Passage 1

Mr. Vice-Chairman, Sir, I think, the Constitution

(Amendment) Bill is wholly unconstitutional and, if passed, it
will undoubtedly be set/ aside by the Supreme Court, because it
interferes with a basic feature of the Constitution. Such
amendments of the Constitution// are outside the jurisdiction of
this House. The amendment process prescribed by the
Constitution requires two-third majority and so on/// and so forth.
That applies only to those amendments of the Constitution which
do not touch the basic features of//// the Constitution as
understood in the Kesavananda Bharati case. This Constitutional
amendment certainly interferes with a basic feature of the (100)
Indian Constitution and it will not be sustained ever. But, if it is
said that even if you pass it,/ it will not be brought into force until
a Reference is made to the Supreme Court and the Supreme
Court // answers the question of the validity of this Constitution
amendment in the affirmative. Sir, I must declare today that my///
conscience, understanding and my duty towards the people of
this country do not permit me to submit to this kind//// of
legislation. Both the Bills, according to me, are evil. The evil,
first of all, consists in the misleading Statement (200) of Objects
and Reasons. You ought to have said with complete honesty that
what you are trying to demolish is/ the Collegium System. Some
of the persons who have spoken have spoken on the assumption
that that is the purpose// of this particular piece of legislation.

Sir, the first point that I propose to make is that the

1993///judgment of Nine Judges is a judgment based upon
the discovery of the basic feature of the Constitution,//// and upon
devising a system to sustain that basic feature. I have myself
appeared in that litigation and in a sense, (300) I claim to be the
founder of the Collegium System. But that does not mean that I
am an unmixed/ admirer of the Collegium System. The
Collegium System has some faults. But the Collegium System
came into existence on the// basis of one main argument. That
one main argument that we advance is that there is one article of
the/// Constitution, Article 50 of the Constitution, which says that
the
Government shall strive to keep the Judiciary separate
from the//// Executive. Sir, we argued before the Supreme Court
that this article does not mean that Judges and Ministers should
not (400) socially meet. This does not mean that they should live
in separate towns, or that they should not live even/ in adjoining
bungalows. The purpose of this article is to ensure that in the
appointment of Judges, the Executive has// no role to play,
except the advisory role. But, after some time, there were people,
intellectuals, who
spoke up that/// this system would not work; the system requires
change. Sir, the Indian democracy has been saved not by
intellectuals; Indian//// democracy, at its most crucial hour, has
been saved by the poor illiterates of this country. That is the
tragedy of our (500) country. Sir, the intellectuals of this country
have continuously failed, and I regret to say that they are failing
even / today. When ultimately the realization dawned on the Bar
of this country, it is the Bar of this country, which// went to the
Supreme Court and said that the present system must go. The
present system is a system in/// which the Executive
has the greatest influence in the appointment process. It has the
primacy as per the 1981//// judgment. Later, the nine judges sat.
They heard arguments that the Judiciary, under no circumstances,
depends for its appointment on the (600) will and the prerogative
and the primacy of the Executive. The Supreme Court overruled
the original judgment of 1981./ Sir, whatever be the faults of the
Collegium, the Collegium today represents some system which is
consistent with the basic// features of the Constitution, namely,
the supremacy of the Judiciary and its freedom from any
influence of the Executive in/// the appointment process.

Sir, the Constitution cannot survive, human freedom

cannot survive, citizens’ human rights cannot survive, no
development can//// take place unless the judges are independent
of the Executive power. Sir, first of all, let me say that the whole
(700) judgement of nine Judges is based upon this principle that
in the appointment process, the Executive can never have
primacy./ It has now become the basic feature of India's
Constitution. My grievance today against this Bill is that you
are// slowly creating a new method by which ultimately you will
revert to the system which existed prior to 1993./// The
Constitution Amendment looks very innocent. All that it says is
that we shall have a new article 124(a)//// in the Constitution and
it merely says that there shall be a Judicial Appointments
Commission. It lays down that the Judicial Appointments (800)
Commission will have these functions. It leaves at that. After the
first sentence, everything is left to a Parliamentary will/ which is
capable of being removed if the ruling party has just one Member
majority in both Houses of Parliament. //
 Passage2
Sir, I rise to commend the Lokpal and the Lokayuktas
Bill, 2011 to the distinguished Members of this House.

