If you want to place any document before the Parliament, it must be an authenticated document as a whole and not for a selective purpose. You advise your investigating agency that if they selectively choose some information and give it out, it is unfortunate. I am ashamed that a man in the highest office defending the border of the nation - before the CBI interrogates - goes to the BBC just to contradict what he said before the JPC. If his statement is so important, the House should be taken into confidence.I plead that please do not leave Congress support or equation with you on the issue of Bofors. We are interested in knowing the truth. The Congress is making its journey. The Congress knows how to manage its own house. Let us not be educated by you. But I would like to tell you that if you feel that there is something, you come out with guts and tell the truth to the entire nation through your investigating agency.
There is only one more submission. Do not delay in bringing out the truth in such a manner that months and years continue to roll in the garb of your committees, leaking out selective information and just pinpointing a target and undertaking raids. That will not be excused.
With these words, I submit to the Government, through you, that let the Government come out with the factual documents and position. And if the Government feels that there is something yet to come, you go or please send your authority to bring other things also. We are not afraid of it. We are not here to defend anybody. We are to defend the truth in the interest of the nation and nothing more.
Sir, I think, I am called upon to basically meet the question whether this motion is admissible. I will request the House to refer to Rule 186 of the Rules of Procedure and Conduct of Business of Lok Sabha.
I would quote Rule 186 sub-rule (viii). It says and I quote:
"In order that a motion may be admissible it shall satisfy the following conditions, namely:-
(viii) it shall not relate to any matter which is under adjudication by a court of law having jurisdiction in any part of India;"
Sir, basically, in my opinion, today the issue revolves on these aspects of the matter. For that purpose, I must mention here that a regular case No. RC/1(a)/90-ACU (4) was registered on 22nd January, 1990 under section 120(B) read with section 5(ii); section 5(i) sub-section (c) and (d) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1947 read with sections 409, 420 and 417 IPC.
SHRI JASWANT SINGH (CHITTORGARH): Mr. Minister, would you kindly yield for a minute?
Sir, it would be totally misleading on the question of sub-judice -
forgive me for my voice - which the hon. Minister is asserting. It is in case of criminal cases; it is when charges are framed in civil cases; it is when issues are framed. In the matter of Bofors, whatever case proper he might cite, no charges have been framed, no issues have been framed. So the Government cannot take the protection of sub-judice in this case.
SHRI NIRMAL KANTI CHATTERJEE (DUMDUM): Sir, let us first hear the hon. Minister.(Interruptions)
SHRI RAMAKANT D. KHALAP: Please listen to me.
This case is pending in the court. A special Judge is supervising the conduct of the investigation of this case. Now, the matter does not end here. These documents were received from the Swiss authorities pursuant to a letter rogatory which we had sent to the Swiss authorities. Now, when this letter rogatory was sent, certain undertakings were given to the Swiss authorities. Prior to that there was a Memorandum of Understanding between the two States.
SHRI SOMNATH CHATTERJEE (BOLPUR): Between the two countries.
SHRI RAMAKANT D. KHALAP: When I say States, I mean between the two sovereign countries. In these undertakings the Government was helped by an eminent lawyer, Shri Arun Jaitly. When the Swiss authorities finally agreed to give us a set of documents, these documents have come under an express condition that they shall not be revealed; they shall not be used for any purpose other than the investigation that is going on in the court. Now, if we agree to the formation of any committee which would have an access to these documents or if we agree to place these documents on the Table of the House then, what would be the consequence?
The first consequence of it would be that the documents have come to the court in India; the court has entrusted these documents to the CBI for further investigation. That means that we would have to inform the court in India. Secondly, we have given an undertaking to the Swiss authorities. The third aspect is that the Swiss authorities are yet to give us further documents regarding this investigation. One more aspect that needs to be seen is that this is not the only case we are pursuing. There are many more investigations which are going on and there are solemn undertakings between the two sovereign countries. If today we violate the undertaking given to the Swiss authorities, with what face could we go again to them and ask for further documents?
Everyone will see that seven long years were needed to obtain this set of document. How many more years should we wait? Every Member has expressed concern that this matter is being dragged on and on. Names are being taken; certain fair names are being tarnished. If this is the concern of every Member, then, would the Members not agree with us that we must abide by the solemn undertakings given to a foreign authority of a country and see to it that the entire investigation is completed as early as possible; documents are given before the court; chargesheets are filed? Then, all the documents are there for everybody to see and know as to what it contains and what it does not contain.
We are not at all interested, in any way, in tarnishing anybody's name. We do not want to hide anything. It is our concern that every aspect of this entire thing must be revealed to the country, but it should be at the opportune time.
