TEXT :
1424 hrs
MR. DEPUTY-SPEAKER: Now the House will take up Item Nos. 2l and 22 together. First, the Statutory Resolution.
The time allotted is two hours.
Shri P.C. Thomas. Absent.
Shri Basu Deb Acharia.
SHRI BASU DEB ACHARIA (BANKURA): Sir, the promulgation of two ordinances in regard to conferment of statutory status to Central Vigilance Commission shows how in a cavalier manner the Government is functioning.
Sir, within a period of one month, two ordinances were promulgated. Was it not a fact that the ordinance which was promulgated in the month of August was to be lapsed and because of that another ordinance was promulgated? But here an ordinance was promulgated and that was promulgated because of the Supreme Court's direction. That was given long back in the year 1997. After one year, the Government thought to promulgate an ordinance to give Central Vigilance Commission statutory status. But when the ordinance was promulgated we found that a few words were deliberately deleted.
Sir, what the Supreme Court had said in 1997 in its judgment on Vineet Narain's case is known as hawala case. The Supreme Court had said that the selection for the post of Central Vigilance Commissioner shall be made by a Committee comprising of hon. Prime Minister, the Minister of Home Affairs and the Leader of the Opposition from a panel of outstanding civil servants and others with impeccable integrity. This is very important. While the Government shall remain answerable for CBI's functioning to introduce visible objectivity in the mechanism to be established for overviewing the CBI's working, C.V.C. shall be entrusted with the responsibility of superintendence over CBI's functioning. But when the Ordinance was promulgated -- the ----------------------------------------------------------------------------
* Published in Gazette of India, extraordinary, Part-2 Section II dated 15.3.99.
Committee will consist of the Leader of the Opposition and the C.V.C. would be selected from a panel of outstanding civil servants and others with impeccable integrity -these words were deleted. We have seen the reaction of one of the members of the Cabinet, Shri Ram Jethmalani. He immediately reacted that the draft was not shown and the ordinance was promulgated or the draft was finalised without the knowledge of the Cabinet.
The responsibility of preparing the draft was entrusted with the Law Commission.
The Law Commission prepared the draft of the Bill or the Ordinance, and submitted it to the Cabinet. But whatever the Law Commission has suggested there, was not implemented while drafting the Ordinance.
Sir, regarding the Law Commission's Report, we have seen, how this House was kept in dark. We have discussed the Patents (Amendment) Bill on the floor of this House. But one month before it, the Law Commission had submitted its Report recommending to the Government very categorically that `this Report should be sent to the Lok Sabha.' The Law Commission sent its recommendations because they felt it that the Patents (Amendment) Bill would be debated on the floor of the House. If the Law Commission's Report was debated in the House, the hon. Members of this House would have been able to know about its recommendations because there are certain provisions of the Amendment Bill, against which the Law Commission also has expressed serious reservations.
MR. DEPUTY-SPEAKER: Shri Basu Deb Acharia, are you talking about the Central Vigilance Commission?
SHRI BASU DEB ACHARIA : Sir, I am just referring to similiar and identical approach of the Government. This has happened also in regard to Ordinance which was promulgated. The CVC was set up in 1964 after Shri Santanam submitted its Report to the Government of India. What has happened during these years after 1964? The corruptions of Sixties and the corruptions of Nineties are quite different. Sir, at that time, they felt that there should be an institution like the CVC. There also, the Santanam Committee recommended that that institution should be independent of the Government control. But what is our experience during these years, after 1964? The Government exercised its control, rather had its political influence over the CVC. As a result, the impartiality in the action was also hampered, and there was an impact in the impartial functioning of the Central Vigilance Commission.
Sir, when was the first Ordnance promulgated? In 1997, the Supreme Court issued directions to confer the statutory status to the CVC. The Government had enough time to do so without promulgating Ordinance. But now, it has become an Ordinance Raj. Six to seven Ordinances have come in one months's time.
Shri Khanduri, we have never seen earlier as to what you are resorting to, what you are leading to nowadays. You are by-passing the Parliament. You have promulgated the Prasar Bharati Ordinance in order to by-pass this Parliament.
You passed Prasar Bharati Bill here, but you did not take that Bill to Rajya Sabha. Your main purpose to promulgate Prasar Bharati Ordinance is to remove one person Shri Gill, but not to give it an autonomous status. That was the intention and motive behind promulgation of Ordinance in a hurried manner.
1436 hours (Dr. Laxminarayan Pandey in the Chair).
