Parliament of India Lok Sabha House of the People

SHRI G.M. BANATWALLA (PONNANI): I am on a point of order.

={ÉÉvªÉFÉ àÉcÉänªÉ : àÉéxÉä BÉEcÉ xÉ ÉÊBÉE {ÉÉ<Æ] +ÉÉì{ÉE +ÉÉìbÇ® {É® +ÉÉ{ÉBÉEÉä ¤ÉÉäãÉxÉä BÉEÉ àÉÉèBÉEÉ nä nÚÆMÉÉ* I will hear the point of order. … (Interruptions)

MR. DEPUTY-SPEAKER: Many points of order are there. After the Motion has been moved, I will hear all the points of order. I will also give my ruling. … (Interruptions)

SHRI L.K. ADVANI: Sir, for Members of the Thirteenth Lok Sabha and for Members of the Rajya Sabha present here, this is a very special occasion. As you yourself, in your opening remarks, said, it is very rare that a joint sitting of this kind has been convened. … (Interruptions)

MR. DEPUTY-SPEAKER: Shri Raj Babbar, you are a senior Member.… (Interruptions)

MR. DEPUTY-SPEAKER: Kunwar Akhilesh Singh, order please.… (Interruptions)

SHRI L.K. ADVANI: As all Members are aware, for me, it is always more convenient and comfortable than to speak in Hindi. But on this occasion, in order that I am able to address all of you directly rather than through interpretation, I resorted to English. … (Interruptions)

Well, I am entitled in this House to speak either in Hindi or in English. … (Interruptions)

MR. DEPUTY-SPEAKER: Shri Vaiko, he is speaking in English. … (Interruptions) +ÉMÉ® +ÉÉ{É SÉÉcåMÉä iÉÉä àÉé nÉäxÉÉå £ÉÉ­ÉÉ+ÉÉäÆ àÉå ¤ÉÉäãÉ ºÉBÉEiÉÉ cÚÆ, àÉÖZÉä BÉEÉä<Ç ÉÊnBÉDBÉEiÉ xÉcÉÓ cè* àÉé ÉÊcxnÉÒ àÉå £ÉÉÒ ¤ÉÉäãÉ ºÉBÉÚEÆMÉÉ, ãÉäÉÊBÉExÉ àÉé àÉÉxÉxÉÉÒªÉ ºÉnºªÉÉå ºÉä +ÉxÉÖ®ÉävÉ BÉE°ôÆMÉÉ ÉÊBÉE ÉÊcxnÉÒ +ÉÉè® +ÉÆOÉäVÉÉÒ BÉEÉ VÉÉä ºÉ´ÉÉãÉ cè, =ºÉBÉEÉä càÉxÉä ´É­ÉÉç {ÉcãÉä ÉÊxÉÉζSÉiÉ BÉE® ÉÊãɪÉÉ cè +ÉÉè® =ºÉàÉå ¤ÉÉvÉÉ xÉ {ÉcÖÆSÉɪÉå* BÉEÉä<Ç ÉÊcxnÉÒ àÉå ¤ÉÉäãÉä ªÉÉ +ÉÆOÉäVÉÉÒ àÉå ¤ÉÉäãÉä, =ºÉBÉEÉ ºÉàÉÉn® cÉäxÉÉ SÉÉÉÊcA*…(BªÉ´ÉvÉÉxÉ)

MR. DEPUTY-SPEAKER: Order, please.… (Interruptions)

MR. DEPUTY-SPEAKER: Shri Basavaraj, please resume your seat.

gÉÉÒ ãÉÉãÉ BÉßE­hÉ +ÉÉb´ÉÉhÉÉÒ : àÉéxÉä SÉÚÆÉÊBÉE +ÉÆOÉäVÉÉÒ àÉå ¶ÉÖ°ô ÉÊBÉEªÉÉ cè, <ºÉÉÊãÉA àÉé +ÉÆOÉäVÉÉÒ àÉå ¤ÉÉäãÉÚÆMÉÉ* …(BªÉ´ÉvÉÉxÉ)

MR. DEPUTY-SPEAKER: Shri Mulayam Singh, order please.… (Interruptions)

gÉÉÒ àÉÖãÉɪÉàÉ É˺Éc ªÉÉn´É (ºÉà£ÉãÉ) : +ÉÉ{É ÉÊcxnÉÒ àÉå ¤ÉÉäãÉå, ÉÊ´ÉÉÊvÉ àÉÆjÉÉÒ VÉÉÒ +ÉÆOÉäVÉÉÒ àÉå ¤ÉÉäãÉ ãÉåMÉä*

gÉÉÒ ãÉÉãÉ BÉßE­hÉ +ÉÉb´ÉÉhÉÉÒ : àÉÖãÉɪÉàÉ É˺Éc VÉÉÒ BÉEciÉä cé ÉÊBÉE àÉé ÉÊcxnÉÒ àÉå ¤ÉÉäãÉÚÆ +ÉÉè® ÉÊ´ÉÉÊvÉ àÉÆjÉÉÒ VÉÉÒ +ÉÆOÉäVÉÉÒ àÉå ¤ÉÉäãÉå iÉÉä àÉÖZÉä BÉEÉä<Ç +ÉÉ{ÉÉÊkÉ xÉcÉÓ cè* …(BªÉ´ÉvÉÉxÉ)

={ÉÉvªÉFÉ àÉcÉänªÉ : +ÉÉ{É ¤ÉÉ®-¤ÉÉ® BÉDªÉÉå Jɽä cÉä VÉÉiÉä cé, BÉßE{ɪÉÉ ¤Éè~ VÉÉAÆ*…(BªÉ´ÉvÉÉxÉ)

ÉÊ´ÉÉÊvÉ, xªÉÉªÉ +ÉÉè® BÉEÆ{ÉxÉÉÒ BÉEɪÉÇ àÉÆjÉÉÒ (gÉÉÒ +ÉâóhÉ VÉä]ãÉÉÒ) : àÉé ÉÊcxnÉÒ àÉå ¤ÉÉäãÉ ãÉÚÆMÉÉ, +ÉÉ{É +ÉÆOÉäVÉÉÒ àÉå ¤ÉÉäãÉ ãÉå*

gÉÉÒ ãÉÉãÉ BÉßE­hÉ +ÉÉb´ÉÉhÉÉÒ : àÉÖãÉɪÉàÉ É˺Éc VÉÉÒ, ªÉc iÉªÉ cÉä MɪÉÉ ÉÊBÉE ÉÊ´ÉÉÊvÉ àÉÆjÉÉÒ VÉÉÒ ÉÊcxnÉÒ àÉå ¤ÉÉäãÉåMÉä +ÉÉè® àÉé +ÉÆOÉäVÉÉÒ àÉå ¤ÉÉäãÉÚÆMÉÉ*…(BªÉ´ÉvÉÉxÉ) àÉé +ÉÉ{ɺÉä |ÉÉlÉÇxÉÉ BÉE®iÉÉ cÚÆ ÉÊBÉE ªÉc ABÉE àÉci´É´ÉÚhÉÇ SÉSÉÉÇ cè, àÉé ÉÊcxnÉÒ àÉå =kÉ® nÚÆMÉÉ, <ºÉ ºÉàÉªÉ +ÉÆOÉäVÉÉÒ àÉå àÉéxÉä ¶ÉÖ°ô ÉÊBÉEªÉÉ cè, àÉÖZÉä =ºÉàÉå ¤ÉÉäãÉxÉä nå*

Mr. Deputy-Speaker Sir, it is really a rare occasion. Perhaps the only Member in this House, who has participated in all these three Joint Sittings is our hon. Prime Minister, Shri Vajpayee. Like me, there may be many others who might have participated in the 1978 joint session, in which I was also there, but as I said Shri Vajpayee is unique in this House in so far as the joint sittings are concerned.

Most democracies of the world are bicameral, at least, major democracies like the UK, the US, France, Canada, Germany, etc., so as India also. Our Constitution makers, when they framed the Constitution, they made the Indian Parliament a bicameral legislature. Having made it a bicameral legislature and having provided that a legislation that has to be passed by the Parliament has to be passed by both the Houses. They thought of this situation, where the two Houses disagree, where there are differences between the two Houses, either in totality in respect of those Bills or in respect of some amendments, they made a special provision of article 108 to deal with such situation.

I may tell you that all Constitutions of the world have analogous provisions. There are practices in other countries. In fact, in the UK, for instance, there are two Houses, but in the House of Commons, directly elected and the House of Lords, if there is a difference between the two, the only thing that can happen is that the House of Lords communicates to the House of Commons that, ''''''''we do not agree with this or we would like an amendment of this in this fashion''''''''. Then whatever the House of Commons does that becomes law. In some other countries, as for example, in the US, the Senate is more important than the House of Representatives. Maybe because Senate also is directly elected unlike the House of Lords.

Here the Constitution makers provided that if there is a difference between the two Houses, there can be a Joint Sitting. It depends on the President. The present enabling provision is article 108 where the President has been empowered to convene a Joint Sitting of this kind. It is not a joint session. The Session is continuing, that is the Budget Session, but this is a special Joint Sitting and we are certainly fortunate that we are participating in this session… (Interruptions)

SHRI ANIL BASU (ARAMBAGH): Sir, they have lost the mandate of the people… (Interruptions)

MR. DEPUTY-SPEAKER: Shri Basu, please take your seat.

SHRI L.K. ADVANI: Sir, as you recounted 1961, as you recounted 1978, it was on disagreement on some amendment to the Dowry Bill or in 1978, there was an Ordinance, which was adopted by the Lok Sabha, the Banking Service Commission Repeal Ordinance, and it was disapproved by the Rajya Sabha. Something similar has happened this time that was an Ordinance relating to the Prevention of Terrorism provision and that was passed by the Lok Sabha and it has been rejected by the Rajya Sabha.

A similar occasion has been arisen. Here, the Constitution-makers thought that a Joint Session in which naturally that directly elected House would have larger numbers and in that House and if it is decided it would be deemed as having been passed by both the Houses. These were the words that are used.

Now, let me briefly mention at this stage how this POTO has come into being. Terrorism has not come to India just now. It has been with us for quite some time. In fact, in these last few months whenever I have interacted with people from the United States, they have admitted that before the 11^th of September, they were not able to fully appreciate the kind of tribulations India has been going through for over a decade, in fact nearly two decades but after the 11^th of September they could fully understand. The representatives of the U.K. mentioned to me that they too have experienced terrorism of a different kind over a period of time. The United States have experienced it only now. And they often showed greater understanding and appreciation of this problem as we are facing. They were the first to ban the terrorist organisations which have been active here. Though they have not been active in the U.K., they banned those organisations. And it is after they took the steps, the United States also thought it proper to do the same.

The Government of India has been convinced for the last four years that we have been here and I am sure even the earlier Governments held that terrorism and more particularly, State-sponsored cross border terrorism is a kind of war. It is not just a law and order problem. This is the first factor which has been responsible for Government thinking in terms of an extraordinary law like POTO.

The Constitution-makers themselves conceived that while fundamental rights are sacrosanct and if there is a violation of fundamental rights, every citizen would have the right to knock at the doors of the judiciary and seek protection of their fundamental rights. But they made provisions which provide that in a situation of war, those fundamental rights can be suspended. This only shows that the Constitution-makers were fully conscious and even while being very particular about protecting fundamental rights, they felt that in certain situations the security of the nation is a matter which should be deemed first, which should be given higher priority. So, first of all, the question that I would like to pose to all of you and which we have posed to the nation is: "Is it just in Jammu and Kashmir an aggravated law and order situation that we are facing or is it really when we say it is a proxy war, do we really believe that it is a proxy war?" If it were only terrorist organisations, perhaps, the ordinary law may be sufficient. But when you have terrorist organisations being trained, financed by a State and it becomes State-sponsored terrorism and all of them are enabled to infiltrate into our country, it becomes a challenge of a qualitatively different nature.

And this is the reason why for the last four years, we have been going round the world. Our Foreign Minister, our Prime Minister and, on occasions, I have gone and tried to plead with the whole world that you must realize that now war will be raged by other means. I remember when I visited Washington lately, everyone had asked me: "Is there going to be a war between India and Pakistan? Your armies are deployed. Their armies are deployed and the situation seems very tenuous." My reply to their question was this. I said, "Please remember what was your reaction on the 11^th of September?" On the 11^th of September, four planes were hijacked. Two of them crashed into the World Trade Center. One of them crashed over the Pentagon. The fourth one was not able to reach White House. It crashed in between on the way. But that very evening, their President said that a war had been unleashed on the United States. A war has been unleashed by the terrorists on the United States. They were very serious, very grave because of this one day’s incident. Five thousand or six thousand innocent persons died on that day. But that one single day made them feel that a war has been unleashed on the United States.

You just imagine. You asked me a question: "Is there going to be a war between India and Pakistan?" I would like to answer it saying that we have been facing a terrorist war for nearly two decades now. It is a ‘proxy war’. We call it so. Some people say it is a low intensity war. That fact is that we have not lost so many security men and so many innocent citizens in the four wars that preceded as we have lost in this proxy war. I do not want to give you all the statistics but broadly speaking, even in those wars the number of persons who died was about 3000 or 4000. In this proxy war, we have lost 61,000 people. Most of them are innocent citizens, men, women and children who have nothing to do with any politics of any kind and yet they have been killed. Therefore, I said: "We are already facing a war."

On the 13^th of December when this war came to India’s Parliament House, our Prime Minister said that let this be a challenge in which we take up the challenge and prove that this is going to be a decisive chapter in our war against terrorism.

Sir, I hold that when the Government, in spite of the fact that the Rajya Sabha did not agree with us, felt that it is necessary that a Joint Session be called for this, it is because we feel that we cannot score a decisive victory against the terrorism unless special laws of this kind are enacted. It is, therefore, that I have come to the House.

I feel satisfied also that while we have been mobilizing world opinion, our Foreign Minister has tabled a draft of Comprehensive Convention on Terrorism in the United Nations. But immediately after the 11^th September incident, suddenly a sea change came about in the thinking of the whole world, including America about this particular matter. And on the 28^th of September, that very month, the Security Council passed Resolution No.1373, which is a Resolution binding on all Members of the Security Council, in which the Security Council told all its Members recognizing the need for States to complement international co-operation by taking additional measures to prevent and suppress in their territories through all lawful means the financing and preparation of any act of terrorism. The United Nations Security Council decides also that all States shall deny safe haven to those who finance, plan, support or commit terrorist act or provide safe haven.

This is a matter, which we are pursuing with our neighbour on whom we have served a notice that there are 20 terrorists who have committed acts of terrorism in our country and to whom they have given safe haven. They have provided extra facilities of all kinds. These days, they have been saying that – they have not said to us but I have heard it from various quarters – if they were to hand over these 20 terrorists to India, it would be a security risk for them, meaning thereby that they would be able to share with us matters that would reveal to us how this proxy war has been going on for the past two decades.

This Security Council Resolution also says:

I will deal with how POTO is different from TADA. In the case of TADA, as everyone knows, the conviction rate was so abysmally low that they felt that there was an extraordinary law that has been brought and yet people were not punished because of that. So, they have to be brought to justice.

The Resolution further says:

I would like to add that this law has not been brought in a hurry. Our thinking about it started immediately after we came to power. In every meeting that we held with States and with securitymen, they would tell us that in 1985 the TADA was enacted, the TADA was an extraordinary law, it was extended from time to time and in 1995 it was allowed to lapse. They would tell us that the decision to allow it to lapse was principally because of the complaint that the TADA had been misused.

In the meanwhile, some private individuals and some organisations questioned the constitutional validity of TADA and the matter went to court. I would like to say that there were three principal objections against TADA – first, that it was unconstitutional; secondly that it was abused; and thirdly that there were no convictions under TADA. POTO deals with all these issues.

The court itself settled the first issue when it said that TADA was not unconstitutional. In Kartar Singh vs. the Government of Punjab, the court went into it elaborately because the complaint was that it was being abused. The court laid down six safeguards and said that if those safeguards were there, there would be a minimum possibility of an act like TADA being abused.

I feel happy that after the Law commission first suggested a draft Bill in its 173rd Report - this was in the year 2,000 - numerous discussions have gone on in various fora. If I were to read out the various forums at which POTO was discussed, there are so many. I remember, in 2000 itself, when the Draft Bill from Law Commission had just come, our Home Ministry’s Consultative Committee discussed it. It discussed it twice later also. We sent the draft to various States and the State Governments gave their opinion. A Chief Ministers’ Conference was held where this was also discussed. The Prime Minister convened a special meeting of the party leaders where again this was discussed. Apart from that, for a period of nearly two years from 2,000 till 2001, these discussions went on. The result of these discussions was that we were able to profit from the experience of the use of TADA. We were able to remove all the shortcomings in TADA. When we sent this proposal to the States, there were States like Maharashtra which told us that they have been able to secure a high rate of conviction ever since they have adopted the Maharashtra Control of Organised Crime Act (MACOCA), which is a law against organised crime. While earlier in TADA the percentage of conviction used to be very very low, in the case of MACOCA, after this law had been enacted, the percentage has been over 76. Shri Shivraj Patil said the other day very rightly that this 76 per cent may be a high percentage because the number of cases till now have been low. But it is also true that one single provision which has been incorporated in MACOCA that intercepts or intercepted communication would be deemed admissible evidence, has changed the whole perspective. After all, when someone in Dubai or when someone in Islamabad phones someone here and asks him to bump off so and so, that this particular leader should be bumped off, you are not going to have witnesses who are going to come forth to give evidence for that. It is the intercept which is going to be crucial and vital in booking that particular person. Attack on Parliament took place. How were we able to trace their collaborators here in Delhi or in Kashmir? It was through these intercepts. Let us not forget that terrorists act in a manner as to terrorise even potential witnesses. I was told that in the case of General Vaidya who was killed by terrorists, even close relations and family members were reluctant to come and give evidence that they saw so and so killing him. Now, in this situation, if a provision like intercepted communications being admissible evidence is incorporated, is it not something necessary? It is necessary and, therefore, it has been incorporated. I am told that before .bringing this Ordinance, we first compared it and its provisions with all the similar laws enacted in various democracies like the United States, like the United Kingdom, like France, like Germany, and we found that we have provided greater safeguards for the citizens than they have.

Let us not forget what the Supreme Court has said in its judgement in the Kartar Singh case. It made a very pertinent observation. The Court observed:

All that I can say is that when we invited the Chief Ministers here to discuss the POTO, there were Chief Ministers belonging to various Parties who told us, told me that : "We are in favour; but my Party has decided differently." … (Interruptions)

SHRI L.K. ADVANI: I know that. Without mentioning names … (Interruptions)

MR. DEPUTY-SPEAKER: Order please.

SHRI PRIYA RANJAN DASMUNSI (RAIGANJ): Sir, how can he say it here? Who are the Chief Ministers? … (Interruptions)

MR. DEPUTY-SPEAKER: Shri Dasmunsi, when you get the opportunity you can say it. … (Interruptions)

MR. DEPUTY-SPEAKER: When you participate, you can refute it if you want. But it is not like this. Please do not disturb the hon. Minister.

SHRI PRIYA RANJAN DASMUNSI : Sir, how can he say what was discussed there? … (Interruptions)

SHRI E. AHAMED (MANJERI): Sir, what is it? How can he say what happened in that meeting? … (Interruptions)

SHRI L.K. ADVANI: I can understand your reaction. … (Interruptions) Sir, I can understand their anger. But all that I can say is that without revealing names, I can swear that what I say is the truth. … (Interruptions) I can swear that what I have said is the truth. I do not want to reveal the names. You know it all. Everyone knows it. … (Interruptions)

bÉì. ®PÉÖ´ÉÆ¶É |ɺÉÉn É˺Éc (´Éè¶ÉÉãÉÉÒ) : ={ÉÉvªÉFÉ àÉcÉänªÉ, ªÉc ÉʤÉãBÉÖEãÉ MÉãÉiÉ cè*…(BªÉ´ÉvÉÉxÉ) BÉEÉä<Ç cÉ=ºÉ BÉEÉä ÉÊàɺÉãÉÉÒb xÉcÉÓ BÉE® ºÉBÉEiÉÉ*…(BªÉ´ÉvÉÉxÉ) ªÉc MÉãÉiÉ ®ä{ÉE®äxºÉ nä ®cä cé*…(BªÉ´ÉvÉÉxÉ)

={ÉÉvªÉFÉ àÉcÉänªÉ : ÉÊàÉ.®PÉÖ´ÉƶÉ, VÉ¤É +ÉÉ{É {ÉÉ]ÉÔÉʺÉ{Éä] BÉE®å iÉ¤É +ÉÉ{É ÉÊ®{ãÉÉ<Ç nÉÒÉÊVÉA, =xÉBÉEä £ÉÉ­ÉhÉ BÉEä ¤ÉÉÒSÉ àÉå àÉiÉ ¤ÉÉäÉÊãɪÉä*…(BªÉ´ÉvÉÉxÉ)

MR. DEPUTY-SPEAKER: Shri Ramdas Athawale, please hear the hon. Minister. If there is anything objectionable, I am here to look into it. Why are you worried? … (Interruptions)

SHRI L.K. ADVANI: Sir, they may be surprised to know that if there is one person (Interruptions)

MR. DEPUTY-SPEAKER: Shri Suresh, please do not disturb. … (Interruptions)

MR. DEPUTY-SPEAKER: You cannot interrupt the House like this. … (Interruptions)

MR. DEPUTY-SPEAKER: Do not interrupt him. … (Interruptions)

bÉì. ®PÉÖ´ÉÆ¶É |ɺÉÉn É˺Éc : ªÉä cÉ=ºÉ BÉEÉä ÉÊàɺÉãÉÉÒb BÉE® ®cä cé* …(BªÉ´ÉvÉÉxÉ)

MR. DEPUTY-SPEAKER: When you get the floor, you can speak. You cannot speak like this. … (Interruptions)

MR. DEPUTY-SPEAKER: Shri Dasmunsi, please tell your Members that when they get the floor, they can refute it, if they want, but they should not do like this. … (Interruptions)

SHRI PRANAB MUKHERJEE (WEST BENGAL): The hon. Minister has said that a few of the Chief Ministers are in favour of it, but their parties do not favour it. … (Interruptions) He is giving an impression that some of the Chief Ministers are convinced that there is a need of POTO but their parties are not for it. … (Interruptions) It is unfair. … (Interruptions) He should either reveal the names or … (Interruptions)

MR. DEPUTY-SPEAKER: I am on my legs.… (Interruptions)

MR. DEPUTY-SPEAKER: If you are raising a point of order, the Minister has to yield. … (Interruptions)

SHRI PRIYA RANJAN DASMUNSI : Sir, no Chief Minister is here. … (Interruptions) They are not here to contradict. … (Interruptions)

SHRI L.K. ADVANI: Sir, I have already said that I am willing to swear on oath that what I have said is correct. … (Interruptions)

SHRI S. JAIPAL REDDY (MIRYALGUDA): Sir, I am on a point of order.

MR. DEPUTY-SPEAKER: You are on a point of order.

SHRI L.K. ADVANI: I may add one more thing to your disillusionment. After all, you may have all heard of the case of Mohammad Afroz in Mumbai, a person who claimed or who in the course of his confession … (Interruptions)

gÉÉÒ àÉÉäcxÉ ®É´ÉãÉä (àÉÖà¤É<Ç nÉÊFÉhÉ àÉvªÉ) : àÉcɮɭ]Å àÉå BÉEÉÆOÉäºÉ BÉEÉÒ ºÉ®BÉEÉ® cè ÉÊVɺÉxÉä ´ÉcÉÆ {ÉÉä]Éä ãÉÉMÉÚ ÉÊBÉEªÉÉ cè* <xÉBÉEÉä ªÉcÉÆ ÉÊ´É®ÉävÉ BÉE®xÉä BÉEÉ BÉDªÉÉ cBÉE cè?…(BªÉ´ÉvÉÉxÉ)

SHRI S. JAIPAL REDDY : Sir, I am on a point of order. … (Interruptions)

SHRI L.K. ADVANI: Sir, you have to decide. … (Interruptions)

MR. DEPUTY-SPEAKER: Yes, under what provision are you raising your point of order?
 

bÉì. ®PÉÖ´ÉÆ¶É |ɺÉÉn É˺Éc : {ÉcãÉä MÉßc àÉÆjÉÉÒ VÉÉÒ BÉEÉä ¤Éè~ÉBÉE® VɪÉ{ÉÉãÉ ®äbÂbÉÒ VÉÉÒ BÉEÉ {ÉÉì<Æ] +ÉÉì{ÉE +ÉÉìbÇ® ºÉÖxÉÉ VÉÉA* …(BªÉ´ÉvÉÉxÉ)

MR. DEPUTY-SPEAKER: What is your point of order?

