information. I question the authority of DG, CBI. How can he do it?
It was a solemn assurance of the Law Minister here. It was the observation made by the hon. Speaker here. Therefore, Madam, I think it is a fit case of privilege. As I quoted from the proceedings, this is the way you are treating a man who is not alive. What more can you offer than killing a man in the conspiracy which is yet to be revealed? These things will go on in this country. Somebody would be photographed with somebody else. I would like to know how many persons in this country, who have been photographed with so many people, have been chargesheeted and tried. Is it the way to denigrate the whole system? So, I feel the CBI Director General, Shri Joginder Singh has purposely violated the wilful consent of the House.
The Law Minister replied on the issue of Bofors, on 25th February. There is a very dangerous signal in the report and it says: "The CBI Director General is making hurry to finish all the files and to go". This is a very dangerous thing. He is after how many persons and on what basis, I would like to know. These are the things to be known. I am not questioning the bona fides of the institution. I am not questioning the bona fides of any of the officers. I am only talking about the propriety. The Law Minister and the Cabinet as a whole are collectively responsible. Any classified document, be it a Memorandum of Understanding between two nations, cannot be tabled in the House.
The investigation report should be placed before the House. Three consecutive Prime Ministers informed this to the House. When the House is in session, if such a top secret thing is leaked in this fashion, I think, it is a breach of privilege to the entire House. Therefore, I gave this notice.
MR. CHAIRMAN : The Privilege Motion of Shri P.R. Dasmunsi is received by the Speaker and is under his active consideration for final disposal.
I think, it is time that the Government, before the House rises on Friday, came out with a comprehensive statement on the progress of the investigations. I say so on account of the worries I have. Firstly, I entirely share my good friend hon. Priya Ranjan Dasmunsi's observations that the responsibility for this kind of selective dissemination of information -by whosoever, I am not charging an agency or an individual -- is directly that of the Government. Why do I say so? When the Bofors papers first came to light after the Swiss courts had decided, I recollect the then Prime Minister coming to the House; first, announcing that he would share all the papers with the House; thereafter coming to the House and saying that he could not do so because late that night he had received a fax confirmation from our officials in Geneva that the Cantonal Court of Geneva had declined permission. I was, even then, not sure that that was factually the correct situation. I was not convinced that that was how the situation was. I was then persuaded to move an Adjournment Motion. I recollect the great eloquence with which my senior and very good friend Somnathji argued, even then, against why that Adjournment Motion could not be admitted. I do sincerely hope that in the passage of these months he has changed his mind.
The second reason is that we were told of the Government of Switzerland saying that we cannot share this information. I had my doubts. The Government then said that they will carry out the investigation and then share all the information.
The third assurance, which has been mentioned, was given by the Government that they will look into the information then looked into by the then Government or agencies of the Government, investigate the matter and come back to the House. I think the hon. Priya Ranjan Dasmunsi has quoted that particular assurance of the Minister. The Government has done none of that. I do not know whether they have looked into it. If they have looked into it, then they owe it to us to come and share it with us and say what has happened, what wrong took place then. I rather suspect that they have not bothered to look into it and because they have not bothered, this mistake has been repeated.
My third worry is that now that the Government appointed, what is called a Special Investigating Team (SIT); that SIT has completed its task; that SIT has submitted its report; and that SIT's report is under Indian laws. It is,after all a report that has really found its origin from this Parliament, if the Parliament had not consistently spoken of this issue for the last ten years, we would not have come to the stage of this SIT.
SHRI SOMNATH CHATTERJEE : There would not have been a change of Government also.
SHRI JASWANT SINGH : He is right. It is a sad thing to have to say but a Government with a tremendous majority, in fact, suffered on account of this.
However, the origin of this SIT is this House. Therefore, for an agency of the Government to selectively disseminate information about the SIT; then for no one from the Government to have the courtesy to this House to come and say, "No, no, this is the factual situation. This is the action that we have taken. We will call a meeting of the leaders. They can examine the SIT report in the meeting, if not in the House," is one more area of concern.