Sir,/ since my colleague has already commended this Bill

to the hon. House, I will not take too much time. I// would like to
state that this House is confronted with a historic opportunity,
either to make history or to repeat/// history, and, I am sure that
the distinguished Members of this House will today collectively
make history and not repeat//// it.

Sometimes, we have to rise above our political

viewpoints and listen to those outside this House, listen to their
(100) expectations from the distinguished Members of this
House, and, also listen carefully to the manner in which we have
conducted/ ourselves over the years. I think that never before in
the history of this country has such a Bill had// such a wide
public discussion. I think, ever since Independence eight Lokpal
Bills have been initiated in this House, and,/// with the exception
of one in 1985, which was withdrawn, all others lapsed. Sir, a
Joint Drafting Committee was/// set up on the 8th of April, 2011.
In the course of the Joint Drafting Committee, we heard the voice
of (200) the civil society, and also opined on what should be the
nature of the Lokpal and the Lokayukta Bill. Ultimately, there/
was an all-Party meeting on 3rd of July, 2011, and, then, we
introduced the Lokpal Bill, 2011 in the Lok// Sabha on the 4th of
August, 2011. The Bill was referred to the Department-related
Parliamentary Standing Committee on 8th of August,/// 2011.
The Standing Committee had extensive discussions with all
concerned stakeholders. In its 48th Report, it made a//// number
of recommendations suggesting major amendments in the Bill as
regards the scope and the content of the Bill including (300)
necessary provisions that ought to be incorporated. Then, in the
context of the recommendations of the Standing Committee, we
withdrew/ the Bill and introduced a fresh Bill in the Lok Sabha, a
more comprehensive Lokpal and the Lokayuktas Bill of 2011,//
on the 22nd of December, 2011. It was passed on the 27th of
December in the Lok Sabha. But when/// it came to this House,
this House adopted a Motion on the 21st of May 2012 and
referred the//// matter to the Select Committee. I must say, and I
must compliment the distinguished Members of the Select
Committee that (400) they very carefully looked at various
provisions of the Bill and made very comprehensive
 recommendations. The Leader of the Opposition/ here
was also responsible in taking a very constructive approach to
ensure that
we have a comprehensive and well thought-out// legislation
which should be presented to this House to be passed.
Now, Sir, as I want to make it very/// short, so I just want
to give salient features of the Bill as passed by the Lok Sabha and
then//// the salient features of the amendments that are being
moved in the context of the recommendations of the Select
Committee. (500) Sir, the Bill, as passed by the Lok Sabha,
provides broadly for the following. One, it seeks to establish the/
institution of the Lokpal at the Centre and the Lokayukta at the
level of the State and thus seeks to// provide a uniform vigilance
and anti-corruption roadmap for the nation both at the Centre and
at the States.
Two, the/// Lokpal will consist of a Chairperson with a
maximum of eight Members, of which fifty per cent shall be
judicial//// Members and fifty per cent of the Members of the
Lokpal shall come from amongst the SCs, the STs, the (600)
OBCs, minorities and women. The selection of the Chairperson
and the Members of Lokpal shall be through a Selection
Committee/ consisting of the Prime Minister, the Speaker of the
Lok Sabha, the Leader of the Opposition in the Lok Sabha,// the
Chief Justice of India or a sitting Supreme Court Judge
nominated by the Chief Justice of India and an/// eminent jurist to
be nominated by the President of India.
Three, a Search Committee will assist the Selection
Committee in//// the process of selection. Fifty per cent of the