SHRI S. JAIPAL REDDY : Sir, I am grateful to you and the Minister for permitting me to raise my point of order. My point of order is this. No private conversation can be quoted even if it is true, even if the conversation relates to Members in the House. … (Interruptions)

12.00 hrs.

SHRI L.K. ADVANI: I at least know that a few of the State Governments, when they were asked for their opinion, they themselves expressed in favour of it. There were very few who opposed POTO. Most of them either favoured it or wanted certain improvements. Therefore, by and large, I hold that there has been a consensus in the country on the issue of POTO. … (Interruptions)

SHRI PRIYA RANJAN DASMUNSI : Mr. Deputy-Speaker, Sir, this is again another statement which is not true. There is no consensus on POTO. … (Interruptions)

SHRI L.K. ADVANI: You are free to say what you want, but this is my opinion.

MR. DEPUTY-SPEAKER: When you participate in the debate, you can refute what the hon. Minister has said.
 

gÉÉÒ ºÉÖ®ä¶É {ÉSÉÉè®ÉÒ (àÉvªÉ |Énä¶É) : ®ÉVªÉ ºÉ£ÉÉ àÉå ªÉc ÉʺÉr cÉä SÉÖBÉEÉ cè ÉÊBÉE <ºÉ {É® BÉEÉä<Ç BÉExɺÉäxºÉºÉ xÉcÉÓ cè* …(BªÉ´ÉvÉÉxÉ)

gÉÉÒ SÉxp¶ÉäJÉ® (¤ÉÉÊãɪÉÉ, =.|É.) : ={ÉÉvªÉFÉ àÉcÉänªÉ, àÉé +ÉÉ{ÉBÉEä uÉ®É MÉßc àÉÆjÉÉÒ VÉÉÒ ºÉä ABÉE ÉÊxÉ´ÉänxÉ BÉE®xÉÉ SÉÉcÚÄMÉÉ* ]èÉÎBÉDxÉBÉEãÉ ¤ÉÉiÉÉå àÉå àÉiÉ VÉÉ<A, ãÉäÉÊBÉExÉ àÉÉxªÉiÉÉ ªÉc cè ÉÊBÉE BÉEÉä<Ç £ÉÉÒ àÉÖJªÉ àÉÆjÉÉÒ ÉÊBÉEºÉÉÒ |ÉvÉÉxÉ àÉÆjÉÉÒ ªÉÉ MÉßc àÉÆjÉÉÒ ºÉä VÉÉä ¤ÉÉiÉå BÉE®iÉÉ cè, =xÉ ¤ÉÉiÉÉå BÉEÉ ºÉÉ´ÉÇVÉÉÊxÉBÉE °ô{É ºÉä, +ÉÉè® ´Éc £ÉÉÒ ºÉƺÉn BÉEä +ÉÆn® àÉäx¶ÉxÉ xÉcÉÓ cÉäxÉÉ SÉÉÉÊcA* +ÉÉ{ÉxÉä ªÉc MÉãÉiÉ BÉEÉàÉ ÉÊBÉEªÉÉ cè* <xÉ ¶É¤nÉå BÉEÉä +ÉÉ{ÉBÉEÉä ´ÉÉ{ÉºÉ ãÉäxÉÉ SÉÉÉÊcA* …(BªÉ´ÉvÉÉxÉ)

SHRI SANTOSH BAGRODIA (RAJASTHAN): Sir, it should not go on record. … (Interruptions)

THE MINISTER OF RURAL DEVELOPMENT (SHRI M. VENKAIAH NAIDU): Sir, he has not taken any names, and this is not objectionable. The law never said that. … (Interruptions)

bÉì. ®PÉÖ´ÉÆ¶É |ɺÉÉn É˺Éc : MÉßc àÉÆjÉÉÒ VÉÉÒ BÉEÉä ºÉnxÉ ºÉä FÉàÉÉ àÉÉÆMÉxÉÉÒ SÉÉÉÊcA* …(BªÉ´ÉvÉÉxÉ)

gÉÉÒ ãÉÉãÉ BÉßE­hÉ +ÉÉb´ÉÉhÉÉÒ : ={ÉÉvªÉFÉ àÉcÉänªÉ, SÉxp¶ÉäJÉ® VÉÉÒ àÉä®ä ºÉààÉÉxÉxÉxÉÉÒªÉ cé* àÉé =xÉBÉEÉ ¤ÉcÖiÉ +ÉÉn® BÉE®iÉÉ cÚÄ +ÉÉè® +ÉMÉ® àÉé ÉÊBÉEºÉÉÒ àÉÖJªÉ àÉÆjÉÉÒ BÉEÉ xÉÉàÉ ãÉäBÉE® |ÉÉ<´Éä] ¤ÉÉiÉ BÉEciÉÉ iÉÉä àÉé WÉ°ô® ´ÉÉ{ÉºÉ ãÉä ãÉäiÉÉ*

…(BªÉ´ÉvÉÉxÉ)

ãÉäÉÊBÉExÉ ´ÉcÉÆ ºÉä ãÉÉäMÉ àÉÉÆMÉ BÉE® ®cä lÉä ÉÊBÉE àÉé =xÉBÉEÉ xÉÉàÉ ãÉÚÆ ÉÊVÉxcÉåxÉä +ÉÉ{ɺÉä BÉEcÉ* àÉé xÉÉàÉ xÉcÉÓ ãÉÚÆMÉÉ* <ºÉBÉEÉ BÉEÉ®hÉ cè ÉÊBÉE àÉä®ä >ó{É® £ÉÉÒ nÉÉʪÉi´É cè ÉÊBÉE àÉé ÉÊBÉEºÉÉÒ ºÉä cÖ<Ç BªÉÉÎBÉDiÉMÉiÉ ¤ÉÉiÉSÉÉÒiÉ BÉEÉ ºÉnxÉ àÉå =ããÉäJÉ xÉ BÉE°ôÆ* …(BªÉ´ÉvÉÉxÉ) ãÉäÉÊBÉExÉ àÉéxÉä BÉEcÉ cè ÉÊBÉE àÉé <ºÉ ¤ÉÉiÉ BÉEÉ ÉÊVɵÉE BÉE®xÉÉ SÉÉcÚÆMÉÉ ÉÊBÉE VÉ¤É ÉÊ|É´Éå¶ÉxÉ +ÉÉ{ÉE ]è®ÉÊ®VàÉ ÉʤÉãÉ {É® ®ÉVªÉÉå BÉEÉÒ ºÉãÉÉc ãÉÉÒ MÉ<Ç lÉÉÒ iÉÉä +ÉÉÆwÉ |Énä¶É, +ÉâóhÉÉSÉãÉ |Énä¶É, nÉn®É xÉMÉ® c´ÉäãÉÉÒ, nàÉxÉ nÉÒ´É, ÉÊnããÉÉÒ, cÉÊ®ªÉÉhÉÉ, ÉÊcàÉÉSÉãÉ |Énä¶É, BÉExÉÉÇ]BÉE, ãÉFÉuÉÒ{É, xÉÉMÉÉãÉéb, ÉʺÉÉÎBÉDBÉEàÉ, <xcÉåxÉä {ÉÚ®ÉÒ iÉ®c ºÉàÉlÉÇxÉ ÉÊBÉEªÉÉ +ÉÉè® MÉÉä´ÉÉ, ®ÉVɺlÉÉxÉ, +ɺÉàÉ, ÉÊàÉVÉÉä®àÉ, SÉÆbÉÒMÉfÃ, àÉvªÉ |Énä¶É, =kÉ® |Énä¶É, àÉcɮɭ]Å, =½ÉÒºÉÉ +ÉÉè® {ÉÆVÉÉ¤É xÉä ºÉàÉlÉÇxÉ iÉÉä ÉÊBÉEªÉÉ, ãÉäÉÊBÉExÉ BÉÖEU ºÉƶÉÉävÉxÉ ºÉÖZÉÉA +ÉÉè® VÉÉä ®ÉVªÉ ÉÊJÉãÉÉ{ÉE lÉä ´Éä {ÉÉζSÉàÉ ¤ÉÆMÉÉãÉ, VÉààÉÚ-BÉE¶àÉÉÒ®, BÉEä®ãÉ, àÉäPÉÉãÉªÉ +ÉÉè® iÉÉÊàÉãÉxÉÉbÖ lÉä* <xcÉåxÉä <ºÉBÉEÉ ÉÊ´É®ÉävÉ ÉÊBÉEªÉÉ +ÉlÉÉÇiÉ <ºÉàÉå ºÉä £ÉÉÒ àÉé ªÉcÉÒ ÉÊxÉ­BÉE­ÉÇ ÉÊxÉBÉEÉãÉiÉÉ cÚÆ ÉÊBÉE +ÉÉÊvÉBÉEÉÆ¶É |Énä¶É ºÉ®BÉEÉ®å ºÉàÉlÉÇxÉ BÉE®iÉÉÒ lÉÉÓ +ÉÉè® BÉÖEU ºÉƶÉÉävÉxÉ SÉÉciÉÉÒ lÉÉÓ* =ºÉÉÒ BÉEä +ÉÉvÉÉ® {É® àÉéxÉä BÉEcÉ* ãÉäÉÊBÉExÉ {ÉÉìÉÊãÉÉÊ]BÉEãÉ {ÉÉ]ÉÔVÉ àÉå BÉEƺÉåºÉºÉ xÉcÉÓ lÉÉÒ* àÉé <ºÉ ¤ÉÉiÉ BÉEÉ ÉÊVɵÉE <ºÉÉÊãÉA BÉE® ®cÉ cÚÆ BÉDªÉÉåÉÊBÉE +ÉMÉ® BÉEƺÉåºÉºÉ cÉäiÉÉ, iÉÉä ®ÉVªÉ ºÉ£ÉÉ àÉå £ÉÉÒ ÉʤÉãÉ {ÉÉºÉ cÉä VÉÉiÉÉ +ÉÉè® <ºÉ V´ÉÉ<Æ] àÉÉÒÉË]MÉ (ºÉè¶ÉxÉ) BÉEÉÒ VÉ°ô®iÉ xÉcÉÓ {ɽiÉÉÒ* {ÉÉìãÉÉÒÉÊ]BÉEãÉ {ÉÉ]ÉÔVÉ àÉå BÉEƺÉåºÉºÉ xÉcÉÓ cè, ªÉc àÉé àÉÉxÉÚÆMÉÉ*…(BªÉ´ÉvÉÉxÉ)

SHRI DIPANKAR MUKHERJEE (WEST BENGAL): Sir, he is misleading the House… (Interruptions)

SHRI L.K.ADVANI: I am not yielding now… (Interruptions)

SHRI DIPANKAR MUKHERJEE : Sir, he is misleading the House… (Interruptions)

gÉÉÒ ãÉÉãÉ BÉßE­hÉ +ÉÉb´ÉÉhÉÉÒ : ={ÉÉvªÉFÉ VÉÉÒ, {ÉÉä]Éä àÉå ´Éä BÉEÉÊàɪÉÉÆ xÉcÉÓ cé VÉÉä ]ÉbÉ àÉå lÉÉÓ* <ºÉÉÊãÉA <ºÉBÉEÉ nÖâó{ɪÉÉäMÉ xÉcÉÓ cÉäMÉÉ* …(BªÉ´ÉvÉÉxÉ)
 

Mr. Deputy-Speaker, Sir, I strongly commend POTO to this House for enactment and I would be very grateful if political parties which have been opposed to it till now have a second view of their approach and decide to support it.

MR. DEPUTY-SPEAKER: Motion moved:

SHRI G.M. BANATWALLA : Mr. Deputy-Speaker, Sir, I rise on a point of order under Rule 376, read with article 108, clause (1) of the Constitution.

The mechanism of a Joint Sitting is a very serious mechanism because it can result in bulldozing the view and the decision of one House or the other, particularly the Rajya Sabha, which is against the spirit of bicameral legislature the system that we have in India. Under the system of bicameral legislature, the views of both the Houses have to be seriously considered and not to be bulldozed. … (Interruptions)

MR. DEPUTY-SPEAKER: Shri Kirit Somaiya, I have given him the floor to raise a point of order.

SHRI G.M. BANATWALLA : Mr. Deputy-Speaker, Sir, in the system of bicameral legislature we have to be very careful that the view of any one House is not bulldozed. One has, therefore, to be extremely careful in accordance with the spirit of the bicameral legislature.

Mr. Deputy-Speaker, I am to draw your attention to article 108, clause (1) of the Constitution. Specially, the first point that comes up is the threat that has been given to the Parliament by no less a person than the Chief Minister of a State who says: "If the Parliament continues, the riots in Gujarat will continue." Sir, he wants to infer that when the Parliament is adjourned, at the same time the riots will be controlled over there. … (Interruptions)

MR. DEPUTY-SPEAKER: Shri Venkaiah Naidu, I will look into it and give my ruling. Do not put any stress now, please. Whatever may be the point of order, I will have to give my ruling.

SHRI G.M. BANATWALLA : Mr. Deputy-Speaker, under article 108, clause (1), the occasion for a Joint Sitting … (Interruptions)

MR. DEPUTY-SPEAKER: Shri Kirti Azad, what is it you are mentioning? You have to behave yourself in this House.

SHRI G.M. BANATWALLA : Sir, the occasion for a Joint Sitting arises under three circumstances mentioned at clauses (a), (b) and (c) in that particular article. Those three occasions are – (1) When the Bill is rejected by one of the Houses; (2) when the Houses have finally disagreed on the amendment; and (3) when more than six months have elapsed from the date of the reception of the Bill by the other House without the Bill being passed by the other House.

Now, let us see what happened in Rajya Sabha. When the Bill was presented in the Rajya Sabha, the Rajya Sabha did not take the Bill into consideration, did not wait for the Minister to move that the Bill be passed. Such a Motion they did not wait for. Had the Rajya Sabha waited for the Motion that the Bill be passed, and had the Rajya Sabha defeated that Motion, then clause (a) would have been attracted under article 108.

MR. DEPUTY-SPEAKER: Formulate your point of order, Shri Banatwalla.

SHRI G.M. BANATWALLA : I am formulating it, Sir. On the passage of the Bill there was no Motion. Rajya Sabha did not wait till the third reading. There was no Motion that the Bill be passed. There was no such Motion that was defeated. Under clause (a) of article 108, the Joint Sitting can take up only such a Bill which is rejected by the House.

The Rajya Sabha did not reject the Bill. What did the Rajya Sabha do? The Rajya Sabha, at the very outset, defeated the Motion for the Bill to be taken into consideration. In other words, the Rajya Sabha refused to take the Bill into consideration.

Therefore, it is clause ( c) that has been attracted. Since there is no clear rejection of the Bill by the Rajya Sabha, you have to wait for six months. This is clause ( c ). It is only after six months…

MR. DEPUTY-SPEAKER: Shri G.M. Banatwalla, I have understood your point.
 

SHRI G.M. BANATWALLA : It is only after six months cooling off period.… (Interruptions)… when the Government does not stand on its prestige and when the wisdom dawns upon it, only after six months this Joint Sitting can be called.

MR. DEPUTY-SPEAKER: Shri G.M. Banatwalla, I have heard you. I will give my ruling now.

SHRI G.M. BANATWALLA : Thank you, Sir.

gÉÉÒ àÉÖãÉɪÉàÉ É˺Éc ªÉÉn´É : ={ÉÉvªÉFÉ àÉcÉänªÉ, BªÉ´ÉºlÉÉ BÉEä xÉÉàÉ {É® càÉ £ÉÉÒ +É{ÉxÉÉ £ÉÉ­ÉhÉ {ÉÚ®É BÉE® nå*…(BªÉ´ÉvÉÉxÉ)

={ÉÉvªÉFÉ àÉcÉänªÉ : àÉé +ÉÉ{ÉBÉEÉä £ÉÉ­ÉhÉ BÉEä ÉÊãÉA ¤ÉÖãÉÉ>óÆMÉÉ*
 

MR. DEPUTY-SPEAKER: I heard you, Shri Banatwalla.

As the House is aware, the Bill was passed by the Lok Sabha on 18^th March, 2002 and transmitted to Rajya Sabha for considering and passing. After the Motion for consideration of the Bill was negatived in the Rajya Sabha, the Rajya Sabha transmitted this message: "The Bill was not agreed to by the Rajya Sabha."

It is true that the message does not specifically use the phraseology used in sub-clause (a) of clause 1 of the article 108, but negation of the Motion for consideration of a Bill by the Rajya Sabha implies that the Rajya Sabha has rejected the policy contained in the Bill. This has been made amply clear in rule 134 of the Rules of Procedure of the Council which provides inter alia that if a Motion for consideration of a Bill originating in the House and transmitted to the Council is negatived, it shall be deemed to have been rejected by the Council.

Therefore, the effect of the message is same as to convey that the Bill in question has been rejected by the Rajya Sabha. I may also add that the message received from the Rajya Sabha in respect of the Banking Service Commission Repeal Bill, 1977 was worded similarly. The Bill was passed at the Joint Sitting of the two Houses on 16^th May, 1978.

So, there is no point of order now.

Now, Shrimati Sonia Gandhi.… (Interruptions)

MR. DEPUTY-SPEAKER: Shri Maheshwar, please. If you start like this, then there would not be any debate. Please cooperate with the Chair.… (Interruptions)

The ordinary laws would never be sufficient to protect our country because the terrorists have been brain-washed. Their idea is of Jehad all over the world. They have enough resources, and, therefore, it becomes more difficult. They have access to technology. We have seen what they could do as in the case of the World Trade Centre Towers and the crash of a plane on Pentagon. I am really surprised that how the people’s representatives can take a stand against the interest of the people. These Jehadis want to create an atmosphere which is more dangerous to the country. It is seen that for fighting these people, the present law would never be sufficient.

Their intention is to wipe out the country. Are we going to permit this? Are we going to support this? I pose a question. Can we secure the lives of Indians and are we ourselves secured?

Can I ask the Opposition? Are you not signing the death warrants for the whole country by not assenting to this Bill? Are you going to risk the security of this country for achieving some minor political gains or for some small number of minority votes? Let me tell you that in any case, these votes are not in the hands of anybody. For whom these people will vote is unfortunately being decided by criminals sitting beyond the borders. This is the politics that is coming in the way. So, those who are eyeing these votes will not gain much. For the sake of votes, if the Opposition wants to oppose POTO, I think, it is not in the interests of the country.

The Opposition has been saying that the provisions of the Bill are too stringent. A number of times they said that the provisions are draconian. They are criticising the Bill saying that it violates the human rights. Let us see as to whether the Opposition is saying this out of conviction. Or are they opposing it for the sake of opposition? My party feels that the Opposition is opposing POTO, only because they want to oppose it for the sake of opposition. Beyond that, they have nothing to do with POTO.

Sir, I must say that the very Government, the very people who are opposing POTO have been implementing POTO in the States like Maharashtra. I am saying this with all responsibility. The Congress leader here just now opposed POTO. When Shri Advani was speaking, he did mention that privately people are saying something different. I must mention that the POTO as it stands today is not applied in many States. The POTO is applied for a person like Afroz, in the State of Maharashtra, where the Congress Party is leading.

May I ask the Opposition leaders this? Does it not prove the point made by the hon. Home Minister that they may be opposing publicly but when it comes to the execution, apart from the other States, the Maharashtra Government was also one of the first States which applied POTO? The Government in Maharashtra is led by the Congress Party today. The position of Maharashtra is quite clear. The Congress Party is ruling Maharashtra in coalition with the NCP, another Congress party. Shri Ramdas Athawale knows about it. The NCP has supported POTO, whereas the Congress Party has opposed POTO. They have no unanimity on the issue. POTO is applied already. The MACOCA has been applied. Therefore, I personally feel that the provisions of POTO are not more stringent than the law like MACOCA.

The question I therefore, pose now is this. Which of these laws is more stringent? Obviously, POTO is not. Now, let us see as to how MACOCA proposes to achieve and as to what is proposed to be tackled by POTO? MACOCA is for combating organised crime and POTO is for combating terrorism. I personally feel that any Act against organised crime may not be as important as the crime against terrorists. Why is it that the Congress Party, which has chosen to take recourse to MACOCA in Maharashtra, is opposing POTO here? How can a law that applies to organised crimes syndicate such as Abu Salem not apply to terrorist organisations, such as, Lashker-e-Toiba or Al-Qaida or to Osama bin Laden? If the Congress Party feels that the POTO is draconian, then they should first repeal the MACOCA in Maharashtra before they raise their voice in this august House.

Let me give you some figures as to how the MACOCA has become successful. The MACOCA has become successful in Maharashtra because out of 21 cases decided so far, 16 have resulted in conviction. This was against the organised crime. When it could be successful in Maharashtra, I am sure that the POTO would also be successful as soon as it is accepted by this august House.

13.00 hrs.

If you leave aside petty offences, the success rate as per the present law is only 6.5 per cent whereas the success rate of MACOCA in Maharashtra is more than 75 per cent.

Sir, a question was raised here about the protection of witnesses which has been provided in this Bill. I am happy to mention that the protection of witnesses is absolutely necessary, as rightly mentioned by the hon. Home Minister. In the case of the assassination of Gen. Vaidya, we are all aware that the witnesses, even the members of the family, could not come forward to give evidence because they were afraid of the consequences. Therefore, it is necessary that such provisions are included in the Bill.

The important point which has been raised by the Opposition from time to time is that they are afraid that this law might be used against minorities. I must say that any criminal is a criminal, whether he belongs to a minority community or the majority community. I would like to quote some of the names of persons against whom cases were filed under TADA during the tenure of the Government headed by the Congress Party. They are, Yaqub MeMon, Sharif Sarkar, Abdul Ghani Mailsur, Ashraf Mukadam, Faruq Pable, Pervez Sheikh etc. Who are these people who were arrested under TADA? I am not going to read the entire list, but I have the entire list with me which shows that these were notorious criminals and therefore they were arrested.

Sir, even during the application of MACOCA, you will find that most of the gangsters arrested in Mumbai were the gangsters belonging to Dawood gang. So, whenever some people oppose POTO or oppose the Act like MACOCA, I would like to ask them a question. Are we going to look into the religion of the people arrested or are we going to act as per the provisions of the law? I would like to mention here that wherever Dawood’s people were arrested, all their deeds were serious crimes. In cases of crimes relating to murder, extortion, possession of fake currency, illegal fire arms and ammunition etc., would you accuse a bias in enforcing the law against a particular community? I am sure that wherever there is a possibility of such misuse, the Government has taken all the necessary precautions to stop that.

Sir, action under TADA in the Mumbai bomb blast case was taken by the Government headed by the Congress Party and action under MACOCA is also being taken by the Congress-led coalition Government in Maharashtra. We could proceed with the trial in the Mumbai bomb blast case only because there was an Act like TADA. Would you not like these criminals to be arrested and tried for the offences that they are committing? Unless the misdeeds and evil intentions are curbed timely, I am afraid that there would be further inroads into administration and politics. Then, the things will become worse and our country will become another Afghanistan which was being ruled by the Taliban. If you see the list of people arrested, you will find that they were notorious people and therefore action against them was necessary.

Sir, in the case of POTO, a special provision has been made that if a confession made before a police officer is going to be accepted, within 24 hours the confession has also to be recorded before the Chief Judicial Magistrate and therefore all necessary precautions have been taken in this Bill. As regards the fear of misuse of this law, very often TADA is quoted, but in TADA the provisions were different. It was made absolutely clear by the hon. Home Minister that those provisions which were dangerous have been removed and a new Bill has been brought in.

Some people, while speaking on this Bill, have said that in the list of banned organisations, all of them are belonging to minorities. But I would like to mention that only eight organisations out of a list of 25 are concerning minorities and rest of the organisations have no concern with minority communities. A demand was also made, either in the Lok Sabha or Rajya Sabha, for banning Vishwa Hindu Parishad and Bajrang Dal. I would request the hon. Minister of Home Affairs never to think of banning these organisations which are for national interests. They have not done anything wrong of the nature of other organisations that I have mentioned. … (Interruptions) The Government should not yield. … (Interruptions)

Let me know a single activity done by these organisations which is against the national interests. Therefore, the Shiv Sena will not tolerate any action being taken against these organisations. These are working in the interest of the nation. … (Interruptions)

I must say that all the Chief Ministers have, from time to time, also supported POTO. The general consensus in the country, as the hon. Minister of Home Affairs has said, seems to be in the interest of POTO.

