UNCORRECTED NOT FOR PUBLICATION - 1 - TDB-KGG-TDB/1A, 1B, 1C/10.00, 10.10 & 10.20

Proceedings of Orientation Programme for Newly Elected/Nominated Members of Rajya Sabha, held at 10.00 a.m. on 1st August, 2010, in the Main Committee Room, Parliament House Annexe, New Delhi

------ SHRI P. GOPALAKRISHNAN: Hon. Members, today we have a small

presentation on the Rajya Sabha Secretariat by the Secretary-General and the

Secretary, Rajya Sabha. First, I would like to welcome them with a bouquet.

SECRETARY- GENERAL: Good Morning, hon. Members.

The presentation we are going to make, a copy of it has been

circulated. ,

The objective of this Presentation is to familiarize you with the structure and the

functions of the Rajya Sabha Secretariat, and the services offered by the Rajya

Sabha Secretariat to the hon. Members of Parliament. ,

, or, if there is any request you have to make, we have

also given you the names and telephone numbers of persons to contact. If you

want, we can even make it into a CD and give it to you subsequently so that you

can run it on your computers. So, that is the whole purpose of this Presentation.

So, I will run through the whole thing very quickly, so that

, if you have any clarifications to seek, you can ask those questions and

clarifications rather than our taking up the time in making the Presentation.

(Then, the Secretary-General made a Power Point Presentation on the Organizational Structure and Functions of the

Rajya Sabha Secretariat.) (Followed by 1d-kls)

UNCORRECTED NOT FOR PUBLICATION - 2 -

SCH-KLS/10.30/1D/op/1.8.2010

:

- ?

, ,

,

,

, ,

, ,

,

,

,

?

: , - 38 - 138

, which gives the scope of petitions that can be filed. A petition may relate to a

UNCORRECTED NOT FOR PUBLICATION - 3 - Bill which has been published under rule 61 or which has been introduced or in

respect of which notice of a motion has been received under these Bills. So, any

Bill which is introduced or under consideration in the House,- which has been

introduced in the House basically, - after introduction Petitions can be sent.

Whether or not the Committee which is considering the Bill asks for public opinion

or not, sometimes they issue a notice in the newspapers also inviting opinion of

the public. But it can be given. Any other matter connected with business

pending before the Council- anything pending before the Council on that petition

can be given. Any matter of general public interest - provided that it is not (1)

which falls within the cognizance of a court of law or tribunal etc. and the matters

raised which are not primarily the concern of the Government of India. These are

the same rules which we were discussing for the Questions that sub judice

matters, the matters which are in court, whether pertaining to the States or which

can be raised on a substantive motion or resolution just as for removal of Judges,

there is a motion that can be moved. So, on that petition need not be given. If

there is a remedy available in the law or under rules and regulations, you need not

file a petition. If there is a matter and you have filed an FIR, then you need not

come to the Petitions Committee. But all matters under the consideration of the

Council, for that Petitions can be moved. But any matter of general public interest

- so Committees have been taking up matters regarding use of cell phones or

health services, etc. or anything that is primarily the concern of the Government of

India and which is a matter of general public importance, for that petitions can be

submitted. But the Petitions Committee will have to decide what to take up and

UNCORRECTED NOT FOR PUBLICATION - 4 - what not to take up, given their existing workload and time given for doing the

work. But it helps the matter a lot if along with the petition of some citizen, if any

MP also endorses . I mean if a Member of Parliament

recommends then some more weight is attached to that petition. But even

otherwise if the Committee feels it is important, it does not matter from where it

has come from.

SECRETARY: There is one article, article 350 in the Constitution. The Petitions

Committee has taken a view sometime back that any member of the public can

make a representation to Parliament. This article gives a special directive. It

comes under Chapter of Languages. But it says that every person shall be

entitled to submit a representation for the redress of any grievance to any officer

or authority of the Union or State in any of the languages used in the Union or

State, as the case may be. This is about language. But by implications any

authority can be contacted by an individual and he can give his specific grievance

to that body. So, Parliament being a public authority, they can always write and

in such cases the petitions are coming to the Petitions Committee and the

Petitions Committee Sections sees to it that the Petition reaches the right

authority without even bringing it to the notice of the Petitions Committee because

the Petitions Committee has given a general mandate to the Section to do that

work. This is in addition to what is provided in the rules.

SHRI PAUL MANOJ PANDIAN: Sir, I understand that the Committee of Ethics

was established in 1999 and various reports have been submitted. If you are able

to circulate the latest report of the Committee on Ethics, I think it will be useful for

UNCORRECTED NOT FOR PUBLICATION - 5 - the Members. Secondly, I want to know the scope of the Committee on Ethics.

Suppose some reference is made with regard to some person, who is having

personal interest or any other person who comes within the scope of the violation

of the Committee, please elaborate to us on how you will proceed further on that.

SECRETARY-GENERAL: As far as Committee on Ethics is concerned, it is only

concerned with the ethical conduct of the Members not of any other person. If

you have grievance against any Member..

SHRI PAUL MANOJ PANDIAN: Ministers?

SECRETARY-GENERAL: Of course, any Minister, but he has to be a Member of

Rajya Sabha. Regarding the latest report, of course, all the information which is

being presented to you here is available on our website. So, all the Reports of the

Ethics Committee are on the website also. Each Report of the Ethics Committee

deals with a specific issue which was posed before it. So, it will not give you a

total picture of what is being done by the Ethics Committee. It is not in the nature

of the Annual Report giving all the work they have done. It is on a specific issue

which was posed to that Committee. Our experience is that not many issues are

being posed before the Ethics Committee, so it does not give very regular reports.

Once in a while, when some unusual thing happens, then it is required to give a

report. So, I suggest that you can access the information on our Website. In

case if you need any specific report in hardcopy we will be able to supply it.

(Contd by 1E/USY)

UNCORRECTED NOT FOR PUBLICATION - 6 - SSS-DS/1E/10.40/O.P./1.8.2010

THE SECRETARY-GENERAL (CONTD.): So, I would suggest that you can

access the information on the website and in case you need any specific report in

hard copy we will be able to supply it.

DR. ASHOK S. GANGULY: I have suggestion. These charts are so valuable and

so informative that if it were to be converted into a small diary giving all the

information for the Rajya Sabha Members, then, we could carry it with us and use

it as a ready reckoner whenever we wish to it. It is a very valuable thing. I am just

making a suggestion for your kind consideration.

THE SECRETARY-GENERAL: You can take it as done. It shall be done.

: 300

valid 400

by air , by road

by train by road

300 400 allow

../.. , benefit ,

, by air , possible

: , various allowances

, Joint Committee on Salaries and Allowances of

MPs recommendations rules

Government recommend

UNCORRECTED NOT FOR PUBLICATION - 7 - : , 300 allow

: suggestion ,

. : ,

: suggestions ,

. : Orientation Programme request

action suggestion

,

: discuss

decide ,

. :

companion brother sister

: , regular basis

health ground companion

allowed

. : journey

34 journeys allowed spouse 8

journeys allowed , companion ,

companion allow

spouse ,

facilities

UNCORRECTED NOT FOR PUBLICATION - 8 - SHRI DEEPAK GOEL: The position is that except for journeys by air there is no

provision to accommodate as companion. companion

facilities , But if the Member wants to take in

place of a spouse somebody, then, that additional person who can accompany

the Member. But this facility is not available in case the Member is travelling by

air. In case a Member is travelling by air and he wants to take a companion with

him, then, the companion will be utilizing the 34 journeys which are available to

the Member in a year. So, it boils down to only eight journeys if we take four

sessions in a year. That is the net stake which is there and the change will bring

about only this much effect.

DR. VIJAYLAXMI SADHO: But is it included in my 34 air journeys?

: 34 journeys companion

. : as a

Member ?

SHRI DEEPAK GOEL: It will bring an impact of the present position.

: 34

- recess Winter and

Monsoon Session - - journeys

loss suggest ,

,

: ,

Member of Parliament - ,

,

UNCORRECTED NOT FOR PUBLICATION - 9 -

autonomous body

Govt. of India ?

Govt. of India

?

?

,

Govt. of India ?