14.05.97 Uncorrected--Not for Publication ###
)) Even then, when this Adjournment Motion was moved by me, I had pointed out that only part of the information had come. Two cases are still under appeal. Let us not do anything to jeopardies the proper disposal of those two cases in Geneva or the Federal Court in Berne. There is an addition to that. I am given to inform that in addition to these two appeals, at the last minute, at the very last minute, now in the Federal Court in Berne, there is a late entrant who has also appealed. This House, therefore, has a right to know the factual situation as to where does the legal position of the remaining cases now rests as far as the Appeal Courts of Switzerland are concerned and who is the last entrant? What is the identity of this last entrant? That is why, I repeat, Madam, that it is vital that the Government comes forward firstly with an explanation why they have failed to not yet satisfy the House on account of that first assurance that we will investigate and come back and inform the House? How did that lapse taken place?
Secondly, the Government owes us a total and comprehensive statement on the progress of the investigation so far, particularly the SIT. It is vital that the Government call at least the leaders of the House to sit and discuss the SIT.
Lastly, what is the status of the cases pending at the Appeal Court in Berne and who is the last entrant? This is the very minimum. I had no intentions of joining this but joined because the issue is important. Thank you for giving me this opportunity.
SHRI SHARAD YADAV (MADHEPURA):
¸ÉÒ ¶É®únù ªÉÉnù´É (¨ÉvÉä{ÉÖ®úÉ) : ºÉ¦ÉÉ{ÉÊiÉ VÉÒ, ¨ÉèÆ Ê|ɪɮúÆVÉxÉ nùɺɨÉÖƶÉÒ VÉÒ uÉ®úÉ ªÉ½þÉÆ Ê|ɴɱÉäVÉ EòÉ VÉÉä ºÉ´ÉÉ±É ®úJÉÉ MɪÉÉ, ¨ÉèÆ =xÉEòÒ ¤ÉÉiÉ +Éè®ú =xÉEòÉ VÉÉä iÉEòÇ ½þè, =ºÉºÉä {ÉÚ®úÒ iÉ®ú½þ ºÉ½þ¨ÉiÉ ½þÚÆ*
¸ÉÒ VɺɴÉxiÉ ÊºÉƽþ VÉÒ xÉä <ºÉ ´ªÉÉ{ÉEò ¤É½þºÉ EòÉä ¡òèE]ºÉ Eòä ºÉÉlÉ ®úJÉÉ* ±ÉäÊEòxÉ BEò ¤ÉÉiÉ ¨ÉèÆ +É{ÉEòä ¨ÉÉvªÉ¨É ºÉä ÊxÉ´ÉänùxÉ Eò®úxÉÉ SÉɽþiÉÉ ½þÚÆ ÊEò ªÉ½þ ºÉnùxÉ 90 Eò®úÉäc÷ ±ÉÉäMÉÉäÆ ºÉä SÉÖxÉÉ ½þÖ+É ºÉnùxÉ ½þè +Éè®ú <ºÉ ºÉnùxÉ Eòä ºÉÉlÉ +Éè®ú <ºÉ ºÉnùxÉ EòÉ ÊVÉºÉ iÉ®ú½þ ºÉä +´É¨ÉÚ±ªÉxÉ ½þÖ+É ½þè, ½þ¨ÉÉ®úä +É{ÉºÉ ¨ÉäÆ ¤É½þÖiÉ Êb÷¡ò®úäƺÉäWÉ ½þÉä ºÉEòiÉä ½þèÆ, ¨ÉèÆ ºÉÉäSÉiÉÉ ½þÚÆ ÊEò ´ªÉ´ÉºlÉÉ EòÉä SɱÉÉxÉä Eòä VÉÉä iÉÒxÉ +ÆMÉ ½þèÆ, =xɨÉäÆ ºÉ¤ÉºÉä VªÉÉnùÉ BEòÉ=Æ]õä¤É±É ªÉ½þ ºÉnùxÉ ½þè* ½þ®ú {ÉÉÆSÉ ´É¹ÉÇ ¨ÉäÆ <ºÉEòä ±ÉÉäMÉÉäÆ EòÉä VÉxÉiÉÉ Eòä ºÉɨÉxÉä VÉÉxÉÉ {Éc÷iÉÉ ½þè* <ºÉºÉä ¤Éc÷Ò ºÉiiÉÉ +Éè®ú <ºÉºÉä ¤Éc÷Ò ¶ÉÊEiÉ ªÉÉ ¨ÉäÆb÷ä]õ, ÊEòºÉÒ nùںɮúä EòÉä xɽþÒÆ ½þè* ¨ÉèÆ nùںɮúÉäÆ Eòä +ÊvÉEòÉ®ú EòÒ SÉSÉÉÇ xɽþÒÆ Eò®úxÉÉ SÉɽþiÉÉ, ±ÉäÊEòxÉ <ºÉ ºÉnùxÉ Eòä ºÉÉlÉ ÊVÉºÉ iÉ®ú½þ EòÉ Ê{ÉUô±Éä SÉÉ®ú-{ÉÉÆSÉ ´É¹ÉÇ ¨ÉäÆ ´ªÉ´É½þÉ®ú ½þÖ+É ½þè, ÊVÉºÉ iÉ®ú½þ ºÉä <ºÉ ºÉnùxÉ EòÉ +´É¨ÉÚ±ªÉxÉ ½þÖ+É ½þè, +Éè®ú ÊVÉºÉ iÉ®ú½þ ºÉä <ºÉEòÒ MÉÊ®ú¨ÉÉ EòÉä Eò¨É ÊEòªÉÉ VÉÉ ®ú½þÉ ½þè, ªÉ½þ ±ÉÉäEò¶ÉɽþÒ +Éè®ú ±ÉÉäEòiÉÆjÉ Eòä ʱÉB ¤É½þÖiÉ PÉÉiÉEò SÉÒVÉ ½þè*
¨ÉèÆ +É{ÉEòä ¨ÉÉvªÉ¨É ºÉä ÊxÉ´ÉänùxÉ Eò®úxÉÉ SÉɽþiÉÉ ½þÚÆ ÊEò +ÉVÉ ªÉÚxÉÉ<Ê]õb÷ £òÆ]õ EòÒ ºÉ®úEòÉ®ú ½þè* ¨ÉÖZÉä Eò¦ÉÒ-Eò¦ÉÒ ¨É½þºÉÚºÉ ½þÉäiÉÉ ½þè ÊEò VÉèºÉä ®úɹ]Å{ÉÊiÉ VÉÒ ½þèÆ, =ºÉÒ iÉ®ú½þ ºÉä ªÉ½þ EòèʤÉxÉä]õ ½þÉä MÉ<Ç ½þè +Éè®ú |ÉÉ<¨É ʨÉÊxɺ]õ®ú EòÒ VÉÉä {ÉÉäº]õ ½þè, ªÉ½þ ±ÉMÉiÉÉ ½þè ÊEò ºÉè®úÒ¨ÉÉäÊxÉªÉ±É {ÉÉäº]õ ½þÉä MÉ<Ç ½þè
... (´ªÉ´ÉvÉÉxÉ)
SHRI JASWANT SINGH (CHITTORGARH):
¸ÉÒ VɺɴÉxiÉ ÊºÉƽþ : ¶É®únù VÉÒ, EªÉÉ Eò½þ ®ú½þä ½þèÆ?