I must also say that it has been heard that Osama Bin Laden has said: "The biggest enemies of Islam are in India and the USA.

MR. DEPUTY-SPEAKER: Shri Puglia, no interruptions, please.

SHRI MANOHAR JOSHI: I must say that unfortunately in this country some people are supporting the Jehad. They are working on the lines of the Taliban.

MR. DEPUTY-SPEAKER: Please do not disturb. … (Interruptions)

MR. DEPUTY-SPEAKER: Shri Puglia, please resume your seat. Do not disturb now.

SHRI MANOHAR JOSHI: I must refer that from the Jama Masjid, Shahi Imam has appealed to the Muslims to join Jehad. I think, if such appeals are made, these are most risky and not in the interest of unity and integrity of the country. Therefore, if action is to be taken, it should be taken against Shahi Imam. Strict measures should be taken against him. If he makes any propaganda in favour of Jehad, strict action should be taken against him under POTO.

I have always been saying that all of us must be united on this issue. I find an illustration. When President Bush took action, it was quick. The people in every country thought that action against the terrorists and also against the Government of Pakistan would be quick. I also found that when President Bush took action, the entire country stood behind him. I wish that whatever action the hon. Prime Minister, Shri Vajpayee, is taking, we must all stand behind him unitedly in the interests of the country.

In the case of Israel also, we have found the same thing. All the people of Israel supported the action against the Pakistanis. Unfortunately here, the country is divided. That creates a problem for us.

MR. DEPUTY-SPEAKER: Now, you please conclude. There were nine minutes. But you have taken 24 minutes.

SHRI MANOHAR JOSHI : I will conclude in a minute.

MR. DEPUTY-SPEAKER: Otherwise, you will not be able in a position to finish your speech.

SHRI MANOHAR JOSHI: Sir, the Government cannot take action without a weapon. … (Interruptions)

MR. DEPUTY-SPEAKER: Shri Rawale, I am here to regulate the House.

SHRI MANOHAR JOSHI: We have given one weapon in the hands of the Minister of Home Affairs. If we want the terrorists to be stopped, we must give him more weapons, that is, a stricter law than the present one. Then, I am sure, he will be successful.

Finally, I would say that on such issues, the country should be united. We must act unanimously. If we want to strengthen the country, the only way out is to pass this Bill unanimously and assist the Government.

MR. DEPUTY-SPEAKER: Now, Shri Somnath Chatterjee. You can also take up Shri Basu Deb Acharia’s point of order.

SHRI SOMNATH CHATTERJEE (BOLPUR): Sir, I think, no time-limit is there. I find that the Shiv Sena did not have any time-limit.

MR. DEPUTY-SPEAKER: He has taken enough time. What to do? He is a senior leader.

Now, I come to my good sister. My admiration for you is not lessened by what you said earlier. She said:

long months. You think the test of patriotism is dependent on the support a person gives to the POTO. What will you do? Unfortunately, it will become the law and it will be a permanent legislation. You do not have to go on renewing it. It will give a little respite to Shri Pramod Mahajan. He does not have to gather people here to get this Ordinance enacted and law passed. But what will you do tomorrow with this law, Mr. Home Minister? You said: `well, I had thought the USA would react in certain manner; this country would react in such a manner’. What did you gain by your kowtowing to the U.S. President? I would not use strong language for your statements, observations or whatever it may be. How would he come to your rescue? Which foreign country has come to your rescue? Merely by following one law in terms of the Security Council or the U.N. General Assembly Session, will it solve the problem? Can you guarantee us from here, from this rostrum, Mr. Prime Minister, Mr. Home Minister, that after this becomes a permanent law in our Statute Book, there will be no incident? Sixteen year old boys have been arrested in Gujarat under POTO. This is the type of use that you have been putting it to. Minorities are being attacked. How will you stop terrorism, I would like to know. We should all the time remember that this law is in full force from 24^th of October, 2001, and the submissions are being made as if only if it becomes a law today, it will be used. This is a completely wrong impression which is being created throughout the country.

Till today, we have not been told what was the tearing hurry for issuing this Ordinance. We have not been told what were the reasons which would justify this Ordinance. We have been waiting for an answer, but no answer has been given.

How could this law will be utilised by them, I would try to show in my humble way. The whole object is to carry on a virulent propaganda on the basis of POTO. This POTO could never be utilised. Even now, no Special Court has been constituted till today. Only in this Bill, not earlier, they provided that the present Sessions Court can act as a Special Court. That is only when the new Bill has come in. Till January-February, there was no Special Court to try any of these offences. No designated authority, no public prosecutors have been appointed. No rules have been framed under clause 19, even regarding forfeiture or otherwise. No Review Committee has been constituted either. Then how can this law be implemented? Why are you showing POTO as if this is the panacea for all evils when you are not sincere about its implementation? Even if we have been opposing, you do not care for our sentiments. You do not care for the entire Opposition’s views in this matter. You do not care that today a majority of the States perhaps will not implement it. But even then you must have your zid and you must go on with this because you want to indulge in propaganda and probably you want to show to President Bush that here I have passed a law.

I charge that really it has been a still-born legislation. But it has been hastily brought to terrorise the minorities and the Opposition parties to be utilised for the last elections that were held recently in different States.

That is why they have not been able to prevent a single terrorist act. They have not been able to cite one instance where because of this law they could prevent some action being taken.

Therefore, I charge whatever may be the anguish of the hon. Minister of Home Affairs who may feel that "Oh, well, you are not accepting our bona fide", I am sorry that in respect of this measure we suspect the bona fides of this unnecessary law, of this black law and we cannot accept the bona fides of this Government so far as this law is concerned.

Many well-known people, jurists including Shri Fali S. Nariman – you may not be liking him today so much – have said about it. Do not accept the humble views of a humble lawyer like me. But there are eminent people, the National Human Rights Commission who said on it. What has been said by the National Human Rights Commission? They said :

The Commonwealth Human Rights Initiative, presided over by Justice Leila Seth, former Chief Justice says :

The recent observation of the Supreme Court on one of the cases of misuse of TADA in another case is there. Another Bench comprising Justice M.B. Shah and Justice Dharmadhikari dismissed the Gujarat Government’s appeal against the acquittal of one WAQAR Ahmed Abdul Hamid Sheikh who was arrested for the same offence and tried on the same evidence by which the Apex Court had dismissed the Government’s appeal relating to another accused in 1997.

With regard to the same offence, `this person has been in jail for years together.’ These are the observations of the Supreme Court. Of course, we have seen the instance of its misuse in Gujarat. Sir, we have got some of these particulars about the number of cases where only a few, very minimal people had been ultimately proceeded with or could be sentenced. They have all resulted in acquittals in most of the cases, but they have spent years and years in jail, without any trial and without any opportunity to vindicate their positions. I appeal to all sections of the House that this is the irony of the situation that an important matter, namely, fight against terrorism has been made a partisan issue by this Government because its real intention is not to fight terrorism but to fight for some other purposes which they want to keep hidden. We have seen how the hidden agenda of this Government has come out. We have seen what happened in Ayodhya. There is no longer any secret. This Government has participated in the religious function. It has now become the holder of consecrated stones. There, they will appoint pujaris to perform puja. This is the function of this Government! Under this Government, this has happened.

Sir, therefore, when all these important organisations/persons are saying that there are adequate provisions in the law, if they had thought of tightening some of the laws and some other provisions, I can understand that. I can understand that some provisions regarding bail, and some provisions regarding quick disposal of the cases could have been amended. Nobody would have opposed it if properly conceived legislations had been brought about. Mr. Deputy-Speaker, Sir, therefore…. … (Interruptions)

MR. DEPUTY-SPEAKER: I am also aware of the time.
 

SHRI SOMNATH CHATTERJEE : Sir, so far as the Bill is concerned. … (Interruptions)

gÉÉÒ ºÉÖ®ä¶É ®ÉàÉ®É´É VÉÉvÉ´É ({É®£ÉxÉÉÒ) : ={ÉÉvªÉFÉ àÉcÉänªÉ, ªÉc ÉÊBÉEiÉxÉÉ ºÉàÉªÉ +ÉÉè® ãÉåMÉä?

MR. DEPUTY-SPEAKER: Shri Jadhav, will you please keep quiet? Only nine minutes of time was there for Shri Joshi, but he spoke for 24 minutes. When senior leaders speak, they know their responsibility. Every time, you are disturbing like this.

SHRI SOMNATH CHATTERJEE : Mr. Deputy-Speaker, Sir, there are many of these problems. The Law Minister is fully aware that the gravest concerns are shown regarding the width of definition of terrorist acts under clause (c), with regard to seizure of property and with regard to terrorist organisations. I am not going into the details with regard to provisions of the Bill.

MR. DEPUTY-SPEAKER: There is no time.

SHRI SOMNATH CHATTERJEE : About the review committees, I would ask how non-judicial persons, how non-legally trained persons can be members of the review committee. Then, the onus is put on the person charged. So far as membership of terrorist organisation is concerned, one has to prove the negative. Then, the onus is shifted on the accused regarding wide amplitude of so-called support to the terrorist organisations. Then, clause 29 provides for summary trial. Clause 30 provides for something unique, that is, names of the witnesses will not be divulged. This is against all canons of proper trial. Then, everybody has condemned the provision of confessions before the police officer. This is an anathema to law.

MR. DEPUTY-SPEAKER: Shri Somnath Chatterjee, please conclude.

SHRI SOMNATH CHATTERJEE : Sir, I will take half-a-minute more. These are the serious lacunae in this law, so-called law. I call it a lawless law. I only wish to say to Mr. Prime Minister that you find this country divided today in the middle on this issue. In majority of the States, you cannot implement this law. You have to do it through Central forces. That will be a direct attack on the federal concept of this country and on the Constitution. In good grace, you should withdraw this. You have made it a prestigious issue. All sorts of propaganda are going on that something historic is going to take place.

Sir, we are sorry that one provision of the Constitution of India is being misused for partisan purpose of this Government, which has forfeited all support of the people of this country as has been proved by the recent elections.

I thoroughly and totally oppose this Bill.
 
 
 
 

Without any type of these draconian laws, we conducted the election. In the past 10 years, no Prime Minister went to Jammu and Kashmir. As a Minister of Home Affairs, he might have got the file. If I say even a single word in exaggeration, tell the nation. I fixed up the programme. The people from the RAW and the Intelligence Bureau came and tried to advise me to postpone the programme. They said: "They have intercepted the conversation between the extremist groups. They are going to kill you. You should not go." That was the advice given by the Ministry of Home Affairs, the IB and the RAW Secretaries. All these people came to me. I postponed the programme once.

Then I fixed up the programme for the second time. The same situation was there. A dozen officers, including the same officers, came to me and tried to prevail upon me. I said: "No. I must go. If you all say that Jammu and Kashmir is an integral part of this country, the Prime Minister of this country is expected to go. If I fail to go because some conversation of extremists has been intercepted by our esteemed friends, then I am not worthy of a Prime Minister. I will go whatever may be the consequences." I visited four times. We conducted the election. We allowed persons from the international media to see whether the election was free and fair. They could and observe it.

You want to say about this so-called Ram Janambhoomi Nyas. Have they taken the entire Hindu community as their protectees? I would like to ask a question: "Am I not a Hindu?" I too have got certain responsibilities as Member of Parliament and as worker of a political party. My party is not a large party. I do not care about that. But what I want to tell the nation is that I have no hesitation. Let the hon. Members realise my own position. I do not want to use unparliamentary language against anybody. The RSS Chief says in Bangalore:

15.00 hrs.

I am not going to be afraid of these threats. I have got the press cuttings in my hands of what the RSS Chief has said: "Judge Saheb, what happened to your family, what happened to you, the agony and what now you are doing I know, why you are doing all these things."

I am not going to blame him. To take revenge is a separate matter but the country''''''''s interest is paramount. The Congress has removed my Government, I am not bothered about that. The unity of the nation, the unity of the country, the harmony among all communities and all religions is of paramount importance to all of us, while fighting terrorism.

Terrorism, as has been stated by the hon. Home Minister, is there for the last twenty years. The eyes of Mr. Bush were opened on 11^th September when the terrorist problem was known to them. The Security Council had to pass a resolution after that. Before that they had not realised what the problem of terrorism was.

Today, we are in a minority. Yes. We know those people who are going to support, a day will come and it is not far off that the political wheel will turn and they will regret. It is not far off. You cannot suppress the feelings of the nation. You cannot suppress the feelings of the entire population of 103 million people of this country. The days are not far off, whoever may rule this country, we are not bothered. What we want to say is that we want the harmony, the unity and oneness among all religions. This is all we want to have in this country.

I would like to conclude by saying that during 1961, when during one of the tallest leaders, Pandit Jawaharlal Nehru''''''''s, time, the first Joint Sitting was held as has been stated by the hon. Home Minister. At that time, there was no party whip, there was no lobbying. He was such a tallest leader in this country. He had given a free hand to vote according to the conscience of the Members, if I am correct. Shri Chandra Shekhar may correct me because I was not in the national politics at that time.

In the last one week, after raising the issue of Godhra Asthi Yatra, what has happened? There was a commotion in the House. I was a witness and then how things moved in the last three-four days… (Interruptions)

gÉÉÒ ÉÊ´ÉxÉªÉ BÉEÉÊ]ªÉÉ® : àÉÉxÉxÉÉÒªÉ ºÉnºªÉ MÉãÉiɤɪÉÉxÉÉÒ BÉE® ®cä cé* <xcÉåxÉä ÉÊ{ÉUãÉÉÒ ¤ÉÉ® £ÉÉÒ ãÉÉäBÉE ºÉ£ÉÉ àÉå +É{ÉxÉä £ÉÉ­ÉhÉ àÉå AäºÉÉÒ cÉÒ MÉãÉiɤɪÉÉxÉÉÒ BÉE®BÉEä iÉxÉÉ´É {ÉènÉ ÉÊBÉEªÉÉ lÉÉ* …(BªÉ´ÉvÉÉxÉ)

SHRI H.D. DEVE GOWDA : I do not want to learn Hindu philosophy from him… (Interruptions) I do not want to learn his Hindu philosophy… (Interruptions) I have got firm belief and I go to temple… (Interruptions) We are not afraid of these things.

While opposing this Bill, as I have already said, I am proud of my community but at the same I am opposing tooth and nail the division of the country on the basis of religion and caste.

DEPUTY CHAIRMAN (RAJYA SABHA) : Hon. Members, we are discussing something very important, which is going to affect the entire nation and the debate should be at that level. If there are so much of interruptions, I do not think it looks very nice because we are all being seen on the television not only in our country but also all over the world.

I know that you may not agree with what this side says and they may not agree with what you speak. But in the true spirit of democracy, there should be tolerance to listen to each other. And when you get a chance, you please reply. But the interruptions to the senior Members or the former Prime Minister or the Leader of Opposition or the Home Minister are not becoming of us.
 

gÉÉÒ ÉÊ´ÉxÉªÉ BÉEÉÊ]ªÉÉ® : AäºÉÉ ÉÊVÉààÉänÉ® +ÉÉnàÉÉÒ +ÉMÉ® BÉEÉä<Ç MÉãÉiÉ ¤ÉªÉÉxÉ nä ®cÉ cè, iÉÉä =ºÉä BÉEèºÉä àÉÉxÉ ãÉå* …(BªÉ´ÉvÉÉxÉ)

DEPUTY CHAIRMAN (RAJYA SABHA): Please sit down.
 

DEPUTY CHAIRMAN (RAJYA SABHA): You also please sit down.

Everybody has a right. c®äBÉE BÉEÉä <ÉÎJiɪÉÉ® cè ÉÊBÉE ´Éc +É{ÉxÉÉÒ ®ÉªÉ |ÉEÉÒãÉÉÒ AÆb ÉÊ´ÉnÉ=] {ÉEÉҪɮ BÉEcä* Everybody has a right to express his opinion freely and to speak without fear. And if you do not agree, do not agree but please do not interrupt.

Now, Shri Chandra Shekhar.

BÉEÉèxÉ ºÉÉ UÉä]É ®ÉVÉxÉèÉÊiÉBÉE ãÉFªÉ cè, VÉÉä nãÉMÉiÉ ®ÉVÉxÉÉÒÉÊiÉ ºÉä |ÉäÉÊ®iÉ cè, ®ÉVÉxÉèÉÊiÉBÉE º´ÉÉlÉÇ ºÉä |ÉäÉÊ®iÉ cè, ÉÊVɺÉBÉEÉä {ÉÚ®É BÉE®xÉä BÉEä ÉÊãÉA ºÉ®BÉEÉ® BÉEÉxÉÚxÉ ãÉÉxÉÉ SÉÉciÉÉÒ cè* ´ÉcÉÆ +ÉÉiÉÆBÉE´ÉÉn BÉEÉÒ {ÉcãÉÉÒ PÉ]xÉÉ cÖ<Ç, ÉÊVɺÉàÉå 3000 ãÉÉäMÉÉå BÉEÉÒ àÉßiªÉÖ cÉä MÉ<Ç* +ÉàÉäÉÊ®BÉEÉ BÉEÉ ®É­]Å{ÉÉÊiÉ BÉEcä +ÉÉè® {ÉÚ®É Éʴɶ´É º´ÉÉÒBÉEÉ® BÉE® ãÉä ÉÊBÉE +ÉàÉäÉÊ®BÉEÉ {É® ªÉÖr BÉEÉ AãÉÉxÉ cÉä MɪÉÉ +ÉÉè® ªÉcÉÆ 61 cVÉÉ® ãÉÉäMÉ ÉÊ{ÉUãÉä 15 ´É­ÉÉç àÉå àÉÉ®ä VÉɪÉå, àÉé xÉäiÉÉ |ÉÉÊiÉ{ÉFÉ BÉEÉä ªÉä +ÉÉÆBÉE½ä ªÉÉn ÉÊnãÉÉxÉÉ SÉÉcÚÆMÉÉ ÉÊBÉE ÉÊ{ÉUãÉä 15 ´É­ÉÉç àÉå 61,013 ÉʺÉÉÊ´ÉÉÊãɪÉxÉ xÉÉMÉÉÊ®BÉE +ÉÉiÉÆBÉE´ÉÉn BÉEÉÒ ¤ÉÉÊãÉ SÉfÃä cé* +ÉMÉ® <ºÉBÉEÉÒ iÉÖãÉxÉÉ càÉ BÉE®å iÉÉä VÉÉä SÉÉ® ªÉÖr càÉxÉä ãɽä cé, =xÉ SÉÉ® ªÉÖrÉå àÉå 5,468 +ÉÉè® +ÉÉiÉÆBÉE´ÉÉn ºÉä 61 cVÉÉ® ãÉÉäMÉ àÉ®ä cé* ºÉèÉÊxÉBÉE +ÉÉè® +ÉvÉǺÉèÉÊxÉBÉE ¤ÉãÉÉå BÉEä 8,706 ºÉnºªÉ àÉ®ä cé* 61 cVÉÉ® +ÉÉè® xÉÉè cVÉÉ®, BÉÖEãÉ 70 cVÉÉ® ãÉÉäMÉ ªÉÉÊn ºÉèÉÊxÉBÉE +ÉÉiÉÆBÉE´ÉÉn BÉEä ºÉÉàÉxÉä ¤ÉÉÊãÉ SÉfà VÉɪÉå, U& ãÉÉJÉ ãÉÉäMÉ ¤ÉäPÉ® cÉä VÉɪÉå, 45 cVÉÉ® BÉE®Éä½ âó{ɪÉÉ ®ÉVªÉ ºÉ®BÉEÉ®Éå BÉEÉ +ÉÉè® BÉEäxp ºÉ®BÉEÉ® BÉEÉ BÉEä´ÉãÉ +ÉÉiÉÆBÉE´ÉÉn ÉÊ´É®ÉävÉÉÒ MÉÉÊiÉÉÊ´ÉÉÊvɪÉÉå àÉå ãÉMÉ VÉɪÉä, ÉÊ{ÉE® BÉDªÉÉå ªÉc |ɶxÉ {ÉÚUÉ VÉÉ ®cÉ cè ÉÊBÉE +ÉÉ{É ®ÉVÉxÉèÉÊiÉBÉE BÉEÉ®hÉÉå ºÉä |ÉäÉÊ®iÉ cÉäBÉE® +ÉÉiÉÆBÉE´ÉÉn ÉÊ´É®ÉävÉÉÒ BÉEÉxÉÚxÉ ãÉÉxÉÉ SÉÉciÉä cé* +ÉMÉ® àÉé…(BªÉ´ÉvÉÉxÉ)

SHRI PRIYA RANJAN DASMUNSI : Why not before the Agra Summit? That is the doubt. … (Interruptions)

SHRI ARUN JAITLEY: I wish to remind her that the only consideration why this law is being brought is to contain terrorism; is to punish the terrorists and no other reason at all. She had mentioned that this law is being brought only for politically- motivated reasons and she alleged that we have turned 180 degree.

I just wish to remind you, please seriously introspect whether the reason for this Bill is any political motivation or is your opposition to this Bill politically motivated.… (Interruptions)

Let me now remind you, when you accused us of doing a 180 degree turn, when some Members, who are today in the Government, opposed the extension of TADA in 1989 and 1991… (Interruptions).

DEPUTY-CHAIRMAN (RAJYA SABHA): Mr. Minister, will you please go via me?

SHRI ARUN JAITLEY: Absolutely, Madam.

Madam, Deputy-Chairman, when this charge is made that some Members of the Government in 1989 and 1991 had opposed the continuation of TADA because TADA was being misused, at that stage they might have had good reasons to do so because terrorism was predominantly in Punjab. But does the leader of the Opposition conveniently forget what her own party colleagues had to say at that time? When this opposition was made, her party colleagues who are still with her in Parliament, got up and very clearly said that this country needed an extraordinary law to deal with an extraordinary situation of terrorism. Terrorism, the then Home Minister said, cannot be fought with any kind of velvet gloves, terrorism must be fought with an extraordinary legislation. And when asked how long this law will continue, he very clearly said that this law would continue as long as terrorism is to continue. Today we are reminded of the fact that when a particular party was in power, and that party confesses that when they were in power in Gujarat and other States, they misused TADA and, therefore, no other Government in power must now try and legislate an anti-terrorism law, even though the universal experience today is that to punish the terrorists, you do require such a law.