: , , autonomous body

-

, - ,

Govt. of India , Govt. of India

Rules & Regulations, Salary and Allowances

facilities ,

, adopt structure of

salary , Pay Scales , Govt. of India

, basis decide ,

tradition -

-

employees representation consider

, basis ,

UNCORRECTED NOT FOR PUBLICATION - 10 - day to day Govt. of India employees ,

, connection ,

deputation

deputation

Thank you very much. We will have a slightly longer coffee break. So, you

are welcome to join us for coffee. The next session is by the hon. Leader of the

Opposition. So, I would request the hon. Members to come back by 11.10 so that

we can start the next session. Thank you.

-------

(The Orientation Programme then adjourned for tea)

-SSS/NBR-NB/1F/11.10.

Orientation Programme resumed after Tea-break

(CONTD. BY USY "1G")

-NBR-USY/1G/11.20

THE SECRETARY-GENERAL: It is my privilege to welcome Shri Arun Jaitley, the

Leader of the Opposition in Rajya Sabha, who is going to share his views on the

theme 'Role of the Leader of the of the House and the Leader of the Opposition'.

Shri Jaitley, who is an eminent lawyer and an enchanting speaker, needs no

introduction. Shri Jaitley had been elected in April, 2000 and has been re-elected

in 2006. As a Union Cabinet Minister, Shri Jaitley had held various portfolios,

including that of Ministry of Information and Broadcasting, Department of

Disinvestment, Ministry of Law, Justice & Company Affairs and Shipping. He

has been the Leader of the Opposition in Rajya Sabha since June, 2009. By virtue

UNCORRECTED NOT FOR PUBLICATION - 11 - of his being the Leader of the Opposition, he is the most appropriate person to

speak on the topic of this session, namely, 'Role of the Leader of the House and

Leader of the Opposition'.

Now, I request Shri Jaitley to share his views on the subject with this

august assembly.

THE LEADER OF OPPOSITION (SHRI ARUN JAITLEY): Thank you very much,

Mr. Secretary-General, for having invited me during this two-day meeting, as I

would call it, of the more recent Members. I think, a large number of Members,

whom I have met, and I find present here, have already been very active in their

own fields in the States. Some of them have been in the legislatures earlier. And,

from their overall knowledge of public affairs in India, there is not very much that I

may be able to add to that. But I will try to be very brief in my opening comments.

Thereafter, I think, a detailed interaction would make it a little more interesting.

We have a bicameral system; and, therefore, we necessarily must have a

Leader of the House in both the Houses. In a parliamentary democracy, the

majority party, in Parliament, is led by the Prime Minister. So, it is only logical that

of whichever House the Prime Minister is a Member, the Prime Minister himself will

be the Leader of the House in that particular House. There is no constitutional bar

on the Prime Minister being a Member of either House. There have, curiously,

been two occasions in India where, for a brief period, the person chosen was not

a Member of either House. And, therefore, you wait for a little while till the Prime

Minister gets elected because the Constitution permits a six-month's period for

any member of the Council of Ministers, including the Prime Minister, to get

UNCORRECTED NOT FOR PUBLICATION - 12 - elected to either House of Parliament. Shri Narsimha Rao had not contested in

the 1991 elections, but he became the Prime Minister and got elected to the Lok

Sabha, a little later. Similarly, Mr. Deve Gowda, who, at that time, was,

probably, the Chief Minister of Karnataka, became the Prime Minister. And, when

he became the Prime Minister, he got elected to the Upper House, a few days

later. There is some debate that when a Prime Minister is not a Member of either

House during that six-month's hiatus, or, that six-month's may be reduced to

two months or three months, can a non-member be the Leader of the House?

Some State Assemblies have through out tested it and said, "Yes, he can be".

But I seriously have doubts whether a non-member, for that period, can be the

Leader of the House. But that is an academic question. The Leader of the

House, certainly, is the most important functionary of the House, after the Chair.

The Leader of the House leads the agenda. And, Parliament is a forum in which

Governmental business is very important. Legislation is, probably, the most

important function of Parliament. Besides legislation, there are several statutory

resolutions and decisions that are required. And, therefore, that part of the

agenda, prior to the commencement of the Session, is really a leadership to be

provided by the Leader of the House himself. He must make sure that the

Government gets the necessary mandate of the House, and that all governmental

business is cleared because if there is a logjam and the governmental business is

not cleared, there would be several effects that would take place. There is a

policy to be implemented through a legislation, but the legislation is not passed

and, therefore, that particular Ministry is waiting. Every morning we see the

UNCORRECTED NOT FOR PUBLICATION - 13 - Ministers moving resolutions that so and so is elected to the Tea Board or the

Coffee Board or any other such body. These are all autonomous independent

boards. But they are linked to Parliament through parliamentary representatives.

And, those representatives, on the pro rata basis, represent both, the ruling party

and the Opposition. That is indirectly a parliamentary control also. Even when a

simple thing, like, laying papers on the Floor of the House, takes place, I always

find that it is taken very non-seriously because after the Question Hour the

Members and the Ministers start leaving and Ministers are getting up and laying

papers. But laying papers itself is an extension of parliamentary control. There

are various decisions which the Government has taken in those documents that

are laid. They are brought to the knowledge of Parliament that this is what the

Government has done. But because we, being very busy, don't even bother to

look at those papers. But if we have time and look at them, we will have an

opportunity to raise that in the House. That is also parliamentary control. Now,

the main job of the Leader of the House is to see that the business is carried out.

So, either himself or through his deputy or through the Parliamentary Affairs

Minister, he has to interact with the Chair; he has to interact with the Opposition;

he has to interact with all his supporting parties; he has to manage the mandate

for the Government in the House itself. And, that is his function.

Originally, the Parliamentary convention was that the Leader of the House

should ordinarily be present during the Question Hour. But I find, increasingly,

what is happening is that the Leaders are present. But my own experience is that

it is a practical difficulty. Prime Ministers have got overburdened -- foreign

UNCORRECTED NOT FOR PUBLICATION - 14 - visitors, foreign visits, and so on and so forth. Even though we have an External

Affairs Ministry, a lot of Foreign Policy, being pursued, is done by the Prime

Ministers. And, a lot of his time gets into those. Then, there are public

responsibilities; various ministerial responsibilities; guiding Ministries. When

governmental functions used to be relatively lesser, I hear from seniors, that Pt.

Nehru, etc. made it a point to be in the House most of the time, at least, during all

the debates. Today, the Andhra MPs or the Karnataka MPs or the Punjab MPs,

will say that they want to call on the Prime Minister, and the Prime Minister must

be available. So, this has been extended that if he is not available in the House,

he must, at least, be available in Parliament. And, that is how the parliamentary

structure is designed.

(Contd. by 1h -- PK)

-USY/PK/11.30/1H

SHRI ARUN JAITLEY (CONTD.): During the Session, the Leader must be in the

Chamber, that is, the House, or must be available in the vicinity of Parliament.

Therefore, during Parliament Session, the Prime Minister conducts even Cabinet

meetings in Parliament premises. He leaves, normally, when the House is about

to leave. Even foreign visitors call on him there. Therefore, he has to be present

in the Chamber or around to know what is happening. There are some rights

which you Members have, where Parties have no role. The Question Hour is the

Members' hour. Parties do not tell which Members will ask and which Members

will not ask. When you raise your hand to put a Supplementary, that is your

individual discretion. In a long debate on a Bill, it is your Parliamentary leaders

UNCORRECTED NOT FOR PUBLICATION - 15 - who give names of the speakers on behalf of the Party; nobody else can speak.

That is guided by the Parties. But the Question Hour, for example, is the

Members' Hour. Even Zero Hour, at times, is Members' Hour, though Parties in

a structured manner take a stand. The Private Members' Business is, entirely, a

Private Members' business. No Party, normally, tells a Member what stand to

take. Then, we have made a convention and it is a good convention that there are

no whips in the Committees. So, in the Committee, you can freely express

yourself. That is why, those Committee proceedings are not reported outside.

The Prime Minister will be a Leader in one House and there will be a Leader in the

other House. So, he really has to allow space for the Members and the

Opposition also. The Opposition Parties may say that we want to raise these six

issues in the House this time. So, Parliament has a space for Governmental

business, it also has a space for the Opposition Business. Then, MPs from

various States, in relation to their Constituencies, want to raise their issues. They

want to raise issues which concern their States. A Member of the minority

community will say, "Well, this incident has happened; I want to raise this." A

woman Member will say, "This atrocity has taken place; I want to raise this."