Members of the Search Committee will also be from amongst the
(700) SCs, the STs, the OBCs, minorities and women.
Four, the Prime Minister has been brought under the
purview of the/ Lokpal with subject matter exclusions and
specific process for handling complaints against the Prime
Minister.
Five, Lokpal’s jurisdiction will cover// all categories of
public servants, including officers of Group A and Group B and
Group C and Group D employees/// of Government on
complaints referred to the CVC by the Lokpal. The CVC will
send its report of Preliminary Enquiry//// in respect of Group A
and Group B Officers back to the Lokpal for further decision.
With respect to categories (800) of employees from Group C and
Group D, the CVC will proceed further in exercise of its own
powers under/ the CVC Act subject to reporting and review by
the Lokpal.
 Passage3
Mr. Deputy Chairman, Sir, the hon. Minister of Trade and
Commerce has made a statement yesterday on the Ninth
Ministerial/ Conference of the WTO at Bali. Before I come to the
specific clarifications and queries, I wish to make just// a brief
point on the manner in which the old adverse agenda of the WTO
against developing countries seems to/// have come back. I say
this because Indian agriculture is in a precarious state. We have
over 60 per cent//// of the people dependent on agriculture for
their livelihood but the agriculture contributes only about 15 per
cent to the (100) national GDP. Compared to the services sector
and the manufacturing sector, our agricultural sector is highly
vulnerable and therefore the/ national concern for agriculture is
legitimate.
As far as the global distortions and agricultural trade are
concerned, these global distortions// have never been because of
any lack of market access by the developing countries. These
have essentially been on account of/// subversion of global
agricultural trade and on account of high subsidies by the
developed countries, particularly, the United States of////
America and the European Union. Sir, the original Agreement
on agriculture which was entered into in 1994 itself (200) is
loaded against the developing countries. It is loaded against the
developing countries. The States are giving subsidy on power./
Sir, the hon. Leader of the Opposition has asked rather a
detailed explanation on various issues. So, I would not// repeat
them. But, Sir, in a nutshell, I just want to say that the backdrop
in which we are discussing/// this is clearly to be understood, that
is., crisis in Indian agriculture and the agrarian distress that we
are currently facing// which is leading to unabated continuance of
distress suicides by our farmers. Therefore, this acquires certain
importance which is enlarged (300) more than what it is in
normal circumstances. Hence, I have six clarifications to seek
from the hon. Minister.
The/ first one is, trade facilitation was not an issue or part
of the original Doha Development Agenda. In this Doha//
Round, which is an on-going process, how did India agree to
trade facilitation without any forward movement on any issues///
mentioned in the Doha Development Agenda and how the
Government gave a legally-binding agreement, that is, trade
facilitation to get a//// temporary solution on food security? I do
not want to elaborate the 'temporary nature' as the hon. Leader of
the (400) Opposition has already mentioned about it. It is
temporary in nature and is universally accepted. Now, my first
query is:/ Have you given a legally-binding agreement in order to
get a temporary solution?
Secondly, Sir, trade facilitation was developed// countries'
agenda and it benefits the developed countries rather than the
developing countries. All of us know that. The hon./// Minister
himself agrees to it. Did the Government conduct any study to
assess the benefit for India from such Trade//// Facilitation
Agreement? If it was done, why is it not made public?