={É ºÉ£ÉÉ{ÉÉÊiÉ àÉcÉänªÉ, ABÉE |ÉSÉÉ® ÉÊBÉEªÉÉ VÉÉ ®cÉ cè* ªÉc |ÉSÉÉ® ¤ÉÉ®-¤ÉÉ® cÉäiÉÉ cè ÉÊBÉE ]ÉbÉ BÉEÉ nÖâó{ɪÉÉäMÉ +Éã{ɺÉÆJªÉBÉE ´ÉMÉÇ BÉEä ÉÊJÉãÉÉ{ÉE cÖ+ÉÉ…(BªÉ´ÉvÉÉxÉ) VÉ¤É ]ÉbÉ BÉEÉ nÖâó{ɪÉÉäMÉ cÖ+ÉÉ ªÉÉ ]ÉbÉ BÉEÉ ={ɪÉÉäMÉ cÖ+ÉÉ, VÉÉä nãÉ =ºÉ ´ÉBÉDiÉ ºÉ®BÉEÉ® àÉå lÉÉ +ÉÉè® ÉÊVÉºÉ nãÉ xÉä ]ÉbÉ BÉEÉ =ºÉ ´ÉBÉDiÉ |ɪÉÉäMÉ ÉÊBÉEªÉÉ lÉÉ, +ÉÉVÉ ´Éc nä¶É BÉEÉä nÖcÉ<Ç näiÉÉ cè ÉÊBÉE càÉxÉä +Éã{ɺÉÆJªÉBÉE ´ÉMÉÇ BÉEä ÉÊJÉãÉÉ{ÉE =ºÉBÉEÉ nÖâó{ɪÉÉäMÉ ÉÊBÉEªÉÉ lÉÉ* ãÉäÉÊBÉExÉ +ÉÉÆBÉE½É º´ÉªÉÆ BÉEä ÉÊJÉãÉÉ{ÉE BÉE®BÉEä BÉEä´ÉãÉ {ÉÉä]Éä BÉEÉä ®ÉäBÉExÉä BÉEä ÉÊãÉA ªÉä |ÉSÉÉ® BÉE®iÉä cé iÉÉä +ÉÉÆBÉE½É BÉEä´ÉãÉ =ºÉBÉEÉ £ÉÉÒ ºÉÉlÉ xÉcÉÓ näiÉÉ*

ªÉÉÊn BÉE¶àÉÉÒ® +ÉÉè® MÉÖVÉ®ÉiÉ BÉEÉä UÉä½ ÉÊnªÉÉ VÉÉA - àÉé BÉE¶àÉÉÒ® BÉEÉä <ºÉÉÊãÉA UÉä½ ®cÉ cÚÆ BÉDªÉÉåÉÊBÉE BÉE¶àÉÉÒ® àÉå +ÉÉiÉÆBÉE´ÉÉn BÉEÉÒ BªÉÉ{ÉBÉE ÉκlÉÉÊiÉ lÉÉÒ* VÉÉä ãÉÉäMÉ ¤ÉÉc® ºÉä +ÉÉiÉä lÉä, ´Éä £ÉÉÒ {ÉBÉE½ä VÉÉiÉä lÉä* MÉÖVÉ®ÉiÉ BÉEä +ÉÆn® 19000 ÉÊBÉEºÉÉxÉÉå BÉEÉä {ÉBÉE½É MɪÉÉ* <xÉ nÉäxÉÉå |ÉÉÆiÉÉå BÉEÉä UÉä½ ÉÊnªÉÉ VÉɪÉä VÉcÉÆ BªÉÉ{ÉBÉE nÖâó{ɪÉÉäMÉ cÖ+ÉÉ* {ÉÚ®ä nä¶É BÉEä +ÉÉÆBÉE½ä cé* ]ÉbÉ BÉEÉ +Éã{ɺÉÆJªÉBÉE ´ÉMÉÇ BÉEä ÉÊJÉãÉÉ{ÉE VÉÉä |ɪÉÉäMÉ cÖ+ÉÉ lÉÉ, ´Éc ºÉÉfÃä SÉÉ® {ÉEÉÒºÉnÉÒ lÉÉ* Four-and-a-half per cent was what TADA was used against the minorities. ãÉäÉÊBÉExÉ ®ÉVÉxÉèÉÊiÉBÉE BÉEÉ®hÉÉå ºÉä ÉÊ´É®ÉävÉ |ÉäÉÊ®iÉ cè +ÉÉè® <ºÉÉÊãÉA º´ÉªÉÆ |ÉSÉÉ® BÉE®åMÉä ÉÊBÉE VÉ¤É càÉ ºÉ®BÉEÉ® àÉå lÉä iÉÉä càÉ ãÉÉäMÉ <ºÉBÉEÉä +Éã{ɺÉÆJªÉBÉE BÉEä ÉÊJÉãÉÉ{ÉE |ɪÉÉäMÉ ÉÊBÉEªÉÉ BÉE®iÉä lÉä, <ºÉÉÊãÉA +ÉÉiÉÆBÉE´ÉÉnÉÒ ÉÊ´É®ÉävÉÉÒ BÉEÉxÉÚxÉ BÉEä ºÉƤÉÆvÉ àÉå ABÉE £ÉªÉ +Éã{ɺÉÆJªÉBÉE ´ÉMÉÇ BÉEä àÉxÉ BÉEä +ÉÆn® ¤ÉxÉ VÉÉAMÉÉ* ªÉc iÉBÉEÇ £ÉÉÒ ÉÊnªÉÉ MɪÉÉ ÉÊBÉE ®ÉVÉxÉèÉÊiÉBÉE BÉEÉ®hÉÉå ºÉä ªÉc |ÉäÉÊ®iÉ cè* àÉé |ɶxÉ {ÉÚU ®cÉ lÉÉ ÉÊBÉE àÉcɮɭ]Å BÉEä +ÉÆn® BÉEÉxÉÚxÉ +ÉɪÉÉ*…(BªÉ´ÉvÉÉxÉ) àÉcɮɭ]Å BÉEÉ BÉEÉxÉÚxÉ +ÉÉVÉ BÉEÉÆOÉäºÉ BÉEÉÒ ºÉ®BÉEÉ® ´ÉcÉÆ {É® ãÉÉMÉÚ BÉE® ®cÉÒ cè* àÉcɮɭ]Å BÉEä BÉEÉxÉÚxÉ àÉå VÉÉä |ÉÉ´ÉvÉÉxÉ cé, ´Éä c® oÉέ] ºÉä {ÉÉä]Éä ºÉä VªÉÉnÉ ºÉJiÉ cé* BÉExÉÉÇ]BÉE BÉEä +ÉÆn® BÉEÉÆOÉäºÉ BÉEÉÒ ºÉ®BÉEÉ® cè* BÉEÉxÉÚxÉ ¤ÉxÉÉ, BÉExÉÉÇ]BÉE BÉEÉ BÉEÉxÉÚxÉ £ÉÉÒ {ÉÉä]Éä ºÉä +ÉÉÊvÉBÉE ºÉJiÉ cè* <xÉ nÉäxÉÉå |ÉÉÆiÉÉå BÉEä +ÉÆn® BÉEÉÆOÉäºÉ {ÉÉ]ÉÔ BÉEÉÒ ºÉ®BÉEÉ®å <ºÉ BÉEÉxÉÚxÉ BÉEÉä ãÉÉMÉÚ BÉE® ®cÉÒ cé* =xÉ BÉEÉxÉÚxÉ àÉå £ÉÉÒ ªÉc ÉÊãÉJÉÉ cè ÉÊBÉE VÉÉä {ÉÖÉÊãÉºÉ BÉEÉä ÉÊnªÉÉ MɪÉÉ ¤ÉªÉÉxÉ cè ÉÊBÉE ÉÊBÉExÉ {ÉÉÊ®ÉκlÉÉÊiɪÉÉå BÉEä +ÉÆn® ´Éc ¶ÉcÉniÉ ¤ÉxÉ ºÉBÉEiÉÉ cè, MÉ´ÉÉcÉÒ ¤ÉxÉ ºÉBÉEiÉÉÒ cè, VÉàÉÉxÉiÉ =xÉàÉå £ÉÉÒ BÉE½ÉÒ BÉE® nÉÒ MÉ<Ç cè* |ÉÉÆiÉÉå BÉEä +ÉÆn® +ÉÉì®MÉäxÉÉ<Vb µÉEÉ<àÉ BÉEä ÉÊJÉãÉÉ{ÉE VÉÉä ºlÉÉxÉÉÒªÉ MÉÖÆbä cé, =xÉBÉEä ÉÊMÉ®Éäc cé, =xÉBÉEä ÉÊJÉãÉÉ{ÉE iÉÉä ªÉc BÉEÉxÉÚxÉ ~ÉÒBÉE cÉä ºÉBÉEiÉÉ cè ãÉäÉÊBÉExÉ +ÉMÉ® ãɶBÉE®-A-iÉè<¤ÉÉ +ÉÉè® VÉè¶É-A-àÉÉäcààÉn BÉEä ÉÊJÉãÉÉ{ÉE ªÉc BÉEÉxÉÚxÉ ¤ÉxÉiÉÉ cè iÉÉä ´Éc ®ÉVÉxÉèÉÊiÉBÉE BÉEÉ®hÉÉå ºÉä |ÉäÉÊ®iÉ cè*…(BªÉ´ÉvÉÉxÉ)

Madam Chairman, the argument given is that you need a law in the States to fight domestic organised Mafia. But the moment you have the same law or even a lighter law against terrorist organisations, that law is going to be politically motivated. Madam Chairman, I would like, through you, urge upon the principal opposition Party that they have already taken a 180-degree turn. You brought in an anti-terrorist law; you told the country what was the logic required for an anti-terrorist law; you have brought the same legislation for the purposes of tackling organised crime in the States.

When your State Governments were consulted, without a single exception, each one of your State Governments said that India needs such a law. Each one of your State Governments said it and some of them suggested improvements in the Central legislation that we circulated to the States saying that there was no provision for intercept of communication. It was the Maharashtra Government that suggested to us that this law would be incomplete till such time that you have a provision for interceptions. We accepted that advice. After we have followed the advice, consulted the State Governments where your State Governments advised us, suddenly it is you who took a 180-degree turn and tell us that this law is not required as far as India is concerned. What does this law say? <ºÉ BÉEÉxÉÚxÉ àÉå cè BÉDªÉÉ? BÉEÉxÉÚxÉ BÉEä |ÉÉ´ÉvÉÉxÉ BÉDªÉÉ cé, <ºÉBÉEä >ó{É® SÉSÉÉÇ xÉcÉÓ cÉä ®cÉÒ cè, SÉSÉÉÇ iÉÉä ªÉc cÉä ®cÉÒ cè ÉÊBÉE nä¶É BÉEÉ ºÉ´ÉÉæSSÉ |ÉvÉÉxÉ àÉÆjÉÉÒ BÉEÉèxÉ ®cÉ? ªÉÚ.{ÉÉÒ. àÉå ºÉ®BÉEÉ® ÉÊBÉEºÉBÉEÉÒ ¤ÉxÉxÉÉÒ SÉÉÉÊcA? MÉÖVÉ®ÉiÉ BÉEä +ÉÆn® ªÉä ºÉÉà|ÉnÉÉʪÉBÉEiÉÉ BÉEÉÒ PÉ]xÉÉAÆ cÉä ®cÉÒ cé iÉÉä <xÉ {É® ÉÊBÉEºÉ |ÉBÉEÉ® ºÉä ÉÊxɪÉÆjÉhÉ ÉÊBÉEªÉÉ VÉÉ ºÉBÉEiÉÉ cè?

gÉÉÒ àÉÖãÉɪÉàÉ É˺Éc ªÉÉn´É : +ÉÉ{ÉBÉEä ãÉÉäMÉÉå xÉä ]ÉäBÉEÉ]ÉäBÉEÉÒ ¶ÉÖâó BÉE® nÉÒ cè* …(BªÉ´ÉvÉÉxÉ)

gÉÉÒ +ÉâóhÉ VÉä]ãÉÉÒ : <ºÉ nä¶É àÉå +ÉÉVÉ BÉEä´ÉãÉ ABÉE |ÉBÉEÉ® BÉEÉ +ÉÉiÉÆBÉE´ÉÉn xÉcÉÓ cè* +É£ÉÉÒ àÉÉxÉxÉÉÒªÉ SÉÆp¶ÉäJÉ® VÉÉÒ BÉEc ®cä lÉä ÉÊBÉE ÉÊ´ÉÉÊ£ÉxxÉ |ÉBÉEÉ® BÉEä +ÉÉiÉÆBÉE´ÉÉn cé* {ÉÆVÉÉ¤É àÉå 10-12 ºÉÉãÉ £ÉÖMÉiÉä cé* BÉE¶àÉÉÒ® àÉå ºÉÉÒàÉÉ{ÉÉ® ºÉä +ÉÉxÉä ´ÉÉãÉÉ +ÉÉiÉÆBÉE´ÉÉn cè* {ÉÚ´ÉÇ =kÉ® BÉEä |ÉÉÆiÉÉå àÉå àÉÉ+ÉÉä´ÉÉÉÊnªÉÉå BÉEÉ +ÉÉiÉÆBÉE´ÉÉn cè* càÉ ãÉÉäMÉ nä¶É BÉEä +ÉÆn® näJÉ ®cä cé ÉÊBÉE ÉÊBÉEiÉxÉä cÉÒ |ÉÉÆiÉÉå àÉå +ÉÉiÉÆBÉE´ÉÉn BÉEÉÒ PÉ]xÉÉAÆ cÉä ®cÉÒ cé* <ºÉBÉEÉ {ÉÉÊ®hÉÉàÉ cè ÉÊBÉE BÉEä´ÉãÉ ®É­]Å BÉEÉÒ ºÉÖ®FÉÉ BÉEÉä JÉiÉ®É xÉcÉÓ cè, ABÉEiÉÉ BÉEÉä JÉiÉ®É xÉcÉÓ cè ¤ÉÉÎãBÉE ®É­]Å BÉEä +ÉÆn® VÉÉä <BÉEÉäxÉÉìÉÊàÉBÉE AxÉ´ÉÉìªÉ®xÉàÉå] cè, VÉÉä +ÉlÉÇ-BªÉ´ÉºlÉÉ cè, =ºÉBÉEÉä £ÉÉÒ xÉÖBÉEºÉÉxÉ {ÉcÖÆSÉ ºÉBÉEiÉÉ cè +ÉÉè® =ºÉBÉEä >ó{É® £ÉÉÒ JÉiÉ®É cè* àÉé BÉEä´ÉãÉ ¤ÉªÉÉxÉ {ÉfÃÚÆ ÉÊBÉE VÉÉä ãÉÉäMÉ <ºÉ +ÉÉiÉÆBÉE´ÉÉn BÉEÉä ¤ÉfÃÉxÉÉ SÉÉciÉä cé, ÉʴɶÉä­É °ô{É ºÉä ºÉÉÒàÉÉ{ÉÉ® ºÉä VÉÉä +ÉÉVÉ £ÉÉÒ JÉiÉ®É cÉä ºÉBÉEiÉÉ cè, àÉֶɮÇ{ÉE VÉÉÒ BÉEciÉä cé,

SHRI PRIYA RANJAN DASMUNSI : In the convention held at Bangalore, it was stated : "Muslims can stay within India if they can win the heart of the majority." What does it mean? … (Interruptions)

SHRI ARUN JAITLEY: Madam, I was only quoting somebody who has a desire to launch Jehad on India. I do not think that this should have really provoked anybody in the Opposition. Masood Azhar, the President of Jaish-e-Mohammad, says: "Our mission is just not Srinagar; we have to capture New Delhi." Osama bin Laden says : "Fighting Jehad against India is an Islamic duty of the world. Kashmir issue cannot be resolved by any means other than Jehad." … (Interruptions)

SHRI PRIYA RANJAN DASMUNSI : You created terror for Shri Rajdeep Sardesai and his colleagues. … (Interruptions) They were asked : "If you are a Muslim, you get out. If you are a Hindu, you can go further." … (Interruptions) The Law Minister and the Home Minister should explain this.

bÉì. ÉÊ´ÉVÉªÉ BÉÖEàÉÉ® àÉãcÉäjÉÉ (nÉÊFÉhÉ ÉÊnããÉÉÒ) : àÉcÉänªÉ, +ÉÉ{É <xÉBÉEÉä ®ÉäÉÊBÉEA* <xÉBÉEä ãÉÉÒb® BÉEÉä càÉxÉä +ÉÉ®ÉàÉ ºÉä ºÉÖxÉÉ cè* …(BªÉ´ÉvÉÉxÉ)

DEPUTY-CHAIRMAN (RAJYA SABHA): Just a minute please. I have requested everybody to have a debate at a level. àÉä®É +ÉÉ{ɺÉä +ÉÉOÉc cè, BÉßE{ÉÉ BÉE®BÉEä VÉxÉiÉÉÉÎxjÉBÉE iÉ®ÉÒBÉEä ºÉä JÉÉºÉ àÉÖqä {É® VÉÉä ¤ÉcºÉ cÉä ®cÉÒ cè, +ÉcàÉ àÉÖqÉ cè, ]ÉäBÉEÉ-]ÉBÉEÉÒ nÉäxÉÉå iÉ®{ÉE ºÉä xÉ cÉä, iÉÉä ¤ÉäciÉ® cÉäMÉÉ* àÉä®ÉÒ BÉEÉxº]ÉÒSÉÖ¶ÉxÉãÉÉÒ báÉÖ]ÉÒ cè, BªÉ´ÉºlÉÉ BÉEɪÉàÉ ®JÉxÉÉ* <ºÉÉÊãÉA +ÉÉ{É ãÉÉäMÉ, SÉÉcä <vÉ® BÉEä cé ªÉÉ =vÉ® BÉEä cé, nÉäxÉÉå, £ÉÉ­ÉhÉ ºÉÖÉÊxÉA* +ÉÉ{É BÉßE{ɪÉÉ ABÉE ÉÊàÉxÉ] ¶ÉÉÆiÉ ®ÉÊcA* +ÉÉ{É £ÉÉ­ÉhÉ ºÉÖxÉå, ÉÊ{ÉE® VÉ´ÉÉ¤É nå* ÉÊVɺÉBÉEÉä ÉÊVɺÉBÉEÉ VÉ´ÉÉ¤É näxÉÉ cè, ºÉàÉªÉ ÉÊàÉãÉäMÉÉ* <ºÉ iÉ®c ºÉä +ÉÉ{É BÉE®åMÉä, iÉÉä ABÉE +ÉSUÉÒ UÉÊ´É xÉcÉÓ ¤ÉxÉäMÉÉÒ* {ÉÉä]Éä +ÉMÉ® ÉÊBÉEºÉÉÒ BÉEÉä +ÉSUÉ xÉcÉÓ ãÉMÉiÉÉ cè ªÉÉ BÉÖEU JɮɤÉÉÒ cè; ÉÊBÉEºÉÉÒ BÉEÉä ¤ÉcÖiÉ +ÉSUÉ ãÉMÉiÉÉ cè, iÉÉä =xÉBÉEÉä +É{ÉxÉÉÒ ¤ÉÉiÉ BÉEcxÉä nÉÒÉÊVÉA* ]ÉäBÉEÉ-]ÉäBÉEÉÒ BÉE®xÉä ºÉä {ÉÉä]Éä ¤ÉnãÉ xÉcÉÓ VÉÉAMÉÉ* <ºÉÉÊãÉA ¤ÉäciÉ® cè, ÉÊbºÉBÉE¶ÉxÉ BÉE®BÉEä BÉEÉÊ®A* ªÉc àÉéxÉä +ÉÉ{ÉBÉEÉÒ iÉÉ®ÉÒ{ÉE àÉå xÉcÉÓ BÉEcÉ cè*
 

DEPUTY-CHAIRMAN (RAJYA SABHA): No, I have not said in favour of or against anybody because I hear a lot of noise from this side also. So, please do not take it that way. It is for everybody. This is a very serious issue. It is best to discuss this issue in the serious atmosphere at the level of this Parliament, Joint-Session of both the Houses. It is a serious discussion; it is not just a Central Hall where we sit and eat food. So, please sit down.
 

gÉÉÒ +ÉâóhÉ VÉä]ãÉÉÒ : àÉcÉänªÉ, "ÉʺÉÉÊàÉ" BÉEä nÉä {ÉÉΤãÉBÉEä¶ÉxºÉ BÉEÉ àÉé =ããÉäJÉ BÉE®xÉÉ SÉÉcÚÆMÉÉ *

It says:

ªÉc nÖ£ÉÉÇMªÉ cè ãÉäÉÊBÉExÉ ºÉSSÉÉ<Ç cè ÉÊBÉE ÉÊVÉiÉxÉä £ÉÉÒ càÉÉ®ÉÒ +ÉnÉãÉiÉÉå àÉå <ºÉ |ÉBÉEÉ® BÉEä BÉEÉxÉÚxÉÉå BÉEä iÉciÉ ºÉÉÒÉÊ®ªÉºÉ µÉEÉ<àÉ ÉÊBÉEªÉä MɪÉä cé, +ÉMÉ® càÉ näJÉiÉä cé ÉÊBÉE càÉÉ®ÉÒ BÉEÉxÉÚxÉ |ÉÉʵÉEªÉÉ àÉå BÉDªÉÉ BÉEàÉVÉÉäÉÊ®ªÉÉÆ cé iÉÉä ªÉc xɪÉÉÒ SÉSÉÉÇ BÉEÉ ÉÊ´É­ÉªÉ ¤ÉxÉ ºÉBÉEiÉÉ cè* ºÉÉàÉÉxªÉ BÉEÉxÉÚxÉ BÉEÉÒ iÉciÉ ÉÊVÉxÉ ãÉÉäMÉÉå BÉEÉä ºÉVÉÉ ÉÊàÉãÉiÉÉÒ cè =ºÉBÉEÉÒ ºÉÆJªÉÉ +ÉÉVÉ ºÉÉfÃä U& |ÉÉÊiɶÉiÉ cè* xɪÉÉÒ |ÉÉʵÉEªÉÉ, xɪÉä BÉEÉxÉÚxÉ BÉEä {ÉÉºÉ xɪÉÉ iÉÆjÉ +ÉÉVÉ +ÉÉiÉÆBÉE´ÉÉn BÉEÉ ÉÊ´É®ÉävÉ BÉE®xÉä BÉEä ÉÊãÉA +ÉɪÉÉ cè =ºÉBÉEÉ |ɪÉÉäMÉ xÉcÉÓ cÉäiÉÉ iÉÉä =ºÉBÉEÉÒ ºÉÆJªÉÉ ºÉÉfÃä U& {ÉEÉÒºÉnÉÒ cè ãÉäÉÊBÉExÉ <ºÉBÉEä +É{É´ÉÉn àÉå càÉ näJÉiÉä cé ÉÊBÉE =xÉBÉEÉÒ +ÉÉMÉæxÉÉ<VÉä¶ÉxÉ, àÉÉÉÊ{ÉEªÉÉVÉ BÉEä ÉÊJÉãÉÉ{ÉE àÉcɮɭ]Å àÉå {ÉÉä]Éä VÉèºÉÉ BÉEÉxÉÚxÉ ãÉÉMÉÚ ÉÊBÉEªÉÉ MɪÉÉ*…(BªÉ´ÉvÉÉxÉ) I am sure, the Congress Party is going to get its own time. Let me complete my speech.

gÉÉÒ ÉʶɴɮÉVÉ ÉÊ´É.{ÉÉ]ÉÒãÉ (ãÉÉ]Ú®) : ={ɺɣÉÉ{ÉÉÊiÉ àÉcÉänªÉÉ, àÉcɮɭ]Å BÉEÉ =nÉc®hÉ ªÉcÉÆ {É® ¤ÉÉ®-¤ÉÉ® ÉÊnªÉÉ VÉÉ ®cÉ cè* càÉxÉä <ºÉ {É® {ÉcãÉä ®ÉäBÉEÉ-]ÉäBÉEÉÒ xÉcÉÓ BÉEÉÒ* àÉé +ÉÉ{ÉBÉEÉä ¤ÉiÉÉxÉÉ SÉÉciÉÉ cÚÆ ÉÊBÉE àÉcɮɭ]Å àÉå 58 BÉEäºÉäVÉ ãÉMÉÉA MɪÉä +ÉÉè® =ºÉàÉå 75 |ÉÉÊiɶÉiÉ BÉEäºÉäVÉ àÉå ºÉVÉÉ cÖ<Ç, nںɮÉÒ VÉMÉcÉå {É® 75,000 BÉEäºÉäVÉ cÖA ãÉäÉÊBÉExÉ =ºÉàÉå |ÉÉÊiɶÉiÉ BÉEàÉ cÖ+ÉÉ, <ºÉBÉEÉ vªÉÉxÉ ®JÉxÉÉ ¤ÉcÖiÉ VÉ°ô®ÉÒ cè* <ºÉBÉEÉ vªÉÉxÉ xÉcÉÓ ®JÉåMÉä iÉÉä càÉÉ®ä ºÉnxÉ àÉå ¤Éè~ä cÖA ºÉnºªÉÉå BÉEÉä ÉÊn¶ÉÉ-£ÉÚãÉ cÉä VÉÉAMÉÉÒ* +ÉÉÉÊJÉ®ÉÒ ¤ÉÉiÉ…(BªÉ´ÉvÉÉxÉ) àÉÆjÉÉÒ àÉcÉänªÉ BÉEÉä àÉä®ÉÒ ¤ÉÉiÉ BÉEÉ =kÉ® näxÉä nÉÒÉÊVÉA…(BªÉ´ÉvÉÉxÉ) +ÉMÉ® ªÉc ¤ÉÉiÉ MÉãÉiÉ cè iÉÉä àÉÆjÉÉÒ àÉcÉänªÉ BÉEÉä <ºÉBÉEÉ =kÉ® näxÉä nÉÒÉÊVÉA*…(BªÉ´ÉvÉÉxÉ)

={É£ÉÉäBÉDiÉÉ àÉÉàÉãÉä, JÉÉtÉ +ÉÉè® ºÉÉ´ÉÇVÉÉÊxÉBÉE ÉÊ´ÉiÉ®hÉ àÉÆjÉÉãÉªÉ àÉå ®ÉVªÉ àÉÆjÉÉÒ (gÉÉÒ +ɶÉÉäBÉE |ÉvÉÉxÉ) : VÉ¤É àÉÉxÉxÉÉÒªÉ ºÉnºªÉ JÉÖn Jɽä cÉäBÉE® ¤ÉÉäãÉiÉä cé iÉ¤É <xÉBÉEÉä {É®ä¶ÉÉxÉÉÒ xÉcÉÓ cÉäiÉÉÒ*…(BªÉ´ÉvÉÉxÉ)

={É ºÉ£ÉÉ{ÉÉÊiÉ àÉcÉänªÉ (®ÃÉVªÉ ºÉ£ÉÉ) : ¤ÉÉiÉ ºÉÖÉÊxɪÉä, +É£ÉÉÒ àÉÆjÉÉÒ VÉÉÒ xÉä ªÉc +ÉÉOÉc ÉÊBÉEªÉÉ lÉÉ ÉÊBÉE <vÉ®-=vÉ® BÉEÉÒ ¤ÉÉiÉå BÉE®xÉä ºÉä +ÉSUÉ cÉäMÉÉ +ÉMÉ® {ÉÉä]Éä àÉå BÉEÉä<Ç ºÉÖvÉÉ® BÉE®xÉä BÉEÉ ºÉVÉä¶ÉxÉ +ÉÉiÉÉ cè iÉÉä =ºÉBÉEÉä ´Éc ºÉÖxÉåMÉä* ´ÉcÉÒ ´Éc ¤ÉiÉÉ ®cä cé, BÉEÉä<Ç =xÉBÉEÉä ÉÊJÉãÉÉ{ÉE xÉcÉÓ ¤ÉÉäãÉ ®cä cé*…(BªÉ´ÉvÉÉxÉ)

DEPUTY-CHAIRMAN (RAJYA SABHA): Please sit down.
 