Therefore, a space has to be carved out for various interests and the ideal

Parliamentary functioning is, don't shut out anyone. There is a huge debate in the

society which goes on: Is Parliamentary obstructionism a Parliamentary tactic?

But, then, the answer to that is, allow space in Parliament for all kinds of

conflicting opinions. That is why they say one of the greatest strengths of Indian

Parliamentary democracy is that people from different regions, people from

UNCORRECTED NOT FOR PUBLICATION - 16 - different tribes, people of different linguistics and people with different ideologies

are there. Let us say, if a State has a separatist group, it should be allowed to

speak in Parliament. I remember, in one of the terms, one of the Lok Sabha

Members clearly wanted to advocate a separatist thought. So, when he used to

speak, the implicit understanding between the other Parties was, pin-drop

silence, allow him four, five minutes to say his point. If you obstruct him, it

becomes a bigger issue. Then, it leads to a conflict. So, when he used to speak,

we used to maintain pin-drop silence. Therefore, the Leader of the House has to

make sure how the agenda gets adjusted. If you squeeze any group out of that

agenda, it might lead to disruption. Because those whom you don't allow space

will, then, complain. So, this is the predominant function of the Leader of the

House. He has to guide the House in that direction.

The second part, I think, and which is important is that he has to be

available in or outside the House in Parliamentary precincts to hear the views of

the Members, who want to say something. So, he has to be accessible.

I think, the third thing which is extremely important in his own Parliamentary

performance is, the Leader should be able to inspire the whole House. He is the

Leader of the Party in power, but we don't say 'Leader of the Congress Party'.

We call him the Leader of the House. So, in a sense, there is a dichotomy that

even though he is elected by the Ruling Party, we call him the Leader of the

House, and he has to represent that spirit. And, his strength is, from a Party

leader, can he evolve himself to the status of a Statesman? Can he raise the level

of every debate? Can he inspire the whole House? And, with all these factors,

UNCORRECTED NOT FOR PUBLICATION - 17 - here, I have a little personal view. I have been seeing over the last few decades

now -- it is not now -- we have had some great Prime Ministers, we have had

some great leaders, who are not Prime Ministers but the Leader of the other

House. There is a lot of Governmental burden, as I have said, on some of them.

As a result of this, some very inspiring leaders may be the Leaders of the House,

but the pressure falls on them to get into Parliamentary exercise. They do not

answer questions in the Question Hour. They allow their junior colleagues to do it.

Because the burden is so much on the Leader that he prefers to treat

Parliamentary functioning as secondary. And, most interventions are being read.

Now, a 'read intervention' may be a very good prose, but I think the impact is

very, very different. The Westminister in England is regarded as the mother of all

Parliament in Parliamentary democracy. If any one of you happens to be in

England on a Wednesday, go to the House of Commons at 12 o'clock. Get your

pass made. Make a request to them or ask your High Commission to help you

look at it. There, Parliament meets about eight months in a year. From 12 to

12.30, is called the PMQ, that is, the Prime Ministers' questions. So, all news

channels live telecast it. According to me, it is one of the greatest inspirers of

how Parliamentary democracy functions. Unlike here, there is no advance notice

of a question to the Prime Minister. The convention is that you won't ask things

which are 20 years old but you can ask the things which are of the last one week

or ten days, contemporary. The Prime Minister will be sitting with his notes. The

Leader of the Opposition is, normally, given preference to ask first. He may ask

one or two supplementary. You have to keep your question to 20 seconds.

UNCORRECTED NOT FOR PUBLICATION - 18 - Those 30 minutes is a thriller. Nobody reads. The whole debate on the channels,

then, is who scored the point today. And, even if one does not get an opportunity

to go there, see it live on channel. That is an exemplary Question Hour, as I said.

If anybody gets a chance to see it, you must see it. There are instant polls which

are conducted on channels by the evening. So, the Speaker is very fair. He will

allow the front benchers to raise half the questions. Then, he picks up stray

people from the back benches and say the lady will ask; so and so will ask.

(Contd. by PB/1J)

-PK/PB/1J/11.40

SHRI ARUN JAITLEY (CONTD.): And then people are rated as to who raised the

most outstanding question which really floored the Prime Minister today. So, there

is humor, there is wit, there is sarcasm, there is criticism and there is also a hit

back by the Prime Minister. I think we have to really think in terms of moving to

that situation when we deal with our Parliament. Sometimes it happens in our

Question Hour. But that is really a little distance away where we have to go to.

On the Leader of the Opposition, there are two views. Most textbook

authors in India and constitutional experts say that it is relatively an easier job

because your main job is really to floor the Government. But if you read some of

the British comments, Prime Minister Macmillan used to say that it is probably a

more difficult job. Does it require merely a criticism? It is very easy to do that. It

is easy if your only job is to make a speech, find a loophole, score a point and sit

down, but then you have to be concerned with another fact, i.e., what would I do

tomorrow? It is because the Opposition is a shadow Government. What would I

UNCORRECTED NOT FOR PUBLICATION - 19 - do tomorrow if I were in Government? Take any issue. The Opposition can get up

and make a very forceful emotive speech on what is happening in Kashmir. He

can embarrass the Government or the Prime Minister or the Home Minister on the

Maoist policy. But will you walk these words or will you eat these words if you are

in power three years from now? The general tendency in an Opposition is that

today its job is to embarrass. Prime Minister Macmillan used to say that the job of

the Leader therefore is to do a balancing act and the balancing act is that like the

Leader of the House, he also has to evolve to a situation where he must rise up,

be prepared, make frontal attacks where they are to be made but then there are

crucial issues where he may have to stand one with the Government. It is because

that will be your position if tomorrow you are in power. Now, the job of the Leader

of the Opposition is difficult in another sense that the Leader of the House

normally being a part of the Government has a lot of governmental set-up, civil

servants, secretariat to brief him on the smallest facts. Governments have a huge

amount of data, a huge amount of facts and a huge amount of statistics. The

Opposition parties don't have a secretariat of that kind and therefore one has to

evolve his own information system to collect it. A Member can say, 'I specialize

on these three issues,' but the Leader can't say this. None of us can claim to be a

master of all subjects and if you are not a master of all subjects, then we must

have the humility to accept it. The three important things are: (a) you must read,

you must read a lot; (b) you must have a research kind of cell, however big or

small, attached to you; and (c) what is important is, you must be hugely

accessible. People come to you from all over. Who are those who brief you? It is

UNCORRECTED NOT FOR PUBLICATION - 20 - not the newspapers alone. If there is something happening in Department 'x', you

must know that a disgruntled officer will pass the information out. There is one

great strength in Indian democracy and I think this is one of our greatest

strengths. Nothing in India remains a secret. So, those who indulge in

misdemeanors and improprieties must always remember that there is something

hidden somewhere which is only waiting to get out and it is only a matter of time

that it gets out. Therefore, you must be accessible; you must be extrovertous;

you must reach out to people. If it is a nuclear deal or Indo-Pak talks, you must

know who are the strategic experts. You must make your own assessment with

them; you must invite people with diametrically opposite views and take briefing

from them. If it is a Budget, you can't claim to be an expert on every entry or

every item. Therefore, from trade unions to the Chambers of Commerce, you

must have associations of various people. This is your constituency and therefore

you have to hugely prepare from there.

I think coordinating with the rest of the Opposition is also important. There

are issues on which the entire Opposition agrees and there are issues on which

they don't agree. Then there is another important job of coordinating with the

Leader of the House or his representative. It is all right that you take so much time

but you can't tell the Government that only my business will be discussed and

your legislative business will be squeezed out. Therefore, you have to rise to the

occasion to do that and just a sentence that I said about the Leader of the House

would apply to the Leader of the Opposition as indeed to every Parliamentarian.

You have to evolve with every day of your stay in Parliament. I remember

UNCORRECTED NOT FOR PUBLICATION - 21 - somebody advising me when I was a new entrant in Parliament. He said, 'try and

concentrate on issues, not on persons.' Unless there is some huge scandal and it

is necessary to name somebody, it should be avoided. I will illustrate with an

example though I am diverging a little bit from the title of the subject. You get, on

behalf of your party, thirty minutes to speak. In the first five minutes, if I stand up

and start attacking somebody by name and state all kinds of nasty things about

him, well that gentleman's party is going to get up and my speech will be

obstructed. I will speak in tits and bits and the whole coherence of my speech will

be destroyed. I speak twenty-five minutes on the issue and if I have to take a dig

on an individual, I just spend the last three minutes in doing that. I have had my

say. So, I am not getting into names but I find there are some people even today

who concentrate on personalities and always get distributed in the first two-three

minutes of their speech and are never able to complete it. Therefore, your test as

a Parliamentarian is never going to be how many of your speeches got

obstructed. Your test is going to be how much were you are able to deliver and

therefore you gain nothing by just concentrating and abusing individuals and

criticizing individuals. I think this is an important function.