Now, Sir, according to the hon. Minister, many (500)

aspects of Trade Facilitation Agreement are already being
implemented by India as autonomous policy measures. So, there
was no danger/ in agreeing to this Trade Facilitation Agreement.
Sir, there is a clear difference between autonomous policy
measures and a legally-binding// agreement because autonomous
policy measures are our autonomy. We can withdraw them, we
can change them whenever we want or/// we can amend them.
But the moment it is a legally-binding international agreement,
we are bound by it. So, through//// this Agreement, India has
legally locked its policy measures and submitted itself to the
WTO's disputes settlement mechanism. That is (600) how I read
it. In other words, if we ourselves are implementing these
measures, why do we need a legally/ binding agreement which
will bind us in future and open to disputes mechanism? I want to
know as to how// is the Government going to implement this
Trade Facilitation Agreement. What is the cost of its
implementation? If you are/// going to meet this implementation
cost through flow of foreign funds, then you are opening up to
FDI and your//// entire services sector. As the hon. Leader of the
Opposition said, today, agriculture contributes less than 20 per
cent of (700) our GDP and the service sector is about 60 per cent.
So, if you want foreign funding, it has to/ come from nowhere
else but from services in which case we are just making our
economy much more vulnerable. Sir,// it appears that in order to
gain this interim mechanism, which will operate till a final
mechanism is found, we/// have conceded our position on many
issues. We have heard that final mechanism may be four years
down the line.//// Now, in order to achieve this interim
mechanism, we have conceded our position on many of the other
issues in (800) our urge to get this interim mechanism to save our
existing Food Security Act. We have passed the Food Security/
Act. I am not happy, and I want to expand it further. Now,
according to your agreement in Bali, my// reading is, you cannot
expand it any further.
 Passage 4
Mr. Chairman, the entire House is extremely grateful to
you for allowing the suspension of the Question Hour to express/
the concern of this House on a very serious incident that involves
the national honour. The fact that an Indian// diplomat can be
arrested in violation of the immunity that is granted to a
diplomat, the fact that it is/// a lady diplomat, who is not only
arrested but also paraded with handcuffs on the streets of
Manhattan, kept in//// police custody in the midst of hardened
criminals and not extended the courtesies that are normally
extendable in the circumstances (100) of this kind, is a matter of
grave concern, as far as India is concerned. It involves the honour
of/ a lady Foreign Service Officer. It has rightly caused concern
and anguish in the entire country and it is a// concern that should
be reflected by the Government and conveyed by the Indian
Government to the United States' Government at/// the highest
level. This is in clear violation of article 31 of the Vienna
Convention which very clearly says that there//// is an immunity
granted to a diplomat. The American viewpoint is that for the
officers involved in Consular Services, (200) there is a separate
arrangement. Article 41 of that arrangement with regard to
Consular Services also does not permit this/ arbitrary one-sided
arrest. In fact, facilities are granted even to non-diplomats that
they must go and appear before police authorities,// rather than
being raided, paraded, handcuffed and given a treatment of this
kind. This has been done in violation of/// all the norms and it is a
matter of extreme concern.

Sir, why is it that the situation has come//// to such a

pass? It may be too simplistic analysis to say that United States is
a big international power and (300) therefore where courtesies
are extendable to persons from other countries, whether at their
airports or otherwise, they are not being/ extended. That would,
Sir, be too simplistic a view. I think it is also required for us to
analyze and// introspect where we stand in terms of our Foreign
Policy. We have expressed concerns with regard to our
neighbours some/// of whom have been violating our sovereignty.
Even small neighbours have not been listening to us and have
been bypassing//// Indian interests. Many countries in the world
protested on the snooping incident of the United States, where
their intelligence agencies (400) were keeping an eye on what is
happening in the world. Foreign Heads of State cancelled
meetings, but India did/ not utter a word. Our elected
representatives are denied visas. We give a kind of nudge that we
 are happy// with this, rather than protest on this. If we
conduct our
Foreign Policy in a manner that we can be/// taken for granted,
then, these incidents are bound to be repeated.

I would, therefore, express the concern not only of//// my

party but almost everybody in this House that it is time that the
Government of India took these bilateral (500) relationships
extremely seriously. We should negotiate as equals. We should
cosy up in our relationships only when the other negotiating/
nation is interested in cosying up to us to that level. If they are
not interested, this one-side cosying// up comes to an abject
surrender as far as Foreign Policy is concerned. Therefore, we
must take this incident in/// all its seriousness and lodge not only
the strongest protest but we must ensure that necessary
correctives are also taken.////

Sir, I rise to share the unanimous sentiment of this august

House. I am anguished to say we are aghast (600) at this outrage
that has been committed against India’s sovereignty and this is
something that cannot be tolerated or accepted./ There is no need
to repeat that this goes against all norms and international
conventions and this is something that// cannot be accepted by
any self-respecting sovereign country.

The question that arises is as to why the situation has

come/// to such a pass. We have had such instances happened in
the past also. When I travel to the United//// States of America,
though my boarding pass always comes with a ‘fourth’ level of
security, we go through that (700) grind, and I always convince
myself that there have been Cabinet Ministers of either the NDA
regime or the present/ UPA regime who have been subjected to
this, and so we allow this to happen. There has not been a//
protest at the right moment that India has made. We have willy-
nilly accepted USA is the world’s policemen and/// they can get
away with the laws that they will define as international laws.