SHRI PRIYA RANJAN DASMUNSI : Madam, either Shri Patil should be allowed to speak, or we will also interrupt him.
 

DEPUTY-CHAIRMAN (RAJYA SABHA) : I would not commit anything.

gÉÉÒ ÉʶɴɮÉVÉ ÉÊ´É.{ÉÉ]ÉÒãÉ (ãÉÉ]Ú®) : +ÉÉÉÊJÉ®ÉÒ ¤ÉÉiÉ àÉé ªÉc BÉEcxÉÉ SÉÉcÚÆMÉÉ ÉÊBÉE àÉÆjÉÉÒ àÉcÉänªÉ BÉEÉxÉÚxÉ àÉÆjÉÉÒ cé +ÉÉè® ªÉc SÉSÉÉÇ ®ÉVÉxÉÉÒÉÊiÉBÉE oÉέ] ºÉä cÉä ®cÉÒ cè, <ºÉÉÊãÉA càÉ =xɺÉä VÉÉxÉxÉÉ SÉÉcåMÉä ÉÊBÉE <ºÉ BÉEÉxÉÚxÉ BÉEÉ BÉEÉèxɺÉÉ |ÉÉ´ÉvÉÉxÉ ]ÉbÉ ºÉä +ÉãÉMÉ cè +ÉÉè® BÉEÉèxɺÉä |ÉÉìÉÊ´ÉVÉxÉ BÉEÉÒ àÉnn ºÉä +ÉÉ{É µÉEÉìºÉ-¤ÉÉbÇ® ]è®äÉÊ®VÉàÉ ®ÉäBÉE ºÉBÉEiÉä cé*

gÉÉÒ ÉÊ´ÉxÉªÉ BÉEÉÊ]ªÉÉ® : ={ɺɣÉÉ{ÉÉÊiÉ àÉcÉänªÉ, +ÉÉ{ÉxÉä àÉÖZÉä ¤ÉÉäãÉxÉä BÉEÉÒ +ÉxÉÖàÉÉÊiÉ xÉcÉÓ nÉÒ ãÉäÉÊBÉExÉ =xÉBÉEÉä nä nÉÒ* ºÉƺÉn BÉEÉxÉÚxÉ ºÉä SÉãÉiÉÉÒ cè, ÉʤÉxÉÉ BÉEÉxÉÚxÉ BÉEä xÉcÉÓ SÉãÉiÉÉÒ* BÉDªÉÉ +ÉÉ{É àÉÖZÉä £ÉÉÒ ¤ÉÉäãÉxÉä BÉEÉÒ +ÉxÉÖàÉÉÊiÉ nåMÉÉÒ*…(BªÉ´ÉvÉÉxÉ)

DEPUTY-CHAIRMAN (RAJYA SABHA) : I will allow you. I would allow you to come here.
 

DEPUTY-CHAIRMAN (RAJYA SABHA): I would permit you, if you ask for permission. I would allow you. If you get up to ask for a clarification, I will permit you to come over here and speak, but I would definitely not permit anybody from this side or that side to just interrupt while the Law Minister or any other Member is speaking.

gÉÉÒ +ÉâóhÉ VÉä]ãÉÉÒ& àÉé ÉʶɴɮÉVÉ VÉÉÒ BÉEÉ +ÉÉ£ÉÉ®ÉÒ cÚÆ ÉÊBÉE =xcÉåxÉä nÉä º{É­]ÉÒBÉE®hÉ <ºÉBÉEä +Éxn® àÉÉÆMÉä cé*

={ɺɣÉÉ{ÉÉÊiÉ àÉcÉänªÉ (®ÃÉVªÉ ºÉ£ÉÉ) ´Éc +ÉÉ£ÉÉ® àÉÉxÉ ®cä cé*

gÉÉÒ +ÉâóhÉ VÉä]ãÉÉÒ& {ÉcãÉÉ iÉlªÉ ºÉSÉ cè ÉÊBÉE ºÉÉàÉÉxªÉ BÉEÉxÉÚxÉ ÉÊVÉºÉ BÉEÉ àÉÉxÉxÉÉÒªÉ nä´ÉäMÉÉè½É VÉÉÒ xÉä ÉÊVɵÉE ÉÊBÉEªÉÉ lÉÉ, =ºÉBÉEä iÉciÉ <ºÉ |ÉBÉEÉ® BÉEä VÉÉä àÉÖBÉEnàÉä SÉãÉiÉä cé, =ºÉàÉå ºÉVÉÉ BÉEÉÒ n® +ÉÉVÉ ºÉÉfÃä U& {ÉEÉÒºÉnÉÒ cè* 93 {ÉEÉÒºÉnÉÒ ºÉä VªÉÉnÉ ãÉÉäMÉ UÚ]iÉä cé* ]ÉbÉ BÉEä ºÉà¤ÉxvÉ àÉå +ÉÉ{ÉxÉä {ÉÚUÉ ÉÊBÉE BÉDªÉÉå ãÉÉäMÉ UÚ]iÉä lÉä? <ºÉ BÉEÉxÉÚxÉ àÉå àÉcɮɭ]Å àÉå cÉãÉÉÆÉÊBÉE BÉEàÉ ºÉÆJªÉÉ àÉå àÉÖBÉEnàÉä SÉãÉä cé ãÉäÉÊBÉExÉ 77 {É®ºÉé] BÉExÉÉÊ´ÉBÉD¶ÉxÉ ®ä] BÉEèºÉä cé +ÉÉè® =xÉàÉå BÉDªÉÉ +ÉxiÉ® cè ´Éc àÉé ¤ÉiÉÉxÉÉ SÉÉciÉÉ cÚÆ* {ÉcãÉÉ +ÉxiÉ® ªÉc lÉÉ +ÉÉè® àÉé <ºÉä nÉäc®ÉxÉÉ xÉcÉÓ SÉÉciÉÉ lÉÉ* +ÉMÉ® MÉÖVÉ®ÉiÉ àÉå BÉEÉä<Ç ®ÉVÉxÉÉÒÉÊiÉBÉE nãÉ ®ÉVÉxÉÉÒÉÊiÉBÉE BÉEÉ®hÉÉå ºÉä 19 cVÉÉ® ÉÊBÉEºÉÉxÉÉå BÉEÉä {ÉBÉE½ ãÉäMÉÉ iÉÉä =xÉ 19 cVÉÉ® ÉÊBÉEºÉÉxÉÉå BÉEä ÉÊJÉãÉÉ{ÉE ]ÉbÉ BÉEä iÉciÉ ºÉVÉÉ cÉä {ÉÉAMÉÉÒ* ¶ÉɪÉn ªÉc +É{ÉäFÉÉ ÉÊBÉEºÉÉÒ BÉEÉä xÉcÉÓ lÉÉÒ* ]ÉbÉ BÉEÉ VÉÉä nÖâó{ɪÉÉäMÉ =ºÉ |ÉBÉEÉ® BÉEä ¶ÉɺÉxÉ xÉä ÉÊBÉEªÉÉ, =ºÉ {É® ABÉE BªÉÉ{ÉBÉE SÉSÉÉÇ cÖ<Ç +ÉÉè® ºÉ¤É ãÉÉäMÉ =ºÉä º´ÉÉÒBÉE® BÉE®iÉä cé* ]ÉbÉ BÉEä +Éxn® ãÉÉäMÉÉå BÉEÉä ºÉVÉÉ xÉ cÉäxÉä BÉEä {ÉÉÒUä ABÉE |ÉàÉÖJÉ BÉEÉ®hÉ ªÉc £ÉÉÒ lÉÉ*

nںɮÉ, {ÉÉä]Éä +ÉÉè® ]ÉbÉ BÉEä ¤ÉÉÒSÉ àÉå +ÉxiÉ® BÉDªÉÉ cè? ]ÉbÉ BÉEÉxÉÚxÉ 1985 àÉå ¤ÉxÉÉ lÉÉ* 1985 àÉå +ÉxiÉ®ÉÇ­]ÅÉÒªÉ +ÉÉiÉÆBÉE´ÉÉn nÖÉÊxɪÉÉ BÉEä +ÉxªÉ nä¶ÉÉå àÉå <iÉxÉÉ xÉcÉÓ lÉÉ ãÉäÉÊBÉExÉ ÉÊ{ÉUãÉä 17 ´É­ÉÉç àÉå nä¶É BÉEä BÉE<Ç ®ÉVªÉÉå +ÉÉè® nÖÉÊxɪÉÉ BÉEä BÉE<Ç nä¶ÉÉå BÉEÉä +ÉÉiÉÆBÉE´ÉÉn BÉEä BÉEÉxÉÚxÉ ºÉä BÉEèºÉä ÉÊxÉ{É]xÉÉ cè <ºÉàÉå =xÉBÉEÉä +ÉxÉÖ£É´É +ÉÉÊvÉBÉE cÖ+ÉÉ cè* àÉÉèVÉÚnÉ BÉEÉxÉÚxÉ BÉDªÉÉ BÉEciÉÉ cè, àÉé <ºÉä º{É­] °ô{É ºÉä ºÉÉàÉxÉä ®JÉÚÆ iÉÉä +ÉSUÉ cÉäMÉÉ* <ºÉBÉEÉÒ {ÉÉÊ®£ÉÉ­ÉÉ BÉEä ºÉƤÉÆvÉ àÉå ¤ÉcºÉ cÉäiÉÉÒ cè* ABÉE £ÉÉÒ =nÉc®hÉ AäºÉÉ +ÉÉ VÉÉA ÉÊBÉE BÉEÉèxÉ ºÉÉÒ AäºÉÉÒ +ÉÉiÉÆBÉE´ÉÉnÉÒ PÉ]xÉÉ ªÉÉ MÉÉÊiÉÉÊ´ÉÉÊvÉ cè, VÉÉä <ºÉ {ÉÉÊ®£ÉÉ­ÉÉ BÉEä +Éxn® xÉcÉÓ +ÉÉiÉÉÒ +ÉÉè® BÉEÉèxÉ ºÉÉÒ AäºÉÉÒ xÉÉìxÉ ]è®ÉÉÊ®º] AÉÎBÉD]ÉÊ´É]ÉÒ cè VÉÉä =ºÉ BÉEÉxÉÚxÉ àÉå +ÉÉiÉÉÒ cè* ]ÉbÉ BÉEÉÒ VÉÉä {ÉÉÊ®£ÉÉ­ÉÉ lÉÉÒ, ºÉÖ|ÉÉÒàÉ BÉEÉä]Ç iÉBÉE xÉä =ºÉ {ÉÉÊ®£ÉÉ­ÉÉ BÉEä ºÉƤÉÆvÉ àÉå ÉÊ]{{ÉhÉÉÒ BÉEÉÒ ÉÊBÉE =ºÉ {ÉÉÊ®£ÉÉ­ÉÉ àÉå nÉä­É lÉä* ÉÊbºÉ®ÉÎ{]´É AÉÎBÉD]ÉÊ´É]ÉÒ BÉDªÉÉ cÉäiÉÉÒ cè? ÉÊbºÉ®ÉÎ{]´É AÉÎBÉD]ÉÊ´É]ÉÒ BÉEä xÉÉàÉ {É® +ÉxÉäBÉE |ÉBÉEÉ® BÉEä ãÉÉäMÉ =ºÉ BÉEÉxÉÚxÉ àÉä ãÉä ÉÊãÉA VÉÉiÉä lÉä VÉÉä <ºÉ BÉEÉxÉÚxÉ àÉå xÉcÉÓ cè* nںɮÉ, <ºÉ BÉEÉxÉÚxÉ BÉEä +Éxn® ABÉE º{É­] |ÉÉ´ÉvÉÉxÉ cè VÉÉä ]ÉbÉ àÉå xÉcÉÓ lÉÉ* VÉÉä BªÉÉÎBÉDiÉ ÉÊBÉEºÉÉÒ |ÉBÉEÉ® ºÉä +ÉÉiÉÆBÉE´ÉÉÉÊnªÉÉå BÉEÉä vÉxÉ BÉEÉÒ ºÉcɪÉiÉÉ näiÉä cé +ÉÉè® ÉÊ{ÉUãÉä 5-6 ´É­ÉÉç àÉå nÖÉÊxɪÉÉ àÉå ÉÊVÉiÉxÉä +ÉÉiÉÆBÉE´ÉÉnÉÒ ÉÊ´É®ÉävÉÉÒ BÉEÉxÉÚxÉ ¤ÉxÉä cé, =ºÉBÉEÉ ABÉE {ÉcãÉÚ ªÉc lÉÉ ÉÊBÉE ]è®ÉÉÊ®VàÉ BÉEÉä {ÉèºÉÉ näxÉÉ, {ÉEÆb näxÉÉ £ÉÉÒ ]è®ÉÉÊ®º] AÉÎBÉD]ÉÊ´É]ÉÒ cÉäMÉÉÒ. ´Éc £ÉÉÒ +É{É®ÉvÉ cÉäMÉÉ* ªÉc BÉEÉä<Ç nÉä ÉÊ´É­ÉªÉ xÉcÉÓ cÉä ºÉBÉEiÉä* BÉEÉä<Ç BªÉÉÎBÉDiÉ BÉE¶àÉÉÒ® àÉå ÉÊ´Énä¶ÉÉÒ bÉìãÉ® £ÉäVÉiÉÉ cè …(BªÉ´ÉvÉÉxÉ) I am not yielding.

DEPUTY-CHAIRMAN (RAJYA SABHA): I am not permitting you. Please take your seat.
 

SHRI ARUN JAITLEY: Madam, I am not yielding… (Interruptions)

DEPUTY-CHAIRMAN(RAJYA SABHA) : Hon. Member, I am not allowing you because the hon. Minister is not yielding.
 

DEPUTY-CHAIRMAN (RAJYA SABHA): Nothing is going on record.
 

DEPUTY-CHAIRMAN (RAJYA SABHA): Please take your seat. He has to finish his speech and then there are other hon. Members who have to speak. Please take your seat.

gÉÉÒ +ÉâóhÉ VÉä]ãÉÉÒ& ºÉ£ÉÉ{ÉÉÊiÉ àÉcÉänªÉ, BÉEÉä<Ç BªÉÉÎBÉDiÉ +ÉÉiÉÆBÉE´ÉÉn BÉEÉÒ ºÉcɪÉiÉÉ BÉE®xÉä BÉEä ÉÊãÉA nä¶É BÉEä £ÉÉÒiÉ® ªÉÉ ÉÊ´Énä¶É ºÉä +ÉMÉ® vÉxÉ BÉEÉÒ ºÉcɪÉiÉÉ BÉE®iÉÉ cè, ÉÊ´Énä¶ÉÉÒ àÉÖpÉ BÉEÉÒ ºÉcɪÉiÉÉ BÉE®iÉÉ cè iÉÉä +ÉÉVÉ ÉÊ´Énä¶ÉÉÒ àÉÖpÉ BÉEä ºÉƤÉÆvÉ àÉå nä¶É àÉå ¤É½É xÉ®àÉ BÉEÉxÉÚxÉ {ÉEäàÉÉ xÉÉàÉ BÉEÉ cè* BÉE¶àÉÉÒ® àÉå VÉÉä ãÉÉäMÉ {ÉBÉE½ä VÉÉ ®cä cé, BÉDªÉÉ BÉEä´ÉãÉ =ºÉ BÉEÉxÉÚxÉ BÉEÉ |ÉÉ´ÉvÉÉxÉ =xÉ {É® ãÉMÉÉ BÉE® BÉÖEU cVÉÉÇxÉÉ BÉE® ÉÊnªÉÉ VÉÉA ªÉÉ +ÉÉiÉÆBÉE´ÉÉn BÉEä ÉÊãÉA {ÉèºÉÉ +ÉÉiÉÉ cè iÉÉä =ºÉBÉEÉä +ÉÉiÉÆBÉE´ÉÉnÉÒ MÉÉÊiÉÉÊ´ÉÉÊvÉ àÉÉxÉÉ VÉÉA, ªÉc |ÉÉ´ÉvÉÉxÉ {ÉÉä]Éä àÉå ÉÊBÉEªÉÉ MɪÉÉ cè* nںɮÉ, |ÉÉ´ÉvÉÉxÉ VÉÉä {ÉÉä]Éä BÉEä +Éxn® ÉÊBÉEªÉÉ MɪÉÉ cè ÉÊBÉE +ÉMÉ® +ÉÉiÉÆBÉE´ÉÉn BÉEä àÉÉvªÉàÉ ºÉä BÉEÉä<Ç BªÉÉÎBÉDiÉ vÉxÉ ªÉÉ ºÉà{ÉÉÊkÉ ¤ÉxÉÉiÉÉ cè iÉÉä ºÉ®BÉEÉ® =ºÉ ºÉà{ÉÉÊkÉ BÉEÉä VɤiÉ BÉE® ãÉäMÉÉÒ* VÉ¤É BÉEÉÆOÉäºÉ {ÉÉ]ÉÔ BÉEÉ ¶ÉɺÉxÉ lÉÉ, AäºÉä +ÉxÉäBÉEÉå BÉEÉxÉÚxÉ ¤ÉxÉä ÉÊBÉE VÉÉä iɺBÉE®ÉÒ ºÉä vÉxÉ BÉEàÉÉiÉÉ cè, bÅMºÉ ºàÉMÉÉËãÉMÉ ºÉä VÉÉä vÉxÉ BÉEàÉÉiÉÉ cè, =ºÉBÉEÉä +É{ÉxÉÉÒ ºÉà{ÉÉÊkÉ xÉcÉÓ àÉÉxÉ ºÉBÉEiÉÉ, ºÉ®BÉEÉ® =ºÉä VɤiÉ BÉE® ãÉäMÉÉÒ* VÉ¤É iɺBÉE®ÉÒ BÉEä ÉÊãÉA ªÉc ãÉÉMÉÚ cÉä ºÉBÉEiÉÉ cè iÉÉä º´ÉÉ£ÉÉÉÊ´ÉBÉE cè ÉÊBÉE nÖÉÊxɪÉÉ BÉEä c® +ÉÉiÉÆBÉE´ÉÉn ÉÊ´É®ÉävÉÉÒ BÉEÉxÉÚxÉ àÉå ªÉc |ÉÉ´ÉvÉÉxÉ cè* {ÉÉä]Éä àÉå ªÉc |ÉÉ´ÉvÉÉxÉ {ÉcãÉÉÒ ¤ÉÉ® ÉÊBÉEªÉÉ MɪÉÉ cè* Profits of terrorist crimes would be confiscated by the State. ªÉcÉÆ ¤ÉÉ®-¤ÉÉ® ÉÊVɵÉE +ÉÉiÉÉ cè ÉÊBÉE +ÉÉiÉÆBÉE´ÉÉnÉÒ ºÉÆMÉ~xÉÉå {É® |ÉÉÊiɤÉÆvÉ ãÉMÉäMÉÉ* +É¤É +ÉÉiÉÆBÉE´ÉÉnÉÒ ºÉÆMÉ~xÉÉå {É® |ÉÉÊiɤÉÆvÉ ãÉMÉÉxÉÉ, ]ÉìbÉì BÉEä +ÉÆiÉMÉÇiÉ <ºÉBÉEÉ |ÉÉ´ÉvÉÉxÉ xÉcÉÓ lÉÉ* ªÉc |ÉÉÊiɤÉÆvÉ {ÉcãÉÉÒ ¤ÉÉ® {ÉÉä]Éä àÉå ãÉɪÉÉ MɪÉÉ cè* VÉÉä ãÉÉì BÉEàÉÉÒ¶ÉxÉ xÉä {ÉcãÉÉ BÉEÉxÉÚxÉ ¤ÉxÉɪÉÉ lÉÉ, =ºÉ bÅÉ{ÉD] àÉå xÉcÉÓ lÉÉ* càÉxÉä Éʴɶ´É àÉå ÉʴɶÉä­ÉBÉE® ÉÊ¥É]äxÉ BÉEÉ BÉEÉxÉÚxÉ näJÉÉ cè ÉÊVɺɺÉä càÉå ãÉMÉÉ ÉÊBÉE <ºÉBÉEÉÒ +ÉɴɶªÉBÉEiÉÉ cè* ªÉcÉÆ <ºÉ ¤ÉÉiÉ BÉEÉÒ +ÉÉãÉÉäSÉxÉÉ BÉEÉÒ MÉ<Ç ÉÊBÉE +ÉÉiÉÆBÉE´ÉÉnÉÒ BÉEÉÒ BÉEÉä<Ç ºÉnºªÉiÉÉ xÉcÉÓ cÉäiÉÉÒ* ÉÊ{ÉE® ÉÊBÉEºÉ |ÉBÉEÉ® {ÉiÉÉ SÉãÉäMÉÉ ÉÊBÉE BÉEÉä<Ç =ºÉBÉEÉ ºÉnºªÉ cè ªÉÉ

*Not Recorded.
 