When I said, you have to rise from an ordinary debater to a statesman, the

Leader of the House and the Leader of the Opposition must follow this principle.

There will be occasions when you have to get into some kind of political and

frontal attacks but they can be done in any language in the choicest of good

vocabulary. There can be humor, there can be sarcasm, there can be wit which

everybody enjoys the way you have said it. But if you do it in a crude manner, then

UNCORRECTED NOT FOR PUBLICATION - 22 - even your own party will say, 'well, he went a bit too far.' And, then somebody

will make you stand up and withdraw those words and cut a sorry figure. I think

leading by example is important. It is these two principal officers of the House who

have to start this and then the others will try and emulate them and follow that

illustration. These are institutions and I think the stature of these institutions will

depend on the way individuals who sit in those positions conduct themselves. I

think one of the very important factors to be borne in mind also is that Parliament

will have confrontations.

(Contd. by 1k/SKC)

1k/11.50/op/01.08.2010/skc-asc

SHRI ARUN JAITLEY (Contd.): But then, resolution of those confrontations is

one of the strengths of our democracy. Therefore, how do you find a solution for

this? We cannot have the system permanently in a traffic jam. We have to find a

way out to move our vehicles forward. At times, Members have the tendency to

raise and to highlight an issue and so, exaggerate. When we try to exaggerate,

the next time we speak, we are not taken seriously. My suggestion would be the

opposite of what happens in politics. Understatement is a virtue. And, therefore,

if you understate your point, you will never face that embarrassment. An over-

statement may draw a momentary clap, but it is likely to get exposed very soon.

There is never a last day in the calendar of politics because you would be judged

by what you say today five days or even two years later. I think it is these offices

where the office-holders have to maintain their dignity and set an illustrative

example for the rest of the House to follow.

UNCORRECTED NOT FOR PUBLICATION - 23 - I think I have taken more time than I should have. I would like to leave more

time for discussion.

: , -

,

Chairman , -

, informally

?

:

,

, , ,

, , : , I

think, the circle is moving on. He is the best judge of whom to call. We can't

comment on that, but that tradition is still in existence.

SHRI TARUN VIJAY: Sir, you have described a lot about the British

parliamentary tradition. You have been a distinguished parliamentarian for the last

many decades. Have we been able to establish a single example in our

parliamentary journey of the last six decades which can be exemplified to the

British and we could say, "Hey! You British, can you behave the way we Indians

behave in India?" Secondly, have you found that the quality and level of Indian

Parliamentary debates has deteriorated over the years or has it maintained the

status?

SHRI ARUN JAITLEY: I would answer both your questions. Unfortunately, what

seems to have happened is that the character of the Indian media has changed in

UNCORRECTED NOT FOR PUBLICATION - 24 - the last two decades. The change in character is because you have a proliferation

of news channels, there is competition for TRPs, and so on. Today, as far as

media is concerned, the definition of the word 'News' has changed. News is

what the camera can capture. What the camera cannot capture is no longer

News. This has seriously eroded the concept of a fair parliamentary reporting.

Now, Zero Hour is the heart and soul of the Indian Parliament. Zero Hour

is Members' Hour. Issues of public importance are raised. Members overtake

each other in raising these issues. There is a lot of excitement in the Zero Hour.

There is noise, there are confrontations and walk outs, and then they come back

to the House. Zero Hour is a lovely hour to be captured by the media because

exchanges and confrontations take place. And for the poor Indian viewer Zero

Hour is the only thing that happens in the Parliament. Unfortunately, that is not

so. You had asked if we can show the British something. I witnessed the Prime

Minister's Question Hour in the British Parliament, and I would say that it is an

exemplary Question Hour. It is a thriller. But there are several areas where we do

not lag behind; in fact, we may be ahead of them. For example, in Britain, they

are very particular about timing and they have to stick to the clock. I have found

from watching their proceedings that most Members read their speeches. Now,

when most Members read their speeches, Parliament becomes a very boring

exercise. If you were to get somebody to write and read his prepared speech, the

value of that parliamentary performance goes down. That is still happening in

Britain in both Houses of Parliament. But that does not happen in our Parliament.

In fact, we have a rule that we do not allow people to read. In the case of new

UNCORRECTED NOT FOR PUBLICATION - 25 - Members the Chair is liberal but people are advised to get out of their reading

habit as soon as possible. Also, their attendance is much worse than ours. If you

go to the House in England, you will find only the next line of speakers sitting in

the House. The attitude is, 'today is not my subject; I will mark my attendance

and go away'. Our situation is not so bad. I think there are three areas where the

quality of the Indian Parliament is better. I think we have a good question Hour. It

is a Members' Hour and it is something more than the Members asking questions

and the Ministers answering. I can tell you from my personal experience; I read the

answers everyday even though I dont ask them and I always tear out one or two

sheets from the answers or take it from the desk outside for my own record. You

may have various data, like whether the crime rate of India is increasing or

decreasing, how fast the national highways are moving ahead or going down,

what is the spread of literacy, and so on. These are information of great value.

Tomorrow you may want to speak on an issue and prepare for it. So, you must

always keep a record. You must have a folder for yourself. You could file

information that you get. Every day, from the answers which are given in the

House, I find, at least, two or three answers that are useful for future record and

are subjects which we are interested in. Zero Hour, of course, is the excitement

hour of Parliament. There are a number of legislations, some of which are

controversial, and political debates on issues of current importance. In every

debate you would find that three or four speakers out of the 20-30 speakers who

have spoken, if I have to grade them, would be in the 'very good' class. One man

may be in the 'excellent' class also. Now, unfortunately what happens, and this is

UNCORRECTED NOT FOR PUBLICATION - 26 - something which frustrates all of us, is that you decide to deliver a speech on

some issue for which you have worked for five hours -- you sat in the library, got

research assistance, got your facts and notes -- and the next day you find that

only the man who behaved in an outlandish manner in the Zero Hour is all over the

media, and this great act of scholarship that you indulged in has gone unnoticed.

Now, this is the reality of the Indian media. People think that you never made this

great speech and that it was only that man who behaved in an outlandish manner

who did so. Tomorrow you might say, 'What is the point in doing this'?

(Contd. at 1l/hk)

HK-MCM/1L/12.00

SHRI ARUN JAITLEY (CONTD.): My constituency will know that I am in

Parliament and I am doing something. So, let me create a scene tomorrow. This

seems to be happening. I can suggestion you one solution. If you have your own

website -- today MPs should normally have one -- or your party has it or you use

the e-mail facility, make a small note of your 20-minutes speech and just e-mail it

to all the relevant newspapers which are relevant for your purpose and which are

relevant in your constituency or in your State and you will find some people picking

it up and keep a record of them. That will be available for the public display that,

at least, you have done it. We can't runt he media; we can't change their habits.

But I think some of our debates are very serious. Our Question Hour is very good,

our attendance is much better than the British Parliament and most of our

Members don't read.

UNCORRECTED NOT FOR PUBLICATION - 27 - DR. ASHOK S. GANGULY: I have a question and an observation. The question

is: The Leader of the Opposition has a rank of a Cabinet Minister and, therefore,

the facilities that are required for him or her to conduct the role is provided, I

imagine, under the definition of Cabinet rank. That was the purpose of giving the

Cabinet rank. It is recognizing the importance of office and providing the facilities

that are required for the person to conduct House. Am I wrong in assuming that

in reality this is not so? That was the question. My observation is: Although the

popular television channels only show the turmoil in the House. I image, we are

unique in having television stations dedicated to the proceedings of the House

and I cannot imagine any other country doing that. If that is a fact, many

thoughtful people, from time to time, switch on the Rajya Sabha and Lok Sabha

Channels and get a reasonable understanding of what is happening. Even though

in recent times there has been a lot of disappointment by way of disruption and

shutting down of the House, whatever may be the reason, there is an under-

current of understanding that when serious business is conducted it is done

seriously. I just wanted to say that we need not despair at the hyper ventilating

Press that is going from bad to worse in this country because thoughtful people

still have access to news which is more authentic. What would be your comments

on this?