SHRI SHARAD YADAV (MADHEPURA):
¸ÉÒ ¶É®únù ªÉÉnù´É : ¨ÉèÆ `öÒEò Eò½þ ®ú½þÉ ½þÚÆ* ¨ÉèÆ Eò½þ ®ú½þÉ ½þÚÆ ÊEò EòÉä<Ç ÊEòºÉÒ Eòä Eò½þxÉä ¨ÉäÆ xɽþÒÆ ½þè, EòÉä<Ç BEòÉ=Æ]õä¤É±É´É ½þÒ xɽþÒÆ ½þè
... (´ªÉ´ÉvÉÉxÉ)
SHRI SOMNATH CHATTERJEE (BOLPUR):
¸ÉÒ ºÉÉä¨ÉxÉÉlÉ SÉ]õVÉÒÇ : xɽþÒÆ, |ÉäºÉÒb÷äÆ]õ EòÉä EªÉÉ ¤ÉÉä±ÉÉ?
SHRI SHARAD YADAV (MADHEPURA):
¸ÉÒ ¶É®únù ªÉÉnù´É : SÉʱɪÉä, ¨ÉèÆ +É{ÉEòÒ ¤ÉÉiÉ ¨ÉÉxÉä ±ÉäiÉÉ ½þÚÆ, ªÉ½þÒÆ ¤Éxnù Eò®úiÉÉ ½þÚÆ* ... (´ªÉ´ÉvÉÉxÉ)
SHRI SOMNATH CHATTERJEE (BOLPUR):
¸ÉÒ ºÉÉä¨ÉxÉÉlÉ SÉ]õVÉÒÇ : EªÉÉ ¤Éxnù Eò®úiÉä ½þÉä?
SHRI SHARAD YADAV (MADHEPURA):
¸ÉÒ ¶É®únù ªÉÉnù´É : xɽþÒÆ, VɺɴÉxiÉ VÉÒ xÉä Eò½þÉ ÊEò <ºÉEòÉä ªÉ½þÒÆ ®úÉäEò nùäÆ*
SHRI SOMNATH CHATTERJEE (BOLPUR):
¸ÉÒ ºÉÉä¨ÉxÉÉlÉ SÉ]õVÉÒÇ : =xÉ ±ÉÉäMÉÉäÆ xÉä iÉÉä +xÉBlÉÒEò±É |ÉäºÉÒb÷äÆ]õ ¤ÉÉä±ÉÉ ½þè*
SHRI SHARAD YADAV (MADHEPURA):
¸ÉÒ ¶É®únù ªÉÉnù´É : ¨ÉèÆxÉä EòÉä<Ç BäºÉÒ ¤ÉäVÉÉ ¤ÉÉiÉ xɽþÒÆ Eò½þÒ, ¨É½þɨÉʽþ¨É VÉÒ EòÒ VÉMɽþ +Éè®ú MÉÊ®ú¨ÉÉ +{ÉxÉÒ VÉMɽþ ½þè* ±ÉäÊEòxÉ BMVÉÒEªÉÚÊ]õ´É <ºÉ {ÉÉʱÉǪÉɨÉäÆ]õ ºÉä iÉÉEòiÉ ±ÉäiÉÒ ½þè*
=ºÉEòä ½þÉlÉ ¨ÉäÆ VÉÉä ¦ÉÒ BEVÉÒEªÉÖÊ]õ´É EòÒ iÉÉEòiÉ ½þè, BEò iÉ®ú½þ ºÉä ¨É®úxÉä Eòä ¤ÉÉnù º´ÉMÉÇ +Éè®ú xÉEòÇ ½þÉäMÉÉ, ±ÉäÊEòxÉ <ºÉ +ÉvÉÉ®ú {É®ú +ÉVÉ +ɱɨÉÉ<]õÒ EòÉ ®úÉVÉ ½þè* ªÉ½þ ®úÉVÉ ½þè, ªÉ½þ ºÉ®úEòÉ®ú ½þè*
SHRI SOMNATH CHATTERJEE : Subject to judiciary!
[NEXT PAGE]