 

xÉcÉÓ?* <ºÉ BÉEÉxÉÚxÉ àÉå º{É­] °ô{É ºÉä ÉÊãÉJÉÉ cè ÉÊBÉE +ÉMÉ® |ÉÉÊiɤÉÆvÉ ãÉMÉxÉä BÉEä ¤ÉÉn BÉEÉä<Ç BªÉÉÎBÉDiÉ =ºÉBÉEÉÒ MÉÉÊiÉÉÊ´ÉÉÊvɪÉÉä àÉå ¶ÉÉÉÊàÉãÉ cÉäiÉÉ cè iÉÉä ´Éc =ºÉBÉEÉ ºÉnºªÉ àÉÉxÉÉ VÉɪÉäMÉÉ* ªÉcÉÆ iÉBÉE ÉÊBÉE àÉcɮɭ]Å +ÉÉè® BÉExÉÉÇ]BÉE àÉå VÉÉä BÉEÉxÉÚxÉ cé, VÉèºÉä ªÉcÉÆ +ÉÉ®MxÉÉ<Vb ÉʵÉEÉÊàÉxÉãÉ É˺ÉÉÊbBÉEä] - AäºÉä ¶É¤nÉå BÉEÉ |ɪÉÉäMÉ ÉÊBÉEªÉÉ MɪÉÉ cè* +ÉMÉ® ªÉcÉÒ iÉBÉEÇ =xÉ BÉEÉxÉÚxÉÉå BÉEä ºÉƤÉÆvÉ àÉå ãÉMÉiÉÉ iÉÉä µÉEÉ<àÉ É˺ÉÉÊbBÉEä] BÉEÉÒ BÉEÉä<Ç ºÉnºªÉiÉÉ xÉcÉÓ cÉäiÉÉÒ* ãÉäÉÊBÉExÉ VÉÉä É˺ÉÉÊbBÉEä] BÉEä ºÉnºªÉ BÉEä °ô{É àÉå =ºÉBÉEÉÒ MÉÉÊiÉÉÊ´ÉÉÊvɪÉÉä àÉå ¶ÉÉÉÊàÉãÉ cÉäiÉÉ cè +ÉÉè® ÉÊVÉºÉ |ÉBÉEÉ® BÉEÉÒ ´ÉcÉÆ ºÉ{ÉEãÉiÉÉ ÉÊàÉãÉ ®cÉÒ cè +ÉÉè® ºÉBÉDºÉèºÉ ®ä] 77 |ÉÉÊiɶÉiÉ BÉEciÉä cé, ¶ÉɪÉn ´ÉcÉÒ |ÉÉ´ÉÉÒVÉxÉ <ºÉ BÉEÉxÉÚxÉ BÉEä +ÉÆn® ãÉÉMÉÚ cè* +ÉMÉ® gÉÉÒ ÉʶɴɮÉVÉ {ÉÉ]ÉÒãÉ VÉÉÒ <ºÉ +ÉÉä® vªÉÉxÉ nåMÉä iÉÉä àÉÉãÉÚàÉ cÉäMÉÉ ÉÊBÉE <ºÉBÉEÉ ºÉ¤ÉºÉä ¤ÉÖÉÊxɪÉÉnÉÒ +ÉÆiÉ® ]ÉìbÉ {É® {ɽÉ* ]ÉìbÉ àÉå <ºÉ |ÉBÉEÉ® nÚ®-ºÉÆSÉÉ® BÉEÉ àÉÉvªÉàÉ lÉÉ, =xÉBÉEÉä <Æ]®ºÉè{] BÉE®xÉÉ ãÉäÉÊBÉExÉ =ºÉ <Æ]®ºÉè{] BÉEÉä AäÉÊ´ÉbåºÉ BÉEä °ô{É àÉå |ɪÉÉäMÉ ÉÊBÉEªÉÉ VÉÉxÉÉ ]ÉìbÉ àÉå xÉcÉÓ lÉÉ* +ÉMÉ® àÉcɮɭ]Å àÉå ºÉBÉDºÉèºÉ ®ä] 77 {É®ºÉå] cè iÉÉä =ºÉBÉEÉ ªÉcÉÒ BÉEÉ®hÉ cè*

càÉ ãÉÉäMÉ gÉÉÒ ÉÊ´ÉãÉÉºÉ®É´É VÉÉÒ BÉEä +ÉÉ£ÉÉ®ÉÒ cé ÉÊVÉxcÉåxÉä ªÉc ºÉÖZÉÉ´É ÉÊnªÉÉ ÉÊBÉE {ÉÉä]Éä BÉEä bÅÉ{ÉD] àÉå AäºÉÉ |ÉÉ´ÉvÉÉxÉ xÉcÉÓ ®JÉÉ MɪÉÉ cè +ÉÉè® <ºÉä +É{ÉxÉä BÉEÉxÉÚxÉ àÉå ãÉÉ<ªÉä BÉDªÉÉåÉÊBÉE àÉcɮɭ]Å àÉå <ºÉBÉEÉ +ÉxÉÖ£É´É ºÉ{ÉEãÉiÉÉ{Éڮ ´ÉBÉE ®cÉ cè* +ÉÉVÉ VÉÉä ãÉÉäMÉ ]è®äÉÊ®º] BÉEä ÉÊJÉãÉÉ{ÉE MÉ´ÉÉcÉÒ xÉcÉÓ näiÉä cé, =xÉ ºÉä b®iÉä cé, =ºÉBÉEä ¤ÉÉ®ä àÉå BÉEc ®cä lÉä ÉÊBÉE {ÉÚ´ÉÇ ºÉäxÉÉ |ÉàÉÖJÉ BÉEä {ÉÉÊ®´ÉÉ® BÉEä ºÉnºªÉ MÉ´ÉÉcÉÒ BÉEä ÉÊãɪÉä +ÉÉMÉä xÉcÉÓ +ÉɪÉä +ÉÉè® ´Éä ãÉÉäMÉ UÚ]iÉä ®cä* ªÉÉÊn <Æ]®ºÉè{] cÉäMÉÉ iÉÉä =ºÉBÉEä àÉÉvªÉàÉ ºÉä +ÉÉiÉÆBÉE´ÉÉÉÊnªÉÉå BÉEÉ {ÉiÉÉ SÉãÉäMÉÉ* nںɮä, ªÉc àÉÉãÉÚàÉ cÉäMÉÉ VÉèºÉÉ <Æ]®ºÉè{] àÉå ÉÊãÉJÉÉ cè, ÉÊBÉE =xÉBÉEÉÒ AäÉÊ´ÉbåºÉ BÉEÉä]Ç àÉå =xÉBÉEä ÉÊJÉãÉÉ{ÉE |ɪÉÉäMÉ àÉå ãÉɪÉÉÒ VÉɪÉäMÉÉÒ* <ºÉBÉEä +ÉÆn® |ÉÉ´ÉvÉÉxÉ AäºÉÉ cè ÉÊVɺÉBÉEÉÒ ºÉ¤É ºÉä +ÉÉÊvÉBÉE +ÉÉãÉÉäSÉxÉÉ cÉäiÉÉÒ cè* ªÉc +ÉiªÉÆiÉ JÉän BÉEÉ ÉÊ´É­ÉªÉ cè* VÉÉä VÉàÉÉxÉiÉ BÉEä ºÉƤÉÆvÉ àÉå |ÉÉ´ÉvÉÉxÉ ]ÉìbÉì àÉå lÉä, =ºÉä xÉ BÉEä´ÉãÉ ºÉ®ãÉ ÉÊBÉEªÉÉ MɪÉÉ cè ¤ÉÉÎãBÉE ªÉc ÉÊãÉJÉ ÉÊnªÉÉ MɪÉÉ cè ÉÊBÉE VÉàÉÉxÉiÉ BÉEÉ ªÉc |ÉÉ´ÉvÉÉxÉ ABÉE ´É­ÉÇ BÉEä ÉÊãɪÉä ãÉÉMÉÚ cÉäMÉÉ +ÉÉè® =ºÉBÉEä ¤ÉÉn ºÉÉàÉÉxªÉ BÉEÉxÉÚxÉ ãÉÉMÉÚ cÉäMÉÉ The tight bail provisions will apply only for one year. Thereafter, the normal bail provisions will apply.

+É¤É ¤ÉÉ®-¤ÉÉ® càÉå BÉEcÉ VÉÉiÉÉ cè ÉÊBÉE <ºÉàÉå ¤ÉäãÉ |ÉÉä´ÉÉÒVÉxÉ bÅäBÉEÉäÉÊxɪÉxÉ cé* <ºÉ ºÉƤÉÆvÉ àÉå {ÉcãÉÉ |ɶxÉ ªÉc cè ÉÊBÉE ]è®äÉÊ®º] BÉEÉ VÉÉä +ÉÉiàÉPÉÉiÉÉÒ VÉilÉÉ cè, BÉDªÉÉ ´Éc £ÉÉ®iÉ BÉEä BÉEÉxÉÚxÉ BÉEÉä <VVÉiÉ näMÉÉ, àÉÉxªÉiÉÉ näMÉÉ? AäºÉÉÒ ÉκlÉÉÊiÉ xÉcÉÓ cè* =xcå VÉàÉÉxÉiÉ ÉÊàÉãÉäMÉÉÒ +ÉÉè® +ÉnÉãÉiÉ BÉEä ºÉÉàÉxÉä +ÉMÉãÉÉÒ {Éä¶ÉÉÒ àÉå +ÉɪÉäMÉÉ, <ºÉBÉEÉÒ ºÉÆ£ÉÉ´ÉxÉÉ £ÉÉÒ ¤ÉcÖiÉ BÉEàÉ cè* BÉE<Ç ãÉÉäMÉ ªÉcÉÆ |ɶxÉ =~É ®cä cé ÉÊBÉE =xcå VÉàÉÉxÉiÉ ÉÊàÉãÉä* iÉÉä àÉé ¤ÉiÉÉxÉÉ SÉÉcÚÆMÉÉ ÉÊBÉE =xÉBÉEä ÉÊãɪÉä VÉàÉÉxÉiÉ BÉEÉ |ÉÉ´ÉvÉÉxÉ cè, ÉʴɶÉä­É |ÉÉ´ÉvÉÉxÉ ABÉE ´É­ÉÇ BÉEä ÉÊãɪÉä cè* càÉå BÉEcÉ VÉÉ ®cÉ cè ÉÊBÉE ªÉc ¤ÉcÖiÉ BÉE½´ÉÉ, ¤ãÉèBÉE ãÉÉì +ÉÉè® bÅäBÉEÉäÉÊxɪÉxÉ cè*

ºÉ£ÉÉ{ÉÉÊiÉ àÉcÉänªÉ, àÉé +ÉÉ{ÉBÉEä àÉÉvªÉàÉ ºÉä BÉEÉÆOÉäºÉ BÉEä ºÉnºªÉÉå BÉEÉä ªÉÉn ÉÊnãÉÉxÉÉ SÉÉcÚÆMÉÉ ÉÊBÉE ªÉcÉÒ ABÉEàÉÉjÉ AäºÉÉ BÉEÉxÉÚxÉ xÉcÉÓ cè ¤ÉÉÎãBÉE 1974 àÉå, VÉ¤É BÉEÉÆOÉäºÉ BÉEÉÒ ºÉ®BÉEÉ® ºÉé]® àÉå lÉÉÒ, xÉÉì®BÉEÉäÉÊ]BÉDºÉ BÉEÉxÉÚxÉ, <Ç.ºÉÉÒ.A.BÉEä ºÉƶÉÉäÉÊvÉiÉ BÉEÉxÉÚxÉ àÉå VÉàÉÉxÉiÉ BÉEÉ |ÉÉ´ÉvÉÉxÉ lÉÉ +ÉÉè® VÉ¤É béVÉ® AÆb bèàÉäVÉ +ÉÉì{ÉE ÉʺÉÉÊ´ÉãÉ AäÉÊ´ÉA¶ÉxÉ BÉEÉ BÉEÉxÉÚxÉ 1989 àÉå ãÉɪÉä, =ºÉàÉå VÉàÉÉxÉiÉ BÉEÉ |ÉÉ´ÉvÉÉxÉ lÉÉ* àÉcɮɭ]Å,, BÉExÉÉÇ]BÉE, +ÉÉxwÉ |Énä¶É BÉEä BÉEÉxÉÚxÉÉå àÉå ªÉc |ÉÉ´ÉvÉÉxÉ cè ãÉäÉÊBÉExÉ càÉå BÉEcÉ VÉÉ ®cÉ cè ÉÊBÉE +ÉÉ{É ®ÉVÉxÉèÉÊiÉBÉE BÉEÉ®hÉÉå ºÉä ªÉc BÉEÉxÉÚxÉ ãÉäBÉE® +ÉɪÉä cé* càÉ <ºÉä ®ÉVÉxÉèÉÊiÉBÉE BÉEÉ®hÉÉä ºÉä ãÉɪÉä cé ªÉÉ +ÉÉ{É ®ÉVÉxÉèÉÊiÉBÉE BÉEÉ®hÉÉå ºÉä <ºÉBÉEÉ ÉÊ´É®ÉävÉ BÉE® ®cä cé, <ºÉ ÉÊ´É­ÉªÉ {É® nÉäxÉÉå ºÉnxÉÉå BÉEÉÒ +ÉÉàÉ ºÉcàÉÉÊiÉ ºÉä iÉªÉ cÉä VÉÉxÉÉ SÉÉÉÊcªÉä* <ºÉàÉå xÉäiÉÉ |ÉÉÊiÉ{ÉFÉ xÉä ABÉE +ÉÉãÉÉäSÉxÉÉ ªÉc BÉEÉÒ cè ÉÊBÉE {ÉÖÉÊãÉºÉ BÉEÉä ÉÊnªÉÉ MɪÉÉ ¤ÉªÉÉxÉ - Confessional statements made to the police are admissible evidence. ªÉcÉ ABÉEàÉÉjÉ BÉEÉxÉÚxÉ xÉcÉÓ cè VÉcÉÆ AäºÉÉÒ ÉκlÉÉÊiÉ cè* àÉcɮɭ]Å +ÉÉè® BÉExÉÉÇ]BÉE BÉEä BÉEÉxÉÚxÉÉå BÉEÉä xÉäiÉÉ |ÉÉÊiÉ{ÉFÉ xÉä {ÉÉèÉÊãÉÉÊ]BÉEãÉ àÉÉäÉÊ]´Éä]äb xÉcÉÓ BÉEcÉ ãÉäÉÊBÉExÉ VÉ¤É +ÉÉiÉÆBÉE´ÉÉn BÉEä ÉÊJÉãÉÉ{ÉE BÉEÉxÉÚxÉ ¤ÉxÉɪÉÉ VÉÉ ®cÉ cè iÉÉä càÉå BÉEcÉ VÉÉ ®cÉ cè ÉÊBÉE <ºÉBÉEÉ |ÉÉ´ÉvÉÉxÉ ®ÉVÉxÉèÉÊiÉBÉE BÉEÉ®hÉÉå ºÉä ÉÊBÉEªÉÉ VÉÉ ®cÉ cè* <ºÉ BÉEÉxÉÚxÉ BÉEä {ÉÉÒUä ªÉc iÉBÉEÇ cè ÉÊBÉE <ºÉ BªÉ´ÉºlÉÉ BÉEä {ÉÉÒUä ÉÊVÉiÉxÉä £ÉÉÒ +ÉÉiÉÆBÉE´ÉÉnÉÒ ºÉÆMÉ~xÉ cÉäiÉä cé, VÉ¤É =xÉBÉEÉÒ MÉÉÊiÉÉÊ´ÉÉÊvɪÉÉÆ SÉãÉiÉÉÒ cé, =xÉBÉEä £ÉÉÒiÉ® ­ÉbªÉÆjÉ ®SÉä VÉÉiÉä cé, =ºÉ ºÉàÉªÉ BÉEÉä<Ç ¤ÉÉc® BÉEÉ +ÉÉnàÉÉÒ +ÉÉBÉE® xÉcÉÓ ¤ÉiÉÉiÉÉ ÉÊBÉE BÉDªÉÉ ®SÉÉ MɪÉÉ* ÉÊVÉxÉ ãÉÉäMÉÉå xÉä ºÉƺÉn {É® |ÉcÉ® ÉÊBÉEªÉÉ, =xÉBÉEä {ÉÉÒUä BÉEÉèxÉ lÉÉ, =xÉBÉEÉ MÉÉWÉÉÒ ¤ÉɤÉÉ ºÉä BÉDªÉÉ ºÉƤÉÆvÉ lÉÉ, ªÉc +ÉÉ{É ãÉÉäMÉÉå àÉå ºÉä BÉEÉä<Ç xÉcÉÓ ¤ÉiÉãÉÉ ºÉBÉEiÉÉ* <ºÉä =ºÉ ºÉÆMÉ~xÉ BÉEä £ÉÉÒiÉ® BÉEä ãÉÉäMÉ ¤ÉiÉÉ ºÉBÉEiÉä cé*

ªÉcÉÆ ÉÊVɵÉE ÉÊBÉEªÉÉ MɪÉÉ +ÉÉè® ªÉc nÖ£ÉÉÇMªÉ BÉEÉÒ ¤ÉÉiÉ cè ÉÊBÉE +ÉÉiÉÆBÉE´ÉÉn BÉEä SÉãÉiÉä càÉÉ®ä nÉä £ÉÚiÉ{ÉÚ´ÉÇ |ÉvÉÉxÉ àÉÆÉÊjɪÉÉå BÉEÉÒ àÉßiªÉÖ cÖ<Ç* =xÉàÉå ºÉä ABÉE àÉÖBÉEnàÉä àÉå VÉ¤É àÉÉxÉxÉÉÒªÉ ®ÉVÉÉÒ´É MÉÉÆvÉÉÒ VÉÉÒ BÉEÉÒ ciªÉÉ cÖ<Ç iÉÉä BÉEä´ÉãÉ ´ÉcÉÒ ºÉÆMÉ~xÉ AãÉ.]ÉÒ.]ÉÒ.<Ç. BÉEä ãÉÉäMÉ £ÉÉÒiÉ® ºÉä ¤ÉiÉÉ ºÉBÉEiÉä lÉä ÉÊBÉE ­ÉbáÉÆjÉ àÉå BÉEÉèxÉ-BÉEÉèxÉ ¶ÉÉÉÊàÉãÉ lÉÉ +ÉÉè® =ºÉBÉEÉÒ MÉ´ÉÉcÉÒ nä ºÉBÉEiÉä lÉä* ¤ÉÉc® BÉEÉ BÉEÉä<Ç BªÉÉÎBÉDiÉ ªÉc +ÉÉBÉE® xÉcÉÓ ¤ÉiÉãÉÉ ºÉBÉEiÉÉ lÉÉ ÉÊBÉE AãÉ.]ÉÒ.]ÉÒ.<Ç. BÉEä BªÉÉÎBÉDiÉ +É{ÉxÉÉÒ ¤Éè~BÉEÉä àÉå BÉDªÉÉ iÉªÉ BÉE®iÉä lÉä, BÉEÉèxÉ {ÉèºÉÉ näMÉÉ, +ÉÉ®.bÉÒ.ABÉDºÉ. BÉEÉèxÉ näMÉÉ, A.BÉEä.-47 BÉEÉèxÉ näMÉÉ +ÉÉè® <ºÉÉÊãÉA iÉàÉÉàÉ Ax]ÉÒ-]è®äÉÊ®º] ãÉÉìVÉ àÉå Ax]ÉÒ-<xɺÉVÉæxºÉÉÒ ãÉÉìVÉ àÉå <ºÉ |ÉBÉEÉ® BÉEä |ÉÉ´ÉvÉÉxÉ BÉEÉä bÉãÉxÉÉ, =ºÉ BÉEÉxÉÚxÉ BÉEÉÒ àÉnn BÉE®xÉÉ cè, ÉÊVɺɺÉä ÉÊBÉE ºÉàÉÉVÉ BÉEÉä =ºÉ BÉEÉxÉÚxÉ ºÉä càÉ ãÉÉäMÉÉå BÉEÉä ¤ÉSÉÉ {ÉɪÉå* ªÉc BÉEä´ÉãÉ +É{ÉxÉä ªÉcÉÆ xÉcÉÓ cè* <ºÉ |ÉBÉEÉ® BÉEÉÒ BªÉ´ÉºlÉÉ, ÉʴɶÉä­É BªÉ´ÉºlÉÉ +ÉxªÉ ºlÉÉxÉÉÒªÉ BÉEÉxÉÚxÉÉå àÉå <ºÉ nä¶É BÉEä +ÉÆn® BÉEÉÒ MÉ<Ç cè +ÉÉè® =xÉBÉEÉ ºÉ{ÉEãÉ |ɪÉÉäMÉ ®cÉ cè*

ºÉ£ÉÉ{ÉÉÊiÉ àÉcÉänªÉ, ¤ÉÉ®-¤ÉÉ® ÉÊVɵÉE +ÉÉiÉÉ cè ÉÊBÉE +ÉÉ{ÉxÉä ÉÊBÉEºÉºÉä SÉSÉÉÇ BÉEÉÒ* |ÉÉÊiÉ{ÉFÉ BÉEä xÉäiÉÉ+ÉÉäÆ BÉEÉÒ £ÉÉÒ ¤Éè~BÉE cÖ<Ç, cÉäàÉ ÉÊàÉÉÊxɺ]ÅÉÒ BÉEÉÒ BÉEƺÉã]äÉÊ]´É BÉEàÉä]ÉÒ BÉEÉÒ nÉä ¤Éè~BÉEå cÖ<ÇÆ, àÉÖJªÉ àÉÆÉÊjɪÉÉå ºÉä ®ÉªÉ àÉÉÆMÉÉÒ MÉ<Ç, +ÉÉÊvÉBÉEiÉ® ®ÉVªÉÉå xÉä <ºÉBÉEÉ ºÉàÉlÉÇxÉ ÉÊBÉEªÉÉ* ãÉÉì BÉEàÉÉÒ¶ÉxÉ ºÉä {ÉÚUÉ MɪÉÉ, ãÉÉì BÉEàÉÉÒ¶ÉxÉ xÉä <ºÉBÉEÉ ºÉàÉlÉÇxÉà ÉÊBÉEªÉÉ* ÉÊ{ÉE® BÉEcÉ VÉÉiÉÉ cè ÉÊBÉE VÉÉä º]ä]Ö]®ÉÒ ¤ÉÉìbÉÒ ÿªÉÚàÉèxÉ ®É<]弃 BÉEàÉÉÒ¶ÉxÉ cè, ÿªÉÚàÉèxÉ ®É<]弃 BÉEàÉÉÒ¶ÉxÉ xÉä BÉEcÉ ÉÊBÉE <ºÉ BÉEÉxÉÚxÉ BÉEÉÒ +ÉɴɶªÉBÉEiÉÉ xÉcÉÓ cè <ºÉÉÊãÉA +ÉÉ{ÉBÉEÉä ªÉc BÉEÉxÉÚxÉ xÉcÉÓ ¤ÉxÉÉxÉÉ SÉÉÉÊcA* àÉé ¤É½ÉÒ ÉÊ´ÉxÉ©ÉiÉÉ ºÉä BÉEcxÉÉ SÉÉciÉÉ cÚÆ ÉÊBÉE +ÉÉiÉÆBÉE´ÉÉn BÉEä ÉÊJÉãÉÉ{ÉE ãɽÉ<Ç BÉEèºÉä ãɽÉÒ VÉÉiÉÉÒ cè* ÉÊVÉxÉ ãÉÉäMÉÉå BÉEÉä Ax]ÉÒ-<xɺÉVÉæxºÉÉÒ BÉEä ÉÊJÉãÉÉ{ÉE ãɽÉ<Ç ãɽxÉä BÉEÉ +ÉxÉÖ£É´É cè, VÉÉä ºÉÖ®FÉÉ ÉÊ´É£ÉÉMÉÉå àÉå +ÉÉÊvÉBÉEÉ®ÉÒ ®cä cé, =xÉàÉå <ºÉ ÉÊ´É­ÉªÉ àÉå BÉEcÉÓ nÉä àÉiÉ xÉcÉÓ cé* ®ÉVÉxÉÉÒÉÊiÉBÉE BªÉ´ÉºlÉÉ àÉå nÉä àÉiÉ cÉä ºÉBÉEiÉä cé* ãÉäÉÊBÉExÉ ÉʺÉBÉDªÉÖÉÊ®]ÉÒ ABÉDºÉ{É]ºÉÇ àÉå <ºÉ nä¶É àÉå BÉEcÉÓ nÉä àÉiÉ xÉcÉÓ cé ÉÊBÉE +ÉÉ{ÉBÉEÉä Ax]ÉÒ <xɺÉVÉæxºÉÉÒ BÉEä ÉÊJÉãÉÉ{ÉE ÉÊBÉEºÉ |ÉBÉEÉ® BÉEÉ BÉEÉxÉÚxÉ SÉÉÉÊcA* ~ÉÒBÉE cè, ÿªÉÚàÉèxÉ ®É<]弃 BÉEàÉÉÒ¶ÉxÉ xÉä BÉEcÉ, ãÉäÉÊBÉExÉ àÉé ªÉc £ÉÉÒ ¤ÉiÉãÉÉ nÚÆ ÉÊBÉE ªÉc £ÉÉÒ ¶ÉÆBÉEÉ BªÉBÉDiÉ BÉEÉÒ MÉ<Ç ÉÊBÉE <ºÉBÉEÉ nÖâó{ɪÉÉäMÉ £ÉÉÒ cÉä ºÉBÉEiÉÉ cè*

ºÉ£ÉÉ{ÉÉÊiÉ àÉcÉänªÉ, àÉé nÉä ÉÊ´É­ÉªÉ <ºÉ ºÉƤÉÆvÉ àÉå ®JÉxÉÉ SÉÉcÚÆMÉÉ* ºÉÖ|ÉÉÒàÉ BÉEÉä]Ç BÉEä ºÉÉàÉxÉä ªÉc ÉÊ´É­ÉªÉ +ÉɪÉÉ ÉÊBÉE BÉDªÉÉ <ºÉ ]ÉbÉ BÉEÉxÉÚxÉ BÉEÉ nÖâó{ɪÉÉäMÉ cÉä ºÉBÉEiÉÉ cè +ÉÉè® BÉDªÉÉ ºÉàÉÉVÉ BÉEÉä <ºÉ |ÉBÉEÉ® BÉEä BÉEÉxÉÚxÉ BÉEÉÒ +ÉɴɶªÉBÉEiÉÉ cè* ºÉÖ|ÉÉÒàÉ BÉEÉä]Ç xÉä ªÉc BÉEcÉ -