SHRI ARUN JAITLEY: I just give you a brief response to both. I had an occasion

to recently study this whole business of a Cabinet rank and so on. The history

was that there was a Lok Sabha practice of recognizing the Leader of the

Opposition provided his party or the group that they form had a strength of 10 per

UNCORRECTED NOT FOR PUBLICATION - 28 - cent of the total strength of the House. There was no such practice in the Rajya

Sabha. The Rajya Sabha created the institution of Leader of the Opposition for

the first time in 1969 and that is when the Congress broke up in the split and

Congress (O) was formed and a large number of Rajya Sabha Members of the

ruling party went to Congress (O). Mrs. Gandhi was the Prime Minister. Then

the post of Leader of the Opposition in Rajya Sabha was created. This whole

concept of institutionalizing the office came when Mr. Morarji Desai became the

Prime Minister in 1977. What they did was you had a legislation passed in 1977

and it was called Leader of Opposition (Salary & Perquisites) Act. Some States,

particularly West Bengal, had this Act earlier. So, all States also started passing

this Act. What they did was that the Leader of the Opposition under this Act gets

the same salary, status, perquisites and facilities as that of a Cabinet Minister and

the Cabinet Minister's salary and perquisite are governed by 1953 Act. The

advantage of this is that he is able to create staff around him. Otherwise, he has

to privately hire people for his work. The consequence of this is that it becomes a

full time job. If you are a Leader of the Opposition, you cannot do any other

business or any other profession. I stopped practicing and surrendered my

licence when I became the Leader of the Opposition. Suppose I am drawing a full

time salary here and conducting another job somewhere else, there can be a

conflict of interests situation on various issues. Though there are two views

whether this is the correct position in law but my own reading has been that both

conflict of interest and the fact that you cannot do two jobs at the same time is the

intention of the Act. That is a small issue.

UNCORRECTED NOT FOR PUBLICATION - 29 - Your observation was with regard to the media. I think the creation of Lok

Sabha and Rajya Sabha Channels have done a lot good. Media can report its

own tit bits of what goes on in Parliament. You have political workers in the

country. The whole constituency and political viewers of all parties and media

offices are people who watch these two channels and, therefore, when you travel

across the country you will be told that I heard that speech of yours. Earlier that

privilege was not available to us. I think that is good that these two channels are

doing and, therefore, if their connectivity is increased further it will be good

because the seriousness of Parliament in the debate will be available to those who

want to appreciate that seriousness.

0 : ,

20

- 10

, ,

?

:

0 :

: ,

, ,

,

30 ,

UNCORRECTED NOT FOR PUBLICATION - 30 -

-

,

16, 17 18

, ,

,

30 , ,

.......

(1m/LP :)

KSK/LP/12.10/1M

SHRI ARUN JAITLEY (contd.): Ask your questions in brief; don't make a speech.

The answer must be critique. It must give the necessary facts. It is not a general

knowledge quiz that the Minister must tell you that he knows everything about the

subject.

. : ,

? ,

:

, , , ,

. : , ..( )..

UNCORRECTED NOT FOR PUBLICATION - 31 - : , knee-jerk reactions

conventions ,

SHRI BAISHNAB PARIDA: In spite of all our ideal arrangements and procedural

things, gradually, the functioning of both the Houses is deteriorating due to lot of

disruptions, adjournments. All these things are growing and this is creating very

negative impact on the minds of our people and also affecting the image of the

Parliament. So, since you are a very able and experienced parliamentarian, what

is your suggestion for solving this problem?

SHRI ARUN JAITLEY: I have always felt that the Parliament is a forum where

contentious issues must be sorted out. It is a forum for contentious issues. It is

not a forum where debates can be avoided. It is a forum where debates must be

held. Now, if we, at any stage, erode the space for these parliamentary tactics,

whether it is debate or it is expression of parliamentary opinion in certain matters,

it leads to a confrontation. Now, some parliamentary obstructionism can be a

part of legitimate parliamentary tactic; that I want to highlight an issue and it gets

highlighted both, by debate and obstructionism, provided the issue you want to

highlight is the issue of such gravity. You can't do it on trivia. But, you are right,

if disruption exceeds a point, then it raises serious questions. I think, the strength

of India's Parliament is like their Indian democracy - its resilience. Even after

confrontations, you will find that the as and when the impasse gets over, the

Parliament itself takes care of it. You will all have to sit till late evenings. You will

all have to sit late to make up for the lost time so that the debates which we have

lost, the legislations or the issues which we have not been able to handle, we are

UNCORRECTED NOT FOR PUBLICATION - 32 - necessarily compelled to sit beyond our time and do it. We do it all the time.

And, ultimately, the Parliament has its own dynamics; it will take care of it. You

will never have a situation when debates won't occur indefinitely.

SHRI K.N. BALAGOPAL: For new-comers particularly, this first week was really a

bad experience except for yesterday and today, where we could use time

productively. I was thinking that if we could have mock sessions where we could

understand the entire parliamentary procedure practically.

SHRI ARUN JAITLEY: I am told that there are CDs of all proceedings which are

available to you. But, I don't think you should so easily get disheartened. You will

soon find a lot of very good action to take place. It will happen very soon. And,

this disappointment of first week is also a learning experience.

SHRI K.N. BALAGOPAL: One more area regarding this Office of Profit. We are

not getting clarity, particularly the business people. I come from business

background. I do not think there is any procedure where we get advance ruling.

SHRI ARUN JAITLEY: You have a procedure. You have a Joint Committee on

Office of Profit, and if there is any dispute that arises, or, any apprehension that

arises, the Joint Committee gives its ruling to you.

SECRETARY-GENERAL: You can make a request that I want to take up this

job, is it okay? Basically, private sector jobs are excluded.

SHRI ARUN JAITLEY: You must remember that even though private sector is

excluded and this only applies to governmental assignments which can be termed

as Office of Profit, but there is something in Parliament which is higher than this

whole concept of Office of Profit.

UNCORRECTED NOT FOR PUBLICATION - 33 - SHRI KAPTAN SINGH SOLANKI: Lawyers' profession is also a private job.

Then, why did you surrender your licence?

SHRI ARUN JAITLEY: It may not conflict with my duty as an ordinary M.P., but it

would conflict with my duty as the Leader of the Opposition because of the 1977

Act. It is a conflict of interest situation. I think, for new M.P.s, it is extremely

important to know that subject-matter in which you have a pecuniary interest, not

a generic interest, should not be raised. If you are a businessman, you can

certainly speak on the economy, but you cannot get up during the debate on

Budget that I am a manufacturer of pharmaceuticals and, therefore, the excise

duty must come down from 10 to 5 per cent. If you did that, then that's a conflict

of interest situation. Therefore, even though private business, profession, etc.,

are not Offices of Profit, one has to be very careful that matters in which we have

an interest directly or indirectly should not be raised. For example, Shri Javed

Akhtar belongs to the writing community of film industry. He can certainly raise

issues about film industry, but he cannot say that I have written lyrics for a film;

so, please exempt it from tax. That is the difference. The generic subjects can be

raised. The specific areas, where a Member has interest, he must keep out.

SHRI Y.S. CHOWDARY: Can a Rajya Sabha Member draw salary from a

Government as well as from a public limited company?

SHRI ARUN JAITLEY: You can draw salary from a private business; that is not a

difficulty.

UNCORRECTED NOT FOR PUBLICATION - 34 - SHRI PIYUSH VEKPRAKASH GOYAL: Sir, very often, there is a conflict in our

mind between the party line and what you believe as right or what you believe you

should do. How does one reconcile with this?

SHRI ARUN JAITLEY: This was a big debate. I will tell you how this emerged.