Similarly, when the first Ordinance was promulgated, what was the motive or mala fide intention of this Government? It was to remove one person, Shri Bezbarua from the post of Enforcement Director. He was transferred without giving any reason and by Supreme Court's Order, Shri Bezbarua was to be brought back again. It is our experience to see how cases of corruption which are being looked into by the Special Court in Tamil Nadu are being transferred to the regular court by the Central Government. Is it not interference with the State's affairs? I am just giving an example as to how this Government is functioning and how they are interfering in judicial matters.
SHRI SATYA PAL JAIN (CHANDIGARH): You should speak on CVC, but not on cases like Prasara Bharati which have no relevance to the present topic.
SHRI BASU DEB ACHARIA : Shri Satya Pal Jain, you will answer to all these matters in your reply... (Interruptions) I am just giving an example. (Interruptions) Shri Satya Pal Jain, this is also interference.
What did the Law Commission keep in mind while making the provisions of the Resolution 64 for setting up of CVC? While drafting the legislation, it was stated that the supervision of the CBI and the Directorate of Enforcement as provided in the judgment of the Supreme Court is only additional function directed by the court to be entrusted to the CVC. It does not mean that the existing power and functions of CVC were taken away or intended to be scuttled in any manner. In fact, the idea is to strengthen this institution by giving it a statutory character and entrusting some more functions to it.
SHRI BASU DEB ACHARIA : It is for this purpose of rendering CVC as an effective, fair and competent organ that the court had taken the trouble of giving the aforementioned specific direction. I have already mentioned about it. One of the main objectives behind giving statutory basis to CVC is to get it free from administrative or other control of any Ministry or any other power or body.
When this was first promulgated, Supreme Court had to interfere.
Then, within a gap of one month, another Ordinance was promulgated in order to rectify what the Government did in the first Ordinance. Is there any need for the promulgation of an Ordinance? After the Supreme Court gave its direction in 1995, this Government appointed an independent review committee. That committee also submitted its report.
Mr. Chairman, Sir, you may remember, we were Members of this House at the time we discussed the Vohra Committee Report which was presented in 1993. Shri N.N. Vohra was the Secretary of the Ministry of Home Affairs. He inquired into the nexus between the politicians and the criminals, the mafias. That Committee's Report was discussed here. That Committee also made certain recommendations but since 1993, no tangible action has been taken to implement those recommendations.
We know that there is a nexus between the politicians, the bureaucrats and the criminals. In order to curb this, there is a need for strengthening the institution for an impartial and independent inquiry. For that, the promulgation of an Ordinance was not required. The Government could have come with a Bill, in the winter Session itself or even before that, in the Budget Session. There was enough time to bring a regular Bill but the Government has not brought it.
From the promulgation of the first Ordinance, the intention of the Government was clear. It was that the Government does not want to strengthen this institution; it does not want to implement the direction of the Supreme Court in letter and spirit. This is why, I oppose this Ordinance and I oppose this type of an attempt of the Government to bypass Parliament and the Supreme Court.
SHRI BASU DEB ACHARIA : It was done deliberately and I object to that.
"That the Bill to provide for the constitution of a Central Vigilance Commission to inquire or cause inquiries to be conducted into offences alleged to have been committed under the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 by certain categories of public servants of the Central Government, corporations established by or under any Central Act, Government companies, societies and local authorities owned or controlled by the Central Government and for matters connected therewith or incidental thereto, be taken into consideration."
Mr. Chairman, Sir, the main object of this Bill is to eradicate corruption in public life. This is an attempt by this new Government for the first time in Indian history. Therefore, I hope that the comrade will accept that. ... (Interruptions) Hon. Members, do you accept the purpose of the Bill or not? The purpose of the Bill is to clean the public life. You have spoken as a lawyer. I am not a lawyer but I am only a common man's representative.
The Supreme Court has issued the direction on 18.12.1997. The Gujral Government decided to implement the orders in January, 1998. Then, the Government decided on 7.4.1998 to implement the order, according to the Court direction and gave it to the Law Commission. The then CVC resigned with effect from 9.8.1998 and it became necessary to pass an Ordinance. These matters have been elaborated in the explanation for bringing an Ordinance. All these aspects have been explained.
The Law Commission's Report was received by this Cabinet; there was also a Cabinet meeting and then only, it was done. Further, this Bill was passed on the 7th December and the House wanted it to be referred to the Departmentally Related Standing Committee. As per the wishes of the House, it was referred to the Departmentally Related Standing Committee and the Committee was requested to submit its report before the 16th December; but it was not done and it was submitted only on the 25th February 1999. Therefore, the re-issuance of the Ordinance had become necessary and therefore, the Government's aim and purpose are clear.