àÉcÉänªÉ, VÉ¤É ¤ÉÉ®-¤ÉÉ® ªÉc +ÉÉ®Éä{É ãÉMÉÉ ÉÊBÉE ]ÉbÉ BÉEÉ nÖâó{ɪÉÉäMÉ cÖ+ÉÉ, +ÉÉè® xÉA BÉEÉxÉÚxÉ BÉEÉ nÖâó{ɪÉÉäMÉ xÉ cÉä {ÉÉA, ºÉ®BÉEÉ® BÉEÉä £ÉÉÒ <ºÉ ÉÊ´É­ÉªÉ BÉEÉÒ ÉÊSÉxiÉÉ lÉÉÒ, +ÉÉè® ãÉÉì BÉEàÉÉÒ¶ÉxÉ BÉEÉä £ÉÉÒ <ºÉ ÉÊ´É­ÉªÉ BÉEÉÒ ÉÊSÉxiÉÉ lÉÉÒ* ÿªÉÚàÉxÉ ®É<]弃 BÉEàÉÉÒ¶ÉxÉ BÉEä SÉäªÉ®àÉèxÉ xÉä £ÉÉÒ BÉEcÉ ÉÊBÉE näÉÊJɪÉä <ºÉàÉå nÖâó{ɪÉÉäMÉ BÉEÉÒ ºÉÆ£ÉÉ´ÉxÉÉ ºÉ¤ÉºÉä BÉEàÉ BÉEÉÒ VÉÉA, <ºÉBÉEä ÉÊãÉA |ɪÉÉºÉ cÉäxÉÉ SÉÉÉÊcA* BÉEä´ÉãÉ {ÉÉÊ®£ÉÉ­ÉÉ BÉEÉÒ oÉέ] ºÉä xÉcÉÓ ®äBªÉÚ BÉEàÉä]ÉÒ BÉEÉ MÉ~xÉ cÉäiÉÉ* ¤ÉÉ®-¤ÉÉ® ªÉc iÉBÉEÇ ÉÊnªÉÉ MɪÉÉ ÉÊBÉE VÉÉä ®äBªÉÚ BÉEàÉä]ÉÒ +ÉÉ{ÉxÉä ¤ÉxÉÉ<Ç cè =ºÉBÉEä BÉEä´ÉãÉ ÉÊ®]ɪÉbÇ VÉVÉ ªÉÉ ÉʺÉÉË]MÉ VÉVÉ +ÉvªÉFÉ cÉåMÉä +ÉÉè® nÉä ÉʴɶÉä­É ºÉÉÊSÉ´É cÉåMÉä, <ºÉÉÊãÉA ªÉc ®äBªÉÚ BÉEàÉä]ÉÒ ~ÉÒBÉE xÉcÉÓ cè* ãÉäÉÊBÉExÉ àÉcɮɭ]Å +ÉÉè® BÉExÉÉÇ]BÉE àÉå VÉÉä ®äBªÉÚ BÉEàÉä]ÉÒ ¤ÉxÉÉ<Ç MÉ<Ç, =ºÉàÉå ÉÊBÉEºÉÉÒ VÉVÉ BÉEÉä ®JÉÉ cÉÒ xÉcÉÓ, SÉÉÒ{ÉE ºÉèµÉEä]®ÉÒ BÉEÉä =ºÉBÉEÉ +ÉvªÉFÉ ¤ÉxÉÉ ÉÊnªÉÉ +ÉÉè® nÉä ºÉèµÉEä]®ÉÒWÉ BÉEÉä =ºÉBÉEÉ ºÉnºªÉ ¤ÉxÉÉ ÉÊnªÉÉ* …(BªÉ´ÉvÉÉxÉ) +ÉàÉ® É˺Éc VÉÉÒ +ÉMÉ® ªÉc AiÉ®ÉWÉ ®JÉiÉä cé iÉÉä …(BªÉ´ÉvÉÉxÉ) +ÉÉ{ÉBÉEÉä +ÉÉÊvÉBÉEÉ® cÉäMÉÉ, ãÉäÉÊBÉExÉ ¶ÉɪÉn ªÉc ÉÊ´ÉSÉÉ® +ÉÉ{ÉBÉEä ºÉÉlÉ ¤Éè~ä ãÉÉäMÉÉå ºÉä +ÉÉiÉÉ ÉÊBÉE BÉEäxp àÉå cÉ<Ç BÉEÉä]Ç BÉEÉ VÉVÉ +ÉvªÉFÉ cè iÉÉä ®äBªÉÚ BÉEàÉä]ÉÒ ¶ÉèàÉ cè ãÉäÉÊBÉExÉ àÉcɮɭ]Å ªÉÉ BÉExÉÉÇ]BÉE àÉå SÉÉÒ{ÉE ºÉèµÉEä]®ÉÒ +ÉvªÉFÉ cè iÉÉä =xÉBÉEä ºÉÉlÉ nÉäxÉÉå BÉEÉxÉÚxÉ =ºÉ ÉκlÉÉÊiÉ ºÉä ÉÊxÉ{É]xÉä BÉEä ÉÊãÉA ~ÉÒBÉE cé* ®äBªÉÚ BÉEàÉä]ÉÒ c® |ÉÉÆiÉ àÉå VÉÉä ¤ÉxÉÉ<Ç MÉ<Ç cè =xÉ nÉäxÉÉå BÉEÉxÉÚxÉÉå àÉå, =ºÉBÉEÉ SÉÉÒ{ÉE ºÉèµÉEä]®ÉÒ +ÉvªÉFÉ cè +ÉÉè® nÉä ºÉèµÉEä]®ÉÒWÉ =ºÉBÉEä ºÉnºªÉ cé* …(BªÉ´ÉvÉÉxÉ) àÉcÉänªÉ, MÉÖVÉ®ÉiÉ àÉå VÉÉä ®äBªÉÚ BÉEàÉä]ÉÒ ¤ÉxÉäMÉÉÒ, BÉEäxp BÉEä BÉEÉxÉÚxÉ BÉEä iÉciÉ ¤ÉxÉäMÉÉÒ +ÉÉè® cÉ<Ç BÉEÉä]Ç VÉVÉ =ºÉBÉEÉ +ÉvªÉFÉ cÉäMÉÉ* +ÉMÉ® =ºÉBÉEÉ nÖâó{ɪÉÉäMÉ cÉäiÉÉ cè iÉÉä cÉ<Ç BÉEÉä]Ç VÉVÉ =ºÉBÉEä nÖâó{ɪÉÉäMÉ BÉEÉä ®ÉäBÉEäMÉÉ* …(BªÉ´ÉvÉÉxÉ) ªÉc ÉÊSÉxiÉÉ lÉÉÒ +ÉÉè® ªÉc ÉÊSÉxiÉÉ º´ÉÉ£ÉÉÉÊ´ÉBÉE lÉÉÒ ÉÊBÉE BÉDªÉÉ {ÉÖÉÊãÉºÉ BÉEÉä ÉÊnªÉÉ MɪÉÉ ¤ÉªÉÉxÉ BÉEÉä]Ç àÉå ¤ÉªÉÉxÉ +ÉÉè® AÉÊ´ÉbäxºÉ àÉÉxÉÉ VÉÉ ºÉBÉEiÉÉ cè* ]ÉbÉ BÉEä iÉciÉ àÉÉxÉÉ VÉÉiÉÉ lÉÉ* <ºÉ BÉEÉxÉÚxÉ àÉå ºÉÖ|ÉÉÒàÉ BÉEÉä]Ç xÉä +ÉÉè® ãÉÉì BÉEàÉÉÒ¶ÉxÉ xÉä ÉÊVÉiÉxÉä ºÉä{ÉEMÉÉbÇ ¤ÉiÉÉA, =iÉxÉä càÉxÉä bÉãÉä* {ÉcãÉÉ ºÉä{ÉEMÉÉbÇ ªÉc ÉÊBÉE VÉÉä BªÉÉÎBÉDiÉ BÉExÉ{ÉEèºÉ BÉE®iÉÉ cè, +É{ÉxÉÉ ¤ÉªÉÉxÉ {ÉÖÉÊãÉºÉ BÉEÉä näiÉÉ cè, 48 PÉÆ]ä BÉEä £ÉÉÒiÉ® xªÉÉÉʪÉBÉE +ÉÉÊvÉBÉEÉ®ÉÒ BÉEä ºÉÉàÉxÉä =ºÉä {Éä¶É ÉÊBÉEªÉÉ VÉÉAMÉÉ* xªÉÉÉʪÉBÉE +ÉÉÊvÉBÉEÉ®ÉÒ =ºÉºÉä {ÉÚUäMÉÉ ÉÊBÉE BÉDªÉÉ +ÉÉ{ÉxÉä ªÉc ¤ÉªÉÉxÉ ÉÊnªÉÉ ªÉÉ xÉcÉÓ* ªÉÉÊn ´Éc BªÉÉÎBÉDiÉ BÉEciÉÉ cè ÉÊBÉE àÉÖZÉä ªÉÉiÉxÉÉ näBÉE® ªÉÉ VÉÉä®-WɤÉnǺiÉÉÒ ºÉä ªÉc ¤ÉªÉÉxÉ ÉÊãÉJÉ´ÉɪÉÉ MɪÉÉ iÉÉä ´Éc =ºÉBÉEÉÒ àÉäÉÊbBÉEãÉ VÉÉÆSÉ BÉE®´ÉÉAMÉÉ* VÉ¤É =ºÉBÉEÉ <Æ]è®ÉäMÉä¶ÉxÉ cÉäMÉÉ, =ºÉBÉEä nÉè®ÉxÉ =ºÉBÉEÉ ´ÉBÉEÉÒãÉ àÉÉèVÉÚn cÉäMÉÉ* ´ÉBÉEÉÒãÉ ºÉä =ºÉBÉEÉä ÉÊàÉãÉxÉä BÉEÉ +ÉÉÊvÉBÉEÉ® ÉÊnªÉÉ VÉÉAMÉÉ* ºÉÖ|ÉÉÒàÉ BÉEÉä]Ç xÉä ¤ÉºÉÚ BÉEä àÉÖBÉEnàÉä àÉå VÉÉä ºÉä{ÉE MÉÉbÇ ¤ÉiÉÉA lÉä =xÉ ºÉÉ®ä ºÉä{ÉEMÉÉbÉç BÉEÉä <ºÉBÉEä +ÉÆn® ¶ÉÉÉÊàÉãÉ ÉÊBÉEªÉÉ MɪÉÉ cè* VÉàÉÉxÉiÉ BÉEä àÉÉàÉãÉä àÉå £ÉÉÒ…(BªÉ´ÉvÉÉxÉ)

SHRI PRIYA RANJAN DASMUNSI : The entire nation is watching the telecast.… (Interruptions) Will the Law Minister enlighten the House as to how many terrorists belonging either to the Lashkar-e-Taiba or Harkat-ul-Mujahedeen have been arrested so far?… (Interruptions)

gÉÉÒ +ÉâóhÉ VÉä]ãÉÉÒ : àÉcÉänªÉÉ, àÉé ÉÊxÉ´ÉänxÉ BÉE®xÉÉ SÉÉciÉÉ cÚÆ ÉÊBÉE…(BªÉ´ÉvÉÉxÉ)

DEPUTY-CHAIRMAN (RAJYA SABHA): As per the list that I have, Shri Kapil Sibal will be speaking after the Law Minister.

VÉä]ãÉÉÒ VÉÉÒ, +ÉÉ{É VÉãnÉÒ JÉiàÉ BÉEÉÒÉÊVÉA*
 

gÉÉÒ +ÉâóhÉ VÉä]ãÉÉÒ : àÉcÉänªÉÉ, VÉàÉÉxÉiÉ BÉEä àÉÉàÉãÉä àÉå £ÉÉÒ ABÉE ´É­ÉÇ BÉEä ÉÊãÉA ªÉc |ÉÉ´ÉvÉÉxÉ ãÉÉMÉÚ cÉäMÉÉ* =ºÉàÉå ªÉc ABÉE ºÉä{ÉE MÉÉbÇ ®JÉÉ MɪÉÉ cè* =xÉ BÉEÉxÉÚxÉÉå àÉå ªÉc xÉcÉÓ lÉÉ* ®ÉVªÉÉå BÉEä BÉEÉxÉÚxÉÉå àÉå ªÉc xÉcÉÓ lÉÉ, ãÉäÉÊBÉExÉ <ºÉ BÉEÉxÉÚxÉ àÉå ªÉc cè* <ºÉÉÊãÉA àÉé BÉEcxÉÉ SÉÉciÉÉ cÚÆ ÉÊBÉE ÉÊVÉiÉxÉä £ÉÉÒ ºÉä{ÉEMÉÉbÇ lÉä, ´Éä <ºÉàÉå ®JÉä MÉA cé*

ABÉE |ɶxÉ àÉÉxÉxÉÉÒªÉ àÉÖãÉɪÉàÉ É˺Éc VÉÉÒ xÉä ªÉc =~ɪÉÉ lÉÉ ÉÊBÉE +ÉàÉ®ÉÒBÉEÉ BÉEä +ÉÆn® BÉDªÉÉ ÉκlÉÉÊiÉ cè* àÉéxÉä BÉE<Ç ¤ÉÉ® ªÉc {ÉfÃÉ ÉÊBÉE +ÉàÉ®ÉÒBÉEÉ BÉEä +ÉÆn® iÉÉä ªÉc BÉEÉxÉÚxÉ cè ÉÊBÉE BÉEÉä<Ç ´ÉcÉÆ BÉEÉ ºlÉÉxÉÉÒªÉ xÉÉMÉÉÊ®BÉE ºÉÉiÉ ÉÊnxÉ ºÉä VªÉÉnÉ VÉàÉÉxÉiÉ {É® {ÉBÉE½ÉÒ cÉÒ xÉcÉÓ VÉÉ ºÉBÉEiÉÉ lÉÉ* +ÉàÉ®ÉÒBÉEÉ àÉå {ÉcãÉä £ÉÉÒ ªÉc BÉEÉxÉÚxÉ lÉÉ +ÉÉè® 11 ÉʺÉiÉà¤É® BÉEÉÒ PÉ]xÉÉ BÉEä ¤ÉÉn £ÉÉÒ xɪÉÉ ÉʴɶÉä­É BÉEÉxÉÚxÉ ¤ÉxÉÉ* ÉÊ¥É]äxÉ àÉå ÉÊ{ÉUãÉä ´É­ÉÇ ¤ÉxÉÉ, VÉàÉÇxÉÉÒ àÉå ¤ÉxÉÉ, |ÉEÉÆºÉ àÉå ¤ÉxÉÉ* …(BªÉ´ÉvÉÉxÉ)

gÉÉÒ àÉÖãÉɪÉàÉ É˺Éc ªÉÉn´É : ´ÉcÉÆ VÉÉä BÉEÉxÉÚxÉ ãÉÉMÉÚ cè ´Éc ´ÉcÉÆ BÉEä ®cxÉä ´ÉÉãÉÉå {É® ãÉÉMÉÚ xÉcÉÓ cÉäMÉÉ*…(BªÉ´ÉvÉÉxÉ)

gÉÉÒ +ÉâóhÉ VÉä]ãÉÉÒ : àÉcÉänªÉÉ, ªÉÖxÉÉ<]äb xÉä¶ÉxºÉ BÉEÉ VÉÉä 28 ÉʺÉiÉà¤É® BÉEÉ 1373 |ɺiÉÉ´É lÉÉ, =ºÉBÉEä ¤ÉÉn c® ºÉnºªÉ nä¶É BÉEä ÉÊãÉA ªÉc +ÉÉÊxÉ´ÉɪÉÇ lÉÉ ÉÊBÉE ´Éc +É{ÉxÉä ªÉcÉÆ BÉEÉxÉÚxÉ ¤ÉxÉÉA ªÉcÉÆ iÉBÉE ÉÊBÉE {ÉÉÉÊBÉEºiÉÉxÉ BÉEä ÉÊãÉA £ÉÉÒ* {ÉÉÉÊBÉEºiÉÉxÉ xÉä {ÉcãÉä +ÉMɺiÉ àÉå VÉÉä BÉEÉxÉÚxÉ ¤ÉxÉɪÉÉ, =ºÉàÉå iɤÉnÉÒãÉÉÒ BÉEÉÒ VÉ°ô°ôiÉ {ɽÉÒ* +ÉàÉ®ÉÒBÉEÉ BÉEÉÒ ÉκlÉÉÊiÉ +ÉÉ{É lÉÉä½ÉÒ ºÉàÉZÉ ãÉÉÒÉÊVÉA* ªÉcÉÆ BÉEcÉ MɪÉÉ ÉÊBÉE 11 ÉʺÉiÉà¤É® BÉEÉÒ VÉÉä PÉ]xÉÉ cÖ<Ç …(BªÉ´ÉvÉÉxÉ)

àÉcÉänªÉÉ, àÉé àÉÖãÉɪÉàÉ É˺Éc VÉÉÒ BÉEÉÒ ¶ÉÆBÉEÉ BÉEÉ =kÉ® nÚÆ ÉÊBÉE 11 ÉʺÉiÉà¤É® BÉEÉÒ PÉ]xÉä BÉEä ¤ÉÉn AäºÉÉ àÉÉxÉÉ VÉÉiÉÉ cè ÉÊBÉE =ºÉBÉEÉÒ ºÉÆJªÉÉ iÉBÉE xÉcÉÓ nÉÒ MÉ<Ç cè* àÉé ¤ÉiÉÉxÉÉ SÉÉciÉÉ cÚÆ ÉÊBÉE 1200 ºÉä +ÉÉÊvÉBÉE ãÉÉäMÉ {ÉBÉE½ä MÉA cé* =xÉàÉå ÉÊ´Énä¶ÉÉÒ £ÉÉÒ cé, VÉäcÉnÉÒ £ÉÉÒ cé, ´ÉcÉÆ BÉEä xÉÉMÉÉÊ®BÉE £ÉÉÒ cé* =xÉàÉå ´ÉcÉÆ BÉEä {ÉɺÉ{ÉÉä]Ç cÉäãb® £ÉÉÒ cé* ÉÊBÉEºÉÉÒ BÉEÉä VÉàÉÉxÉiÉ xÉcÉÓ, BÉEÉä<Ç UÚ]É xÉcÉÓ* ÉÊBÉExÉ ÉÊ]ŤªÉÚxÉãºÉ BÉEä ºÉÉàÉxÉä =xÉBÉEä ÉÊJÉãÉÉ{ÉE àÉÖBÉEnàÉä SÉãÉ ®cä cé |ÉäºÉÉÒb嶪ÉãÉ ÉÊbµÉEÉÒVÉ BÉEä iÉciÉ, =ºÉBÉEÉ càÉ ãÉÉäMÉ {ÉÚ®É +ÉvªÉªÉxÉ BÉE® ãÉå +ÉÉè® ªÉä ãÉÉäMÉ VÉÉä MÉãÉiÉ |ÉSÉÉ® BÉE®xÉä BÉEä ÉÊãÉA ¤ÉÉÒSÉ àÉå BÉEciÉä cé ÉÊBÉE ´ÉcÉÆ BÉEä ºlÉÉxÉÉÒªÉ xÉÉMÉÉÊ®BÉE +ÉÉiÉÆBÉE´ÉÉn £ÉÉÒ BÉE®åMÉä, ´ÉãbÇ ]Åäb ºÉå]® {É® ¤ÉÉ°ôn £ÉÉÒ {ÉEåBÉEåMÉä +ÉÉè® =xÉBÉEÉä {ÉBÉE½É £ÉÉÒ xÉcÉÓ VÉÉAMÉÉ ? …(BªÉ´ÉvÉÉxÉ)

gÉÉÒ àÉÖãÉɪÉàÉ É˺Éc ªÉÉn´É : +ÉàÉ®ÉÒBÉEÉ àÉå ÉÊBÉEiÉxÉä {ÉBÉE½ä MÉA, ªÉc ºÉÆJªÉÉ ¤ÉiÉÉAÆ…(BªÉ´ÉvÉÉxÉ)

gÉÉÒ +ÉâóhÉ VÉä]ãÉÉÒ : ´Éc àÉé +ÉÉ{ÉBÉEÉä ÉÊ´Énä¶É àÉÆjÉÉãÉªÉ ºÉä {ÉiÉÉ BÉE® BÉEä ¤ÉiÉÉ nÚÆMÉÉ* ªÉc BÉEèºÉä cÉä ºÉBÉEiÉÉ cè ÉÊBÉE ºlÉÉxÉÉÒªÉ xÉÉMÉÉÊ®BÉE +ÉÉiÉÆBÉE´ÉÉn BÉE®äMÉÉ +ÉÉè® =ºÉBÉEä ÉÊ´Éâór +ÉÉiÉÆBÉE´ÉÉn BÉEä ÉÊ´Éâór BÉEɮǴÉÉ<Ç xÉcÉÓ cÉäMÉÉÒ*…(BªÉ´ÉvÉÉxÉ)

àÉcÉänªÉÉ, ªÉc <ÉÊiÉcÉºÉ iÉªÉ BÉE®äMÉÉ ÉÊBÉE +ÉÉiÉÆBÉE´ÉÉn BÉEä ÉÊJÉãÉÉ{ÉE ãɽÉ<Ç àÉå 180 BÉEÉ ÉÊbOÉÉÒ BÉEÉ ]xÉÇ ÉÊBÉEºÉ xÉä ÉÊãɪÉÉ cè * ªÉc <ÉÊiÉcÉºÉ iÉªÉ BÉE®äMÉÉ ÉÊBÉE +ÉÉiÉÆBÉE´ÉÉn BÉEä ÉÊJÉãÉÉ{ÉE ãɽÉ<Ç àÉå càÉ ªÉc SÉÉciÉä cé ÉÊBÉE ªÉc nä¶É ¤ÉÆ]É cÖ+ÉÉ ÉÊnJÉÉ<Ç nä ªÉÉ ABÉE ÉÊnJÉÉ<Ç nä* àÉÖZÉä Éʴɶ´ÉÉºÉ cè ÉÊBÉE +ÉÉVÉ nÉäxÉÉå ºÉnxÉÉå BÉEÉÒ <ºÉ ºÉƪÉÖBÉDiÉ ¤Éè~BÉE àÉå VÉÉä +ÉÉàÉ ®ÉªÉ ¤ÉxÉäMÉÉÒ, <ºÉ nä¶É BÉEÉÒ ºÉƪÉÖBÉDiÉ ®ÉªÉ ªÉcÉÒ ¤ÉxÉäMÉÉÒ ÉÊBÉE <ºÉ ®É­]Å BÉEÉä, <ºÉ BÉEÉxÉÚxÉ BÉEÉÒ ¤ÉcÖiÉ +ÉɴɶªÉBÉEiÉÉ cè*

DEPUTY-CHAIRMAN (RAJYA SABHA): I gave your paper which you sent to me to the Law Minister. Whatever explanation you had asked for, I have passed it on to him. Now, I call upon, Shri Kapil Sibal.
 

DEPUTY-CHAIRMAN (RAJYA SABHA): Where is a gavel over here? I do not have one.

SHRI KAPIL SIBAL (BIHAR): Madam Deputy-Chairperson…… (Interruptions)

DEPUTY-CHAIRMAN (RAJYA SABHA): Now, he has got the right to speak in whichever language he wants to speak. You cannot force anybody to speak in one language. He can speak in any language he likes. ´Éc £ÉÉ®iÉ BÉEÉÒ ÉÊVÉºÉ ÉÊBÉEºÉÉÒ £ÉÉÒ £ÉÉ­ÉÉ àÉå ¤ÉÉäãÉxÉÉ SÉÉcå, =ºÉàÉå ¤ÉÉäãÉ ºÉBÉEiÉä cé*
 

={É ºÉ£ÉÉ{ÉÉÊiÉ àÉcÉänªÉ (®ÉVªÉ ºÉ£ÉÉ) : ºÉ®ÉäVÉ VÉÉÒ, +ÉÉ{É £ÉÉÒ ¤Éè~ VÉÉ<A* +ÉÉ{É ãÉÉäMÉÉå BÉEÉä àÉÉ<BÉE BÉEÉÒ VÉ°ô®iÉ xÉcÉÓ cè, àÉÖZÉä iÉÉä àÉÉ<BÉE £ÉÉÒ SÉÉÉÊcA cÉäiÉÉ cè and still you do not hear.

SHRI KAPIL SIBAL : Shri Jaitley, one last question. In the United States did we ever have a macabre by choreographed dance of terror of mayhem, arson and loot that made blood thirsty animals of otherwise decent human beings? … (Interruptions)

={É ºÉ£ÉÉ{ÉÉÊiÉ àÉcÉänªÉ (®ÉVªÉ ºÉ£ÉÉ) : BÉßE{ɪÉÉ iɶɮÉÒ{ÉE ®ÉÊJÉA, +É{ÉxÉÉ ºlÉÉxÉ OÉchÉ BÉEÉÒÉÊVÉA* ¤Éè~ VÉÉ<A* =xcå ¤ÉÉäãÉxÉä nÉÒÉÊVÉA*
 

DEPUTY-CHAIRMAN (RAJYA SABHA): Please sit down.
 