Originally, there was no concept of an anti-defection law. A Member could defy

the party line; a Member could speak his own mind out; a Member could do

everything. In British Parliament, for example, this was considered perfectly

legitimate. On this issue, I disagree with my party and I am going to vote for the

other side. And, it was not considered indiscipline. Therefore, this is another

check that they say that this is the call of conscience. What happened in India

was that whenever Members defied the party line, either voted or spoke for

somebody else, this was not on ideological ground, or, not on grounds of call of

conscience, but always to become a Minister by crossing floors. Now, 1967 saw

this phenomenon of 'aayaram-gayaram' and this increased in the decade of late

60s and 70s. So, during the Morarji Desai's Government, this proposal came up

that you must now have an anti-defection law. In that Government, Mr. Madhu

Limaye led a revolt, 'between party discipline and call of conscience'. And, if you

read the history, it will be available in many of the Parliamentary Library

documents. So, I remember Mr. Madhu Limaye extensively writing articles saying

this should never be done. As a result, Mr. Morarji Desai couldn't do it. So, this

remained like this in early 80s. Finally, in 1985-86, Mr. Rajiv Gandhi brought the

Tenth Schedule of the Constitution on anti-defection law.

(continued by 1n - gsp)

UNCORRECTED NOT FOR PUBLICATION - 35 - GSP-AKG-12.20-1N

SHRI ARUN JAITLEY (CONTD.): And, that anti-defection law is that you cannot

voluntarily acquire the membership of another political party. If you are a member

of a party x, you cannot go elsewhere. Similarly, you cannot defy a whip. So,

now that Call of Conscience has been taken away because pragmatically, the

experience in India was that people did not want to defy the whip on ground

where they felt strongly but, in ninety-nine out of hundred cases, it was being

done to acquire a ministerial berth by defecting. The Parliament sought to curb

the evil.

SHRI PIYUSH VEDPRAKASH GOYAL: What if there is no whip on any other

regular discussion.

SHRI ARUN JAITLEY: Yes, it can happen. In Question Hour, there is no whip. In

Zero Hour, there is no whip. In Private Members' Business, there is no whip. It is

only in legislations that there is a whip. But, even then, let me tell you my

personal experience. Once, I strongly felt against a particular decision but I was

asked by my Party to speak for that decision. So, I started by saying that I am

going to obey the whip and support this decision in my vote but I want to caution

the House that these are the other consequences. Let me share it with you.

Some Members took five thousand or ten thousand of rupees for asking questions

and were expelled. The public mood was against them. The Ethics Committee

said, 'expel them'. Everybody felt that the expulsion was correct. My party also

felt that the expulsion was correct but I had a blockade. When I was asked to

speak, I said, I will vote for it but I also indicated the reason that India has a

UNCORRECTED NOT FOR PUBLICATION - 36 - constitutionally prescribed term of five years. Britain's precedents do not apply.

They don't have a written Constitution. In Britain, the five years' period is only by

convention. Can a constitutionally prescribed term be cut short by a procedure

not mentioned in the Constitution? Now, if you do it in Parliament, what will

happen in State Assemblies like Goa, Nagaland and Mizoram where you have a

majority of one Member. The majority may get together and say that there is a

case against this man; it is a conduct unbecoming of a public servant, and,

therefore, expel him. After I spoke this, I said, but because my Party has asked

me to vote in favour of this decision, so, I am voting accordingly. In the lobby,

most MPs said, you are right; we never realized this consequence. We thought

that these are wretched people who have taken money and should be expelled.

This majority decision of Parliament was upheld by the Supreme Court but one

Judge dissented, and, that Judge in his dissenting decision followed the same

logic which I had given. When the Badal Government expelled Amarinder Singh,

the Supreme Court reversed its own view and said, you cannot expel people like

this. There is a way of doing it but don't indulge in indiscipline. You can give

your view, and, then, say, I vote with it. Parties don't crush the debate.

Parliament doesn't crush the debate.

SHRI JAVED AKHTAR: Your point is well taken. When somebody crosses certain

line of decency or becomes too personal, crude or vulgar in the expression,

obviously, he or she will be interrupted and perhaps that is a natural reaction.

But as a student of politics, not as an MP -- as an MP, I was born

yesterday -- I have noticed many times that whenever there is a sensitive topic

UNCORRECTED NOT FOR PUBLICATION - 37 - like naxal problem, communal problem or women reservation, where opinions can

differ to some extent, where the spectrum of opinions is large, and, this end and

that end are really distant, people tend to be very undemocratic not only in the

society, but, unfortunately, even in the Parliament also. Democracy is based on

the assumption and belief that there will be people with different points of view but

the moment somebody takes an extreme stand, extreme from the point of view of

others, on any of the so-called sensitive topics, that person is not allowed to

speak, whether he is speaking from the Left or from the Right.

We have seen that the moment somebody has taken a stand which is

perhaps not popular, perhaps not generally acceptable, he is not allowed to

speak, and, I think, it is not such a big problem. As they say, only a bachelor

knows how to handle a wife, so, I perhaps also know how to handle a Party. So, I

believe that if the leaders of the Parties in the Parliament seriously instruct their

people and MPs that this is not acceptable, and, this is not expected of them, it

can be corrected in a day but perhaps the leaders do not have that will. What will

you say to this?

SHRI ARUN JAITLEY: You will be entirely correct but the first part is probably

correct. When you are advocating a particular view point of a particular nature, it

is increasingly becoming a part of our style to do it in a manner where loudness, at

times, crudity, and, even vulgarity is used, and, that style is used to catch the

attention and address a particular constituency. This can happen at various

varying points of view. I think, on the question of role of leaders, I get back to

what I said in the opening. You have to really evolve on the strength of your

UNCORRECTED NOT FOR PUBLICATION - 38 - office, and, therefore, in giving a particular view point, by your choice of words,

your choice of vocabulary, or, your way of presenting it, you can set an example

for others. And, those who have made up their minds to address their

constituencies and get an identity in their constituencies, they will do it loudly. I

think, the ultimate answer is to provide some space for them and allow them to

have their say, and, then, carry on with the more moderate debate. If you enter

into a confrontation, it won't help. I gave an illustration of a Member with strong

separatist views in the Lok Sabha once. We were in the Government at that time.

We used to hear him; we used to signal at each other. I was referring to Mr.

Simranjeet Singh Mann. He would use vocabulary like atrocities committed by the

Indian States on the Sikh States. Immediately, the whole House wanted to stand

and ask him to keep quiet. The Congress, the BJP everybody would say, just

allow him to speak for three minutes. Let him say his views and go. He was

addressing his constituency. Do we go and physically stop him? Do we go and

make noise? He will stick to his particular view point. Once in a lifetime, we can

live with it. But you are right, and, your fear is right if it becomes a normal pattern,

then, that is a matter of concern as to how the Parliament can sustain this

indefinitely. Thank you.

(Ends)

(Followed by SK-1O)

UNCORRECTED NOT FOR PUBLICATION - 39 - Sk/12.30/1O/1.8.10 SECRETARY-GENERAL: I welcome Shri P. Shiv Shanker who is one of the senior

most politicians in the country today. He will enlighten us on the subject of law making

process. He is a lawyer by profession and has practiced as senior advocate in the High

Courts and the Supreme Court. He was also a Judge of the Andhra Pradesh High Court.

He was a Member of the 6th, 7th and 12th Lok Sabha. He has had the distinction of being

the Leader of the House as well as the Leader of Opposition in the Rajya Sabha. Shri P.

Shiv Shanker has also served on a number of Committees on the Rajya Sabha. As Union

Cabinet Minister, he has held several portfolios including Law, Justice & Company

Affairs, Petroleum, Chemicals & Fertilizers, Programme Implementation, Commerce,

External Affairs, Planning and Human Resource Development. He has also been the

Deputy Chairman of the Planning Commission and the Governor of Sikkim and Kerala. I

now request Shri P. Shiv Shanker to share with us his rich experience acquired during his

distinguished political career on the subject Law Making Process.