Now, Sir, a message has to//// be given. We are building a

strategic relationship with the USA. That strategic relationship
cannot be in violation of the (800) principles of the Panchsheel,
which continue to guide our foreign policy. You cannot violate
the Panchsheel in any strategic relationship/ with any country,
and Panchsheel ensures you that there will be mutual respect for
each other country’s sovereignty and domestic// laws of each
other country.
 Passage 5
Mr. Deputy Chairman, Sir, the Civil Nuclear Liability
Bill in its amended form has already been passed by the Lok/
Sabha. It is only in this amended form that my party supports the
Bill. It is obviously true that two// years ago when this
Government went ahead with the Civil Nuclear Deal with the
United States, we had serious reservations/// and we continue to
have serious reservations. But, despite those reservations, as the
hon. Minister said that it is an//// option which we are exploring,
we think that option need not be excluded. It is an option to
further expand (100) the nuclear programme, as far as power
sector is concerned. However, there are still serious doubts
people have about the/ cost effectiveness, as far as nuclear power
is concerned, and that issue will continue to remain. But,
notwithstanding our objections,// the Government of the day
decides to go ahead and explore the option of expanding it. We,
therefore, Sir, for/// more than one reason, have agreed today in
this House to the amended proposals of the Minister, particularly
because a//// large number of concerns that we did show and
expressed to the hon. Minister have been substantially
accommodated by the (200) Government. Secondly, Sir, it is the
Government of the day which decides the policy and so it is very
much/ within its right to explore the option of expanding the
nuclear programme. Thirdly, Sir, irrespective of our reservations,
we already// have the nuclear programme, so far as nuclear
power is concerned. This Bill in that sense does not even deal///
with the Civil Nuclear Deal. This Bill essentially deals with the
principal question as to whether it is existing or//// it is expanded
and in the event of a nuclear incident how are the victims of that
accident going to (300) be compensated in an expeditious
manner. We have a sad and unfortunate experience of the Bhopal
gas leak. The hon./ Prime Minister is here. This law deals only
with nuclear incidents. If there are incidents and accidents, which
are not// on account of a nuclear incident but because of which a
large number of casualty and damage does take place,/// our legal
regime even today is only the conventional legal regime that the
victims go to a civil court, and/// then have their remedies
adjudicated. We are all conscious of the limitations of our legal
system that it almost takes (400) decades, not years, in order to
compensate the victims, as far as those areas are concerned. So, I
would urge/ the Government that while dealing with this
expeditious legal remedy machinery for victims of a nuclear
incident, it should also// consider a similar law which would deal
with other incidents of this kind, which are not caused on account
of/// a nuclear leakage. Sir, the Minister is right in saying that this
law does not deal with the criminal remedies.//// But, in that case,
we found that the criminal remedies which are going to be the
same, whether it is (500) a nuclear leak or it is a gas leak or a
chemical leak, also need to be strengthened. Sir, when/ you store
or utilise the hazardous material in such a manner that there is a
leakage is itself a proof// that you did not handle it properly, and,
therefore, you must be taken to task for this. Now, those
remedies/// cannot be mild remedies which are presently there as
far as Indian law is concerned. So, even the criminal law////
aspect will have to be separately dealt with, not as a part of this
particular Bill which deals only with (600) the civil
compensation as far as victims are concerned.

Sir, I must take this opportunity to place on record a/ deep

sense of appreciation that I do have for the hon. Minister,
particularly for the flexibility and humility that he// displayed in
trying to accommodate various concerns, both of the opposition
parties and other interested groups while this Bill was/// being
drafted. But there are many experiences that we have to learn
from the drafting of this particular/// Bill. We must realise, Sir,
that some of these experiences lead us to the conclusion how not
to legislate. Landmark (700) legislations, which will go on for
decades, maybe, even a century or more, are not to be rushed
through in/ a hurried manner. They are introduced in one Session
in a hurried manner. I think, adequate amount of public debate//
has to take place on laws of this kind, even public hearings have
to take place. Sir, I really do/// not understand as to why are we
rushing through a Bill which was introduced in the later part of
the//// Budget Session. The Government must come clean and
say why it must be cleared in the Monsoon Session itself and
(800) it cannot wait.
So, Sir, I sincerely feel that this is not the appropriate
time to legislate this law. The/ Government must do some
homework before putting in place such a machinery which would
deal with all these aspects in// a comprehensive manner and not
in a piecemeal manner