Our Comrade Shri Basu Deb Acharia has said something about corruption in some States. I would say that corruption is not prevalent only in one State. Corruption in public life is there right from the days of Shri T.T. Krishnamachary, right from the days of Shri Nehru and Shrimati Indira Gandhi. Corruption is there even in Japan and America. Comrade Acharia was talking about international politics. He wanted to mention about a friend who is sitting in the Southern end of Tamil Nadu.
I would only say that the present Bill would only strengthen the Central Vigilance Commission, as I explained. This Bill was introduced in this House on the 7th December, 1998.
I had given notice to speak in Tamil also. When I want to speak about bribery and corruption, I want to speak in my language Tamil, my mother tongue.
I hail from a party that has committed itself to keep bribery and corruption and to eradicate it without giving any scope. I come from a party that has never yielded to corruption or bribery. I am representing All India Anna Dravida Munnetra Kazhagam founded by our late lamented leader Dr. Puratchi Thalaivi. We all know what the Press had written about us when we forged an alliance with BJP during the elections. Many people said many things about our bold decision.
The Central Vigilance Commission Bill to eradicate corruption brought forward by the BJP coalition Government is a landmark in the national history of India.
After its introduction, the Central Vigilance Commission Bill, 1998 was referred to the Departmently-Related Parliamentary Standing Committee on Home Affairs, under the Chairmanship of Shri Pranab Mukherjee, for examination and report. The Committee had detailed discussions on this Bill. After such detailed discussions, the Standing Committee presented its 51st Report on the Central Vigilance Commission Bill, 1998 to the Parliament on 25th February, 1999.
The Central Vigilance Commission Bill, 1998 contains 27 Clauses. The Standing Committee has adopted 21 Clauses without any change. In respect of the other six Clauses, the Standing Committee recommended or proposed principal changes. After examination of these six Clauses, the Government has accepted the recommendations or proposed changes in respect of five Clauses made by the Standing Committee.
The Standing Committee directed the Government to take a decision on their suggestion that `in the Bill, at all places where the CVC is empowered to supervise the work of CBI or give instructions to CBI, etc., the provision should be in respect of verification, inquiries and investigations conducted by the CBI and not merely one or two of these.' The Government has examined this suggestion of the Committee and it has not been found feasible to accept this suggestion for the reason that since the scope of formal inquiries or verification of facts by the police before registration of a regular case and the scope of the powers exercisable by the police for that purpose are neither defined under the Cr.P.C. nor they are statutorily recognized.
Sir, I may submit here that necessary notice of official amendments in the light of the recommendations made by the Standing Committee to the Central Vigilance Commission Bill, 1998 has already been circulated. The Central Vigilance Commission Bill, 1998 could not be taken into consideration by this House as the report of the Standing Committee on Home Affairs was awaited. In the meantime, the validity of the earlier two Ordinances issued by the President was expiring and it became necessary to promulgate the Central Vigilance Commission Ordinance, 1999 (No.4 of 1999) on 8th January, 1999 in order to give continued effect to the validity of the provisions of the Central Vigilance Commission Bill, 1998.
With the change in the Enacting Formula and the year, for which an official amendment has already been moved, the title of the Bill will become the Central Vigilance Commission Bill, 1999. The Bill has to be passed by both the Houses of Parliament by 18th March, 1999 and assented to by the President before April 4, 1999 when the validity of the Central Vigilance Commission Ordinance 1998 would expire. In view of the urgency involved in the matter, Mr. Chairman, I urge the hon. Members to unanimously pass the aforesaid Bill along with the proposed official amendment.
With these words, I request that the Bill may be considered and passed unanimously along with the proposed official amendment. I request the hon. Member to withdraw his objection. The Bill seeks to remove corruption in public life. So, it should be passed unanimously. It is a record Bill in the history of Parliament, which speaks for purification of not only politicians but also the bureaucrats who are acting above the Executive.
MR. CHAIRMAN : Motions moved:
"That this House disapproves of the Central Vigilance Commission Ordinance, 1999 (No.4 of 1999) promulgted by the President on 8th January, 1999."
"That the Bill to provide for the constitution of a Central Vigilance Commission to inquire or cause inquiries to be conducted into offences alleged to have been committed under the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 by certain categories of public servants of the Central Government, corporations established by or under any Central Act, Government companies, societies and local authorities owned or controlled by the Central Government and for matters connected therewith or incidental thereto, be taken into consideration."