SHRI P. SHIV SHANKER: Agnihotriji, Mr. Additional Secretary, Mr. Ganguli and friends, human civilization has traveled a long way from the law of jungle to the rule of

law. Situation has progressed from the Government of man to Government of laws. In

the final shape, as Abraham Lincoln put it, Government of the people, by the people and

for the people has come to stay. Whether it is a unitary type of Government or a federal

type of Government, it is immaterial. But the peoples' representatives are making the

laws for the people and by the people. Ours is not a federal structure in the strict sense of

the term but though the Supreme Court has said, it is federalism which prevails. But, in

my view, it is not strictly the federal structure, though the 7th Schedule of the Constitution

read with article 246 of the Constitution, those of you who might have read the

Constitution may follow it, gives various subjects. The subjects are Union List, State List

and the Concurrent List. The subjects which are there in the Union List, it is the

Parliament which makes the law for them. The subjects which form part of the State List,

it is the State Legislature which forms the law for them. In the concurrent list, either the

State can frame the law or the Parliament can frame the law. But if the Parliament frames

the law, then it prevails as compared to the State Legislature. In the case of State

Legislature passing the law, the President has to give his assent for purposes of holding it

UNCORRECTED NOT FOR PUBLICATION - 40 - to be a law, even though it might differ with the Central law. For example, those of you

who are lawyers, might usefully recall the Transfer of Property Act. In the Transfer of

Property Act when the lease is granted that can be terminated either after the period is

over or even if there is some mistake that has been committed by the party. It has been

the usual way of saying that the law prevails and you can still cancel the lease. But in the

case of the Rent Control law which is applicable to the State, it is statutory which

prevails. You cannot terminate it by virtue of the fact saying that you have completed 11

months and, therefore, you must go. That part does not arise. Therefore, there is a

conflict between the State law and the Central law. But since the State law has already

received the assent of the President, it remains there. It is a law which is applicable to the

State not to the entire country. For entire country, Transfer of Property Act is there.

Ours is a written Constitution and we have to look into the Constitutional provisions for

the purpose. It was in 18th Century when we came out with the concept of the Executive,

Legislature and the Judiciary, the three wings of the state. The Executive prepares the

law, the law is passed by the Legislature and the Judiciary interprets it. Having said that,

I have referred to article 246 where under you have the Union List, the Concurrent List

and the State List. Article 248 gives the residuary powers to the Centre to pass any law

on the subject where the subject itself is not mentioned. If you look into the Union List,

it consists of 97 subjects. Suppose there is a subject which is not covered under the Union

List or the State List, it is the Parliament alone can pass the law in respect of that, not the

State.

(Contd. by ysr - 1P)

-SK/YSR/12.40/1P

SHRI P. SHIV SHANKER (CONTD.): Another Article which I would refer to is

Article 249 of the Constitution. If on an issue two States want a law to be passed

or if the Rajya Sabha thinks that a law has to be passed then by a two-thirds

majority of the Members present must vote for the law being passed and the Rajya

Sabha will pass the law which will be taken up by the Lok Sabha. The substantive

UNCORRECTED NOT FOR PUBLICATION - 41 - part of the law making is covered by Articles 246-255 of the Constitution. You will

have to go through it.

Another Article is 368 of the Constitution which deals with the amendment

to the Constitution. Suppose a law with respect to the amendment to the

Constitution has to be passed then it is the duty of both the Houses to pass it by a

two-thirds majority of the people present and voting. Suppose the amendment

affects State/s, then more than one-half of the States have to give the assent by a

resolution then only the law can be passed.

You may ask what is meant by a Bill. It is only a format. The Executive

brings in before the legislature a law to be passed and that is called a Bill. There is

no definition of a Bill. There are two types of Bills - Government Bill and Private

Bill. Government Bill is introduced by a Minister for discussion. A Bill contains

several paragraphs and those paragraphs are called clauses. Clauses could be

divided into sub-clauses and each clause is given a small heading. The first

clause of a Bill contains short title. It contains cases. It also specifies the extent

of its applicability and the date on which it comes into force. You might have seen

that the Government issues a notification and the law comes into force from that

date.

There are laws which refer to their own applicability. For example, a law

might say that it will be applicable only for two years and after two years it will

lapse. There is no question of its survival afterwards. As a rule, matters of detail

like lists, tables and schedules are appended at the end of the law. Certain Bills

contain note on clauses.

UNCORRECTED NOT FOR PUBLICATION - 42 -

Bills can be classified into six categories. There are Bills which seek to

modify or revise the existing laws. Sometimes a law is already there but a Bill is

introduced to modify it. There are Bills which seek to modify or revise the existing

laws in the case of Bills which are introduced. They embody the new proposals.

Sometimes a State wants to frame new policies, then a Bill is prepared. Some

Bills seek to consolidate the existing law. Suppose an Act is going to expire soon

and you want to revive it then a Bill is introduced to revitalize it. Then there are

Bills to replace the ordinances. Sixth is the Constitution Amendment Bill. These

are the six types of Bills.

There is a Money Bill and a Finance Bill. Money Bills are covered by Article

110 (a) to (g) of the Constitution. A Money Bill can be brought in the Lok Sabha

only. In the Rajya Sabha, you can bring any other Bill. The Speaker certifies

whether a Bill is a Money Bill or not and sends it to the Chairman, Rajya Sabha.

He has no business to interfere with as to what is a Money Bill. It is a matter

which has to be decided by the Speaker alone.

(Contd. by VKK/1Q)

-YSRVKK q OrientationProgramme/ /1 /12.50/1.8.10/

SHRI P SHIV SHANKER CONTD . ( .): When the Speaker decides that i t i s a

Money Bi l l i t becomes aMoney Bi l l Then thereareFinancial Bi l ls If , . , .

a Bi l l seeks to appropriate moneys fromthe Consol idated Fund then i t ,

i s cal led a Financial Bi l l The di fference between Money Bi l l and .

Financial Bi l l i s in the case of a Financial Bi l l i t has to be , ,

UNCORRECTED NOT FOR PUBLICATION - 43 - necessari ly fromthe Consol idated Fund If the amount has . to be taken

out fromthe Consol idated Fund and spent then i t is cal led a Financial , ,

Bi l l .

In the case of Government Bi l ls a proposal from the ,

administrative Ministry is prepared If the State Government is .

concerned wi th that the State Government is co , nsul ted Otherwise i t is. ,

not necessary Then the matter is referred to the LawMinistry It is . , .

possible that more than one Department of the Ministry might be

concerned wi th the proposal In that case various Departments give . ,

thei r opinions on the matte r and the proposal is sent to the Law

Ministry Proposal can be sent to the LawMinistry ei ther at that stage.

or at a later stage when the Cabinet decides The Cabinet can decide .

that the lawshould be passed Since the Cabinet decides i t the Law . ,

Ministry wi l l prepare the lawinto a Bi l l format When the matter is .

referred to the Cabinet the Cabinet may refer i t ei ther to the ,

Committee of Ministers or to the ad hoc Committee Then i t might be . ,

referred to the Joint Committee in which case the Members of , , the two

Houses might si t down and decide whether the Bi l l has to be passed or

not If the Bi l l i s prepared and drafting is completed then the. , ,

drafting wi l l refer to the Statement of Objects and Reasons Each Bi l l .

wi l l refer to the Statement of Objects a nd Reasons and the various

UNCORRECTED NOT FOR PUBLICATION - 44 - stages of the Bi l l wi l l be there The rules of procedure for scrutiny . ,

publ ication notice etc are laiddownby thedi rections of theChai rman, , .

or the Speaker If i t i s Rajya Sabha then i t is the Chai rman i f i t i s . , , ;

Lok Sabha , the Speaker is there Various di rections are issued fromtime .

to timeandbasedon that publ ication notice scrutiny andother things , , ,

wi l l becompleted .

There are various stages of the Bi l l The fi rst stage is the .

introduction There are fi rst reading. , second reading and thi rd reading .

In the fi rst reading the Minister wi l l come and say I introduce the , , "

Bi l l and i f the House permi ts the Bi l l i s introduced In the case of" , .

second reading there is considerationandconsiderationpart means that ,

the wh ole Bi l l i s discussed At that stage the whole Bi l l i s discussed . , .

It may be referred to the Standing Committee or i t could also be said

that publ ic opinion must be obtained on the Bi l l in which case ,

evidence etc is taken That is the fi rst stage of sec, . . ond reading when

theBi l l i s discussedas awhole Thesecondstageof thesecond reading .

comes when the Clause -by-Clause consideration comes in Clause . -by-Clause

consideration is the second stage of the second reading In the thi rd .

reading the Minister w, i l l come and say The Bi l l be passed Then , " ". ,

general ly wi th reference to theBi l l adiscussion takes place But that, , .

i s not to be very lengthy and the Bi l l stands passed Once i t is passed .

UNCORRECTED NOT FOR PUBLICATION - 45 - by one House then i t is transmi tted to the other House After , , . the Bi l l

i s passedby theother House thematter is left to theother House General ly , . ,

the later House sends i t to the President and the President gives the assent

to theBi l l Once the Bi l l i s assented to by the President i t becomes the law . , .