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. Therefore, it is very clear that if we go purely by the aspect of the law, in this case the rules do not permit now admitting this particular motion moved by hon. Shri Jaswant Singh. It does not permit us to reveal the documents here. What the Prime Minister had stated here is, if need be, he would request the leaders of different political parties to meet in your Chamber, or in the Chamber of the Chairman, where conditionalities could be explained to you, not that the documents could be shown to you. Nobody has said that the documents would be shown because we cannot show them to you. These conditionalities could be explained to you. The constraints under which the Government is working could be explained to you so that you can understand the aspects which bind us or the problems that we are faced with and therefore, we could come to the proper conclusion.
Under these circumstances, I express the Government's helplessness in agreeing to this request and I vehemently oppose the admissibility of the motion moved by Shri Jaswant Singh.
SHRI NIRMAL KANTI CHATTERJEE (DUMDUM): If only conditionalities are to be explained, they could as well be explained in the House itself. What is there?
MR. SPEAKER: Please sit down Mr. Jos. No more argument please. It has been argued enough. You should now leave the matter to the Speaker. You cannot go on talking.
SHRI NIRMAL KANTI CHATTERJEE (DUMDUM): I raised it yesterday also. I am not going to deliver a speech. My only point is, if only the conditionalities are to be explained before the Leaders, let the whole House know about the conditionalities. No secrecy will be broken. There will not be any violation of understanding with the foreign country. Let the entire House be seized of what the conditionalities are. We will be defending their position only. This is my only request to the Government.
MR. SPEAKER: I do not know whether you heard Mr. Somnath Chatterjee attentively or not.
SHRI NIRMAL KANTI CHATTERJEE (DUMDUM): Yes, I did but despite that I would like to mention this. He has also mentioned about tomorrow's meeting.
MR. SPEAKER: Yes, I was going to say about it.
SHRI NIRMAL KANTI CHATTERJEE (DUMDUM): I have heard both him and the Minister. The Government's position is, nothing else but only the conditionalities will be explained. If that be so, the entire House can be seized of that. We can say that for this reason the Parliament decide that we do not want the document now. We can do that. That is the only request that I am making.
MR. SPEAKER: You have made your point. I would like to make a slight correction.
SHRI SHARAD PAWAR (BARAMATI): Let the Law Minister reply.
SHRI MADHUKAR SARPOTDAR (MUMBAI NORTH-WEST): In that event, why should CBI disclose the names? Is there no restriction on the CBI? It cannot be discussed here but the CBI can leak out the names. Is the CBI above Parliament?
MR. SPEAKER: Has the CBI disclosed the names? I would like to know it officially.
... (Interruptions)
SHRI A.C. JOS (IDUKKI): We are always at the receiving end. ... (Interruptions)
SHRI RAMAKANT D. KHALAP: There was a lot of kite flying going on. The newspapers were publishing so many things ... (Interruptions)
MR. SPEAKER: Please listen to him. I have put a very pointed question and he is answering that with all responsibility.
SHRI RAMAKANT D. KHALAP: Therefore, CBI thought it proper to inform the country that these were the entire set of names which they have received.
SHRI SHARAD PAWAR (BARAMATI): Who are they?
SHRI RAMAKANT D. KHALAP: They are before everybody.
SHRI SHARAD PAWAR (BARAMATI): Why don't you confirm them here and also the conditionalities?
SHRI RAMAKANT D. KHALAP: The hon. Member wants the conditionalities. I will read it:
"The document transmitted and the information contained therein may be used for investigatory purposes or as evidence only in the interest of prosecution regarding an ordinary criminal offence. Any other use of this document and the information contained therein is subject to explicit and previous authorisation of the federal office for police matter."
Therefore, anticipating that such a question would be raised here, we requested the Swiss authorities whether they would allow us to disclose these papers. We have received last night a fax message from them saying that they cannot agree to this proposal of placing these documents on the Table of the House. What more can be said?
SHRI RAJESH PILOT (DAUSA): The total purpose of transparency is defeated by this.
SHRI SHARAD PAWAR (BARAMATI): When CBI has disclosed the names, why do the Government not disclose all the names known to them? We want to know all the names.
SHRI P.M. SAYEED (LAKSHADWEEP): That very statement can be laid on the Table of the House.
MR. SPEAKER: I want to make a slight correction. A little while ago I announced that we spent 48 hours discussing this matter on the floor of this House from 1987 to 1992. But on rechecking I find that it was 60 hours and not 48 hours.
I reserve my ruling on this issue.
[NEXT PAGE]