Ti l l then , i t does not become the law It is possible that the President might .

in his wisdomthink to return theBi l l as i t hadbeendone in thecaseof Post

Office Bi l l which was passed but the President Giani Zai l Singh returned i t , ,

back saying that i t was not go od and i t was not in the interest of the people .

If some amendments are made by the other House then a joint si tting of both , ,

Houses is cal led under Article of the Consti tution Article of the 108 . 108

Consti tution gives the power to the President to cal l for a meeting of the

joint si tting for thepurposeof passing the law .

For the Private Members Bi l ls normal ly Friday is reserved In Rajya ' , , .

Sabha in a session you have toonly bring in three Bi l l s and not beyond that, , .

Previously i t used to be more, , but now i t has been decided that only ,

three Bi l ls should be introduced by a Member of the Rajya Sabha in a

session On Friday each Member gets up and introduces his Bi l l There. , .

wi l l be three readings Again the Bi l l i s to be discussed and the . ,

second st age is when Clause -by-Clause consideration comes in .

Contd By MKS r( . /1 )

-VKK/MKS-VNK/1.00/1R/OP/1.8.2010

UNCORRECTED NOT FOR PUBLICATION - 46 - SHRI P. SHIV SHANKER (CONTD.): Thirdly, when the Member stands up and

says that the Bill be passed, what happens is that the Bill is withdrawn and the

Government comes out by saying that they will bring in the law. Normally, it

happens that the Bill is withdrawn and the Government comes in, but Government

never brings in the law. It, rarely, brings in the law, I must say. When the Bills are

there, ballot is taken for the purpose of consideration, and if, in the ballot, the

Member's Bill comes in, he has to introduce it.

Then, there is yet another aspect and that is the Ordinance- making power

of the President under Article 123 of the Constitution. Article 213 is for the

Governor, in the State, while in the Centre, it is Article 123. When the Parliament

is in recess and the Executive feels the necessity to pass the law, then an

Ordinance is issued. In the case of written Constitutions, the provision is to be

found in the Constitution, and that is Article 123; Article 213, for the Governor. But

if the House is prorogued, then the Ordinance cannot be passed. Ordinance has

to be passed only when the House is decided to adjourn sine die and it is

adjourned. If both the Houses are not in session and if the President is satisfied

that the circumstances exist, which force the law to be enacted, then the

Ordinance can be issued. It expires after six weeks of the assemblage of the

House. Suppose, the six weeks period is to be reckoned from the day when the

Latter House is convened. It is possible that both the Houses are not to be

convened simultaneously. It is possible that the Rajya Sabha might be convened

later, in which case six weeks will have to be there. Before the six weeks, if the

law is passed by the Legislature saying that the Ordinance should not have been

UNCORRECTED NOT FOR PUBLICATION - 47 - passed, then it becomes void. Six weeks' time is there only when the law is to

continue. Often, what happens is, the Ordinances are converted into the law at a

later stage. When the House is summoned and six weeks' time is granted, then

the law is passed.

In the case of Constitutional amendments, I have already said, and I will

repeat it, that Article 368 says that two-thirds majority must be there and if the

States are involved in some form or the other, then the State has to be consulted.

Half of the States have to pass a resolution for that purpose. In the case of

Ordinances, Members objected, if the Parliament is to close, if the Parliament is

to be convened in a short time, as to why the Ordinances are passed. In the case

of Fiscal Ordinances, stricter appliance of the rule is effected by the Members.

Normally, it is the House which has the power to pass a law, and if the Ordinance

is passed and if the House feels that it has been robbed of a discussion, which it

could have, and the power of the House is taken away by the issuance of an

Ordinance, the Speaker cannot decide the validity of an Ordinance. It is the

House which finally decides whether the Ordinance is proper or not. Ordinance

for the appropriation of any money out of the Consolidated Fund is invalid if the

relative

Demands for Grants are not placed before, considered and assented to. Though

it has not been considered and assented to, the Ordinance that is issued will

become automatically illegal. These are, by and large, the ways in which the law

is framed, and I thought I should bring it to your notice. That is sufficient. Thank

you.

UNCORRECTED NOT FOR PUBLICATION - 48 - SHRI KAPTAN SINGH SOLANKI: Is there any example in the history of

Parliament that a Private Member's Bill has been given a shape of law?

SHRI P. SHIV SHANKER: It is very difficult to say that.

SECRETARY-GENERAL: There are about 14 examples, but last one was in 1967.

SHRI KAPTAN SINGH SOLANKI: In 1967, not after that. Then what is the

necessity of introducing a Private Member's Bill in the Parliament? It

unnecessarily wastes the time.

SOME HON. MEMBER: It is an exercise!

SHRI P. SHIV SHANKER: There is no necessity for the Private Members' Bills to

be passed, but there are cases which are not covered by the law that has been

framed by the Government, and it is possible that Private Members might feel

that a law should be passed in that regard. And it is possible that they might

introduce it.

SECRETARY-GENERAL: Again, it is an indication to the Government that there

is a requirement, and sometimes, that law may not be passed, but Government

may bring in a legislation which covers some of the points which are mentioned in

the Bill introduced by the Private Member.

SHRIMATI B. JAYASHREE: Sir, can I ask a question?

SHRI P. SHIV SHANKER: Yes.

SHRIMATI B. JAYASHREE: Thank you, Sir.

. : , .....

SHRI P. SHIV SHANKER: Speak a little louder, please, because I am hard of

hearing.

UNCORRECTED NOT FOR PUBLICATION - 49 - . : , , trans-

gender ? - ,

, facility ,

?

(1s/MP )

-MKS-TMV-MP-VK/1S & 1T/1.10 & 1.20

. () : mentally retarded

, - ?

? ?

SECRETARY-GENERAL: Madam, this session is about making laws. This is not

an issue which can be discussed and debated here. You can raise the matter in

the House.

. : , ,

, ?

:

SHRI P. SHIV SHANKER: It is for you to bring in a Bill for making it a law. As a

Member you can bring in a Private Member's Bill.

:

important ,

examples , ,

Prevention of Cruelty to Animals, Mrs. Rukmini Devi Arundale in the 1950s

, but that got defeated,

UNCORRECTED NOT FOR PUBLICATION - 50 - subject

,

statute book subject ,

- untouched ,

,

, 14 ,

: , , ,

- .. ,

public opinion ,

withdraw , withdraw

, withdraw ,

, Special Mention issue , Zero

Hour raise , opinion formation

DR. T. N. SEEMA: Sir, may I ask a question? We are getting copies of the Bills,

both Government Bills and Private Bills, every day along with other papers. But it

is a bit confusing. It is difficult to differentiate between the Government Bills and

the Private Members' Bills until we get the List of Business. How can we

differentiate them because both are in the same format?

UNCORRECTED NOT FOR PUBLICATION - 51 - SECRETARY-GENERAL: I will answer that question, Madam. If you look at the

last page of the Bill, the name of the person is given. If it is written Mr. Pranab

Mukherjee, Minister of Finance, then it is a Government Bill. If it is written so and

so, M.P., then it is a Private Member's Bill.

: , 1967

, 1967

utilize ?

: ,

press , opinion ,

reply reply , ,

, ,

, , public

opinion , , , withdraw

: , , ,

, ,

, include , generally ,

just - , ,

,

opinion , , ?

SECRETARY-GENERAL: Sir, you have a right to give the proposed amendments

to a Bill.

: ?

UNCORRECTED NOT FOR PUBLICATION - 52 - : , - amendment

accept ,

, - ,

opinion ....

: rare

,

, affect ,

?

: ,

opinion unless it is

some very small minor matter or something. ,

SHRI K.N. BALAGOPAL: Sir, I want to ask a question. As regards Private

Member's Bills, it is mentioned that only three Bills can be taken up in a session.

That point is not clear. We have more than 50 Bills with us now. I would like to

know whether these Bills will continue only up to the session or they will continue

like that. Once a Private Member's Bill is introduced how long will it continue?

How long is the life of that Bill? It is said that we can take up only three Bills in a

session.

SECRETARY-GENERAL: I will clarify it.

SHRI K. N. BALAGOPAL: There is one more thing. I think a little bit of discussion

is needed about the amendments to the official Bills, how an amendment to the

UNCORRECTED NOT FOR PUBLICATION - 53 - Bill should be moved. I think the other Member has also raised it. How is an

amendment moved? How is a