DEPUTY-CHAIRMAN (RAJYA SABHA): Listen to him first and then I will permit you.
 

DEPUTY-CHAIRMAN (RAJYA SABHA): I cannot hear you, please sit down. The question was put to the Law Minister and I think the Law Minister is competent enough to answer it. So, let him answer the question. Why should everyone of you become the Law Minister? Everyone is becoming a Minister. He is questioning the Law Minister. If the Law Minister wants to answer, I will permit him. But why everybody wants to don the mantle of the Law Minister without taking the oath as such? Please sit down.
 

DEPUTY-CHAIRMAN (RAJYA SABHA): I have not allowed you. I will allow you if you ask for my permission.
 

DEPUTY-CHAIRMAN (RAJYA SABHA): Okay. But, let him speak first.

gÉÉÒ BÉEÉÊ{ÉãÉ ÉʺɤÉãÉ : +ÉÉ{É <iÉxÉÉ =kÉäÉÊVÉiÉ BÉDªÉÉå cÉä ®cä cé?…(BªÉ´ÉvÉÉxÉ)

={É ºÉ£ÉÉ{ÉÉÊiÉ àÉcÉänªÉ (®ÉVªÉ ºÉ£ÉÉ) : +ÉÉ{É ABÉE ÉÊàÉxÉ] ¤Éè~ VÉÉ<A*
 

={É ºÉ£ÉÉ{ÉÉÊiÉ àÉcÉänªÉ (®ÉVªÉ ºÉ£ÉÉ) : +É£ÉÉÒ =xcÉåxÉä £ÉÉ­ÉhÉ ¶ÉÖ°ô xÉcÉÓ ÉÊBÉEªÉÉ*

SHRI KIRTI JHA AZAD (DARBHANGA): I would like to seek a clarification. You have permitted me to seek a clarification. They cannot take away my right. … (Interruptions)

DEPUTY-CHAIRMAN(RAJYA SABHA) : Please sit down. I had allowed Shri Shivraj Patil. I allowed two people. Now please sit down. You were not in the House when I allowed Shri Shivraj Patil. I allowed Shri Mulayam Singh Yadav also. Justification demands that he should also be allowed.
 

DEPUTY-CHAIRMAN (RAJYA SABHA): I am doing my constitutional duty. I am neither on this side nor that side. I have allowed two people from this side; so, one person will be allowed from that side also. Shri Azad, are you sure that you want to seek a clarification?

SHRI KIRTI JHA AZAD: Yes, Madam. … (Interruptions)

DEPUTY-CHAIRMAN (RAJYA SABHA): Please sit down. I cannot hear you. Let me handle it.
 

={ɺɣÉÉ{ÉÉÊiÉ àÉcÉänªÉ (®ÉVªÉ ºÉ£ÉÉ) : +ÉÉ{É ¤ÉèÉÊ~ªÉä, àÉÖZÉä ºÉÖxÉxÉä nÉÒÉÊVÉA xÉ* +ÉÉ{É ABÉE ÉÊàÉxÉ] ¤ÉèÉÊ~ªÉä*
 

DEPUTY-CHAIRMAN (RAJYA SABHA): I allowed Shri Shivraj Patil.
 

SHRI PRIYA RANJAN DASMUNSI : Madam, I have the right to ask as to how he is there to speak. Under what capacity he is allowed to speak? I would like to know on this point…… (Interruptions)

SHRI KIRTI JHA AZAD : Madam, how can he mislead the House like this? I just want a clarification from him. After all, I am also a Member of Parliament and I am entitled to ask him a clarification. You have permitted me to speak. They have no right to infringe upon my right as you have given me permission..… (Interruptions) He is misleading the House at the very beginning itself. So, why should I not be allowed to speak?..… (Interruptions)

DEPUTY-CHAIRMAN (RAJYA SABHA): Let him at least start his speech.
 

SHRI KIRTI JHA AZAD : At the very beginning of his speech, he has misled the House by giving wrong information. I want a clarification on that point. That is it…… (Interruptions)

DEPUTY-CHAIRMAN (RAJYA SABHA): If you all speak like this, I cannot preside. I will not preside, if you do not allow me to speak.
 

DEPUTY-CHAIRMAN (RAJYA SABHA): Please take your seats. Let my voice be heard.
 

DEPUTY-CHAIRMAN (RAJYA SABHA): You may speak if he yields. Shri Kapil Sibal, are you yielding?

SHRI KAPIL SIBAL : No.

DEPUTY-CHAIRMAN (RAJYA SABHA): Shri Azad, he is not yielding. Please go back to your seat.
 

DEPUTY-CHAIRMAN (RAJYA SABHA): He has agreed to go back to his seat. Shri Azad, I promise that I will allow you afterwards and not now. Let him finish his speech.
 

DEPUTY-CHAIRMAN (RAJYA SABHA): I would have permitted if Shri Kapil Sibal had yielded. He is not yielding. I will allow you later on. Please go back to your seat.
 

SHRI KIRTI JHA AZAD : Madam, on your promise, I am going back and not on their protesting…… (Interruptions)

DEPUTY-CHAIRMAN (RAJYA SABHA): Now, will you take your seats?
 

={ɺɣÉÉ{ÉÉÊiÉ àÉcÉänªÉ (®ÉVªÉ ºÉ£ÉÉ) : +ÉÉ{É BÉßE{ɪÉÉ ¤Éè~ VÉɪÉå* ABÉE ÉÊàÉxÉ] ¤ÉèÉÊ~ªÉä iÉÉä, ¶ÉÉÉÎxiÉ ºÉä ¤ÉèÉÊ~ªÉä* ¤Éè~ VÉÉ<ªÉä*
 

DEPUTY-CHAIRMAN (RAJYA SABHA): Please sit down. I cannot shout like you even with two mikes. Please sit down.
 

DEPUTY-CHAIRMAN (RAJYA SABHA): Please sit down.
 

DEPUTY-CHAIRMAN (RAJYA SABHA): I will permit.
 

DEPUTY-CHAIRMAN (RAJYA SABHA): I will permit him, not now.
 

DEPUTY-CHAIRMAN (RAJYA SABHA): There is some kind of a rule. I am telling you. Just one minute. I know the rules very well. Please sit down. Take your seats. Cool down. I will permit him. Please sit down. I will permit him. Please sit down. +ÉÉ{É ¤ÉèÉÊ~A iÉÉä* +ÉÉ{É 700 ãÉÉäMÉ ABÉE ºÉÉlÉ ¤ÉÉäãÉåMÉä iÉÉä àÉä®ÉÒ +ÉÉ´ÉÉVÉ ºÉÖxÉÉ<Ç xÉcÉÓ näMÉÉÒ*
 

DEPUTY-CHAIRMAN (RAJYA SABHA): I will permit him. Only when the Law Minister yielded, did I allow the Deputy-Leader of the Opposition, Lok Sabha, to speak. Let Shri Kapil Sibal yield, I will permit him. I did not allow Shri Deve Gowda to speak. He wrote it down and I gave it to the Law Minister. Please take your seats.
 

DEPUTY-CHAIRMAN (RAJYA SABHA): I will permit him later. Please sit down. £ÉÉ­ÉhÉ iÉÉä cÉäxÉä nÉÒÉÊVÉA*
 

SHRI KIRTI JHA AZAD : Madam, I am sitting down only because of you, and not because of them. … (Interruptions)

DEPUTY-CHAIRMAN (RAJYA SABHA): Thank you very much. I am very obliged to you. Please sit down.
 

DEPUTY-CHAIRMAN (RAJYA SABHA): All right. I will give you time.
 

DEPUTY-CHAIRMAN (RAJYA SABHA): I will give you time. Let him speak.
 

DEPUTY-CHAIRMAN (RAJYA SABHA): Cool down.
 

DEPUTY-CHAIRMAN(RAJYA SABHA) : Now no interruptions please. Let us hear Shri Kapil Sibal. I did not allow anybody to interrupt the Law Minister. Only when he yielded, I allowed. If he yields, I will allow him now. Since he is not yielding, I will allow him later on. I promise that I will allow you later on, but not now and not immediately.
 

DEPUTY-CHAIRMAN (RAJYA SABHA): Let Shri Kapil Sibal speak.
 

DEPUTY-CHAIRMAN (RAJYA SABHA): You are eating up the time of Shri Kapil Sibal. Please do not do that.
 

SHRI KAPIL SIBAL : Madam, Deputy-Chairperson, there really was no need for us to have this special sitting of both the Houses, if the Government had looked at the matter with some objectivity. The speeches made in this House today are evidence of the fact that not only is the polity of the country divided on this issue, but the people of this country are also divided on this issue. … (Interruptions) Time and again, on several occasions, we beseeched this Government, we requested this Government to send the matter to a Joint ParliamentaryCommittee.

When the matter was moved in the Council of States, I moved an amendment for matter to be referred to a House Committee. But the Government did not yield because the Government really was not interested in negotiations.… (Interruptions)

DEPUTY-CHAIRMAN (RAJYA SABHA): Please listen to him. If you do not listen to him, how are you going to answer him if your chance comes? So, you better listen to him peacefully.
 

={É ºÉ£ÉÉ{ÉÉÊiÉ àÉcÉänªÉ (®ÉVªÉ ºÉ£ÉÉ) : +ÉÉ{É +ÉMÉ® ¶ÉÉÆÉÊiÉ ºÉä £ÉÉ­ÉhÉ ºÉÖxÉåMÉä iÉÉä cÉÒ VÉ´ÉÉ¤É nä {ÉÉAÆMÉä ´ÉxÉÉÇ +ÉÉ{É BÉDªÉÉ VÉ´ÉÉ¤É nåMÉä, <ºÉÉÊãÉA ºÉÖÉÊxÉA*

SHRI KAPIL SIBAL : There is still time. The Government can even today decide to have the matter referred to a Committee so that all points of view can be taken care of, and, if necessary, a law of this nature may be passed or the existing provisions may be amended. … (Interruptions) That has been our position. That continues to be our position. In fact, I do believe that this is the time to heal and bring together, not to stigmatise, to move forward through dialogue and consensus, not move backward in time and civilised conduct to push through such a legislation as the one that we have selected to discuss today. It is ironic that those who swear by POTO also swear by democracy. The manner in which POTO is being pushed through with the iron fist of a brutal and brutalised majority is contemptuous, undemocratic, in disregard of the feelings, fears and insecurities of millions of our citizens. +ÉÉ{É ãÉÉäMÉ VÉÉxÉxÉÉ SÉÉciÉä cé ÉÊBÉE càÉ <ºÉ BÉEÉxÉÚxÉ BÉEÉ ÉÊ´É®ÉävÉ BÉDªÉÉå BÉE® ®cä cé +ÉÉè® =ºÉBÉEÉ VÉ´ÉÉ¤É àÉé +ÉÉVÉ +ÉÉ{ÉBÉEä ºÉÉàÉxÉä ®JÉxÉÉ SÉÉciÉÉ cÚÆ ÉÊBÉE àÉé BÉEÉä<Ç ®ÉVÉxÉÉÒÉÊiÉBÉE ¤ÉÉiÉ xÉcÉÓ BÉE°ôÆMÉÉ*…(BªÉ´ÉvÉÉxÉ) +ÉMÉ® +ÉÉ{É ºÉÖxÉåMÉä xÉcÉÓ iÉÉä nä¶É BÉEÉÒ VÉxÉiÉÉ BÉEÉä AäºÉÉ ãÉMÉäMÉÉ ÉÊBÉE +ÉÉ{É nÚºÉ®É BªÉÚ-{´ÉÉ<Æ] ºÉÖxÉxÉÉ xÉcÉÓ SÉÉciÉä cé* +ÉMÉ® +ÉÉ{É ªÉcÉÒ SÉÉciÉä cé iÉÉä àÉé VÉÉBÉE® ¤Éè~ VÉÉ>óÆMÉÉ +ÉÉè® +É{ÉxÉÉ BÉEÉxÉÚxÉ {ÉÉºÉ BÉE®É ãÉÉÒÉÊVÉA* +ÉMÉ® +ÉÉ{É AäºÉÉ SÉÉciÉä cé iÉÉä àÉé ¤ÉcºÉ xÉcÉÓ BÉE°ôÆMÉÉ* +ÉÉ{É ºÉÖxÉxÉÉ xÉcÉÓ SÉÉciÉä cé iÉÉä BÉEc nÉÒÉÊVÉA, =~BÉE® Jɽä cÉä VÉÉ<A +ÉÉè® BÉEc nÉÒÉÊVÉA*…(BªÉ´ÉvÉÉxÉ)

={É ºÉ£ÉÉ{ÉÉÊiÉ àÉcÉänªÉ (®ÉVªÉ ºÉ£ÉÉ) : +ÉãÉMÉ-+ÉãÉMÉ iÉ®c BÉEä JªÉÉãÉÉiÉ cÉäiÉä cé, +ÉãÉMÉ-+ÉãÉMÉ iÉ®c BÉEä BªÉÚ-{´ÉÉ<Æ]ºÉ cÉäiÉä cé, +ÉãÉMÉ iÉ®c BÉEÉÒ +ÉÉ<ÉÊbªÉÉäãÉÉìVÉÉÒºÉ cÉäiÉÉÒ cè, =ºÉÉÒ BÉEÉ xÉÉàÉ VÉxÉiÉÆjÉ cè, bèàÉÉäµÉEäºÉÉÒ cè* +ÉMÉ® <iÉxÉÉ £ÉÉÒ ºÉÖxÉxÉä BÉEÉ ºÉÉcºÉ xÉcÉÓ cè iÉÉä ªÉc +ÉSUÉÒ |ÉlÉÉ xÉcÉÓ bÉãÉ ®cä cé* =xÉBÉEÉä ¤ÉÉäãÉxÉä nÉÒÉÊVÉA* +ÉÉ{ÉBÉEÉä £ÉÉÒ àÉÉèBÉEÉ ÉÊàÉãÉäMÉÉ iÉÉä +ÉÉ{É ¤ÉÉäãÉ ãÉÉÒÉÊVÉAMÉÉ* +É£ÉÉÒ iÉÉä ¤ÉÉiÉ cÉÒ ¶ÉÖ°ô xÉcÉÓ cÖ<Ç cè, +ÉÉ{É ¤Éè~ VÉÉ<A* +É¤É BÉEÉä<Ç +ÉÉ´ÉÉVÉ xÉcÉÓ BÉE®åMÉä*
 

DEPUTY-CHAIRMAN (RAJYA SABHA): I will be highly obliged to you if you listen peacefully.

SHRI KAPIL SIBAL : Madam, on the 20^th of July, 1999, the Law Commission wrote to the Human Rights Commission to find out the state of the police and how it is exercising its powers under the ordinary laws of this country. I refer to Report Number 177 of the Sixteenth Law Commission. They looked at several States and the way the Police conducts itself in several States in this country. They chose particular districts. Some startling data - which perhaps is to the knowledge of the Government, now that I got it from the web-site of the Law Commission - has come to light. When I place that data before you, you will then realise the reason for our opposition to POTO. This is not a political issue but it affects the basic structure of our polity. Let me place those facts before you.

The Human Rights Commission set up a Committee. In the State of Uttar Pradesh, this is what is found. What was found was that the total number of persons arrested, surrendered is around three lakh; the number of persons arrested under preventive provision of law is as high as 4,79,404. Obviously, preventive provisions mean provisions like Sections 151, 107, 111 of the Cr Pc and similar provisions in local enactments.

Another disturbing feature is the percentage of arrests made in relation to bailable offences. It is as high as 45 per cent. What does that show you? That shows you the conduct of a police officer, who is liable, who is obliged under the law to grant a bail in respect of a bailable offence. In the State of Uttar Pradesh, 50 per cent of the people are arrested despite the offences being bailable. I now go to the State of Maharashtra. I am not excluding the Congress-ruled States. This is the Report of 1999-2000. In Maharashtra, the situation is like this. This is what the Law Commission states: "Then, again, the arrest made in relation to bailable offences is something un-understandable. It is 72 per cent and 67 per cent respectively in the State of Maharashtra."

Then, comes the State of Gujarat. It is said:

I am talking of the ordinary law. If under the ordinary law, this is the state of enforcement agencies of this country, we can imagine what will be the position if drastic powers are given to Police officers under POTO? What will happen to the ordinary citizens of this country? That is the question before all of you today.

In the State of Karnataka, the arrests in bailable offences are as high as 84.8 per cent. I can go on from State to State. But ultimately, this is what the Law Commission says and the broad features disclosed through this data are:

SHRI KAPIL SIBAL: The Law Commission furthers says:

May I remind you? You said:

SHRI KAPIL SIBAL: That is what he had said.

What had Shri Jaswant Singh said? He said:

Madam, Shri George Fernandes is sitting here and he is supporting this Bill. What did he say 11 years ago? Let me quote what he said on the 12^th August, 1991. He said:

DEPUTY-CHAIRMAN (RAJYA SABHA): He has a right to speak what he wants to speak. He is not going to speak what you want him to speak.
 

SHRI KAPIL SIBAL: When the TADA Amendment Bill of 1991 was moved, who were the ones who voted against it? Shri L.K. Advani, now the Home Minister, voted against it. Now, suddenly after 10 years, why does he support it. We will have to find out from him. He says, he supports it because there is a United Nations Security Council Resolution 1373 adopted on the 28^th September, 2001, which required the international community to pass the law and therefore India had to enact a law. We do not oppose that. Let that law be enacted. But did the international community tell you to enact this law, which is contrary to all civilised values of a democratic society?

+É¤É BÉÖEU +ɺÉÉÊãɪÉiÉ +ÉÉ{ÉBÉEä ºÉÉàÉxÉä ®JÉå, ´Éc VÉ°ô®ÉÒ cè* When POTO was promulgated on 24^th October, 2001, the first casualty of POTO in Kashmir was a gentleman by the name Shri Dar. Shri Dar had a tenant in his house who was paying him a rental of Rs. 300 a month and who told him that he was a photographer from Delhi. That tenant turned out to be, according to the prosecution, according to those who arrested him, a terrorist. So, Shri Dar was taken into custody under the provisions of POTO. On what ground was he taken into custody? It was on the ground that his tenant, who said that he was a photographer in Delhi, happened to be a terrorist. So, Shri Dar became a terrorist because he assisted and supported terrorism. This is how terrorism and POTO actually works at the ground level.

Let us come to Gujarat now because the proof of the pudding is in the eating. What happened in Gujarat? … (Interruptions)

DEPUTY-CHAIRMAN (RAJYA SABHA): The Deputy-Speaker announced in the morning that we are going to have voting at 5.30 p.m., but I do not think we can have voting at 5.30 p.m. now. I have two lists of speakers with me. If the discussion is not allowed, we will have to sit till 5.00 a.m. in the morning. So, please let everybody speak. Please quietly listen to everyone and abide by time.

SHRI KAPIL SIBAL : My good friend, Shri Jaitley, remarked that the Leader of the Opposition has said that this law is insidious, politically-motivated and a manipulation of the parliamentary process.

Now, I want to show to him how this law is insidious, how it is politically motivated and how it is a manipulation of the parliamentary process. The facts will be before him in a second. In Gujarat, what has happened? In Gujarat, after the Godhra massacre, 62 persons were arrested and 21 of them were proceeded against under POTO. For the atrocities, that were committed after Godhra, about 800 persons were arrested. Not a single person was proceeded against under POTO.

Why they were not proceeded AGAINST is another matter. But I want to place before this country what really happened I give you an example. I give you an example. An FIR was lodged by one V.K. Solanki, a Sub-Inspector of the Naroda Police Station, who named five VHP and Bajrang Dal leaders for the Naroda-Patia massacre. Among them is a Bajrang Dal activist, Babu Bajrangi, who has a long criminal record. Three persons have, so far, been arrested. But those named in the FIR are still at large. … (Interruptions) Now, please let me place the facts. … (Interruptions) An ordinary person or Congress worker did not lodge this FIR. A Sub-Inspector of Police lodged this FIR. Now, the Assistant Commissioner of Police, Shri Barot – I name him – who was in charge of the investigation, questioned the action of the local Police. I quote what he has said. … (Interruptions) This is no way. … (Interruptions) This is not fair. … (Interruptions)

DEPUTY CHAIRMAN (RAJYA SABHA): There are so many people.

SHRI KAPIL SIBAL: The Assistant Commissioner of Police says:

In the course of the mayhem that took place in Gujarat, may I just give the figures? More persons died in Gujarat than in the Kargil conflict. More persons were massacred in Gujarat than the loss of lives in the Kargil conflict.

About 1,679 houses were set on fire, 76 religious places were burnt, 1,965 shops were burnt, 200 shops were looted, 90 vehicles were torched and yet none of those responsible have, till date, been arrested under POTO.

Now, comes the icing on the cake, so to say. Now, it is found that the Gujarat Government says - it is very surprising - that they will not prosecute any of the people who are responsible for the Godhra massacre under POTO because there is an opinion of the Advocate-General to that effect. Well, let us assume, there is an opinion of the Advocate-General. The people of this country should know that this is merely a tactical move for the simple reason that at any stage of the investigation, the offence under POTO can be added. They are only waiting for this debate to be over, for POTO to be passed and then directing that very investigating agency to include the offence of POTO which they have tactically withdrawn for the moment. That is their real motive. That is the political motive, Mr. Law Minister, that I was talking about.

What is even more interesting is that it was found that seven persons who were booked under POTO were young boys going to school. I will quote a person who arrested these young boys and this is what he said: "The Inspector of Godhra Town Police Station, Trivedi says, it was not possible to check their age at the time of arrest, they were seen near the site of the incident, so they were arrested under POTO." The reason given is they were arrested under POTO because they were seen at the site of the incident. Is this not insidious, Mr. Law Minister? Is this not politically-motivated, Mr. Law Minister? Is this not a manipulation of the parliamentary process that while POTO is law, you do not take any action for those who massacred people and who burnt people alive? Please answer, I would like the hon. Home Minister to answer that.

What further has happened is that all those officers, who tried to enforce the law have now been transferred. I can give you the names of officers. Some of those officers have said, in fact, one Shri Rahul Sharma, who was incharge of Bhavnagar, said: that Mr. Govardhan, the Home Minister told him on the phone, please book these people under safe IPC clauses. What does that mean? You say: "This law is only to deal with and contain terrorism." But if you want to contain terrorism, why do your Ministers in Gujrat tell Inspectors and Sub-Inspectors to book certain accused under safe IPC clauses? Is that how you want to deal with terrorism?

The other thing which is most interesting is that Shri Jaitley has given us some very interesting figures. He says: "61,000 people lost their lives because of terrorism in this country." He says, "8000 security people lost their lives."

This is true. Sixty thousand people lost their lives in the last 20 years when TADA was in force. But, after the October 24, 2001, POTO has been in force. Let me tell the Home Minister some interesting figures when POTO was in force. I will talk about Kashmir. On January 1, 2002, a woman, two children and six of her family were massacred alive in Jammu & Kashmir. POTO was in force. On January 7, 2002, it was a night of terror. Seventeen persons were massacred in Jammu & Kashmir. POTO was in force. On January 11, 2002, there was a blast in the Jammu & Kashmir High Court. Fifteen persons were killed. POTO was in force. On January 31, 2002, five children were killed. POTO was in force. I can go on and on and on.

You want to tell us that because of POTO, you will be able to catch hold of a suicide bomber, will you be able to do away with terrorism because of POTO? The answer is, ‘no’. The real purpose of POTO is to use this draconian piece of legislation against your own citizens. That is the real purpose of POTO. That is why, this law is insidious. That is why, we will not accept it.

Now, Shri Jaitley, let us come to some substantive provisions of the law, to which we have grave objection. My learned friend, the Law Minister has been saying time and again that the Congress Party has never told them what their real objection to the substantive provisions of the law is.

Objection number one is about the definition of a terrorist act under POTO in comparison to the definition of a terrorist act under TADA. I will read the definition under TADA and then I will read the definition under POTO. Under TADA, this is what the definition was:

My second substantive objection is this. Please note it. This law says that as long as you are a member of a terrorist organisation, you are deemed to be a terrorist. Shri Jaitley has said that the accused can always tell us that after the organisation became a terrorist organisation, he was not a member of that organisation, he did not do any activities for that organisation. That is true, Shri Jaitley. But the fact of the matter is when will the poor accused have to say that. The poor accused will have to say that only in his defence. There is no obligation under the law for the prosecution to prove that he is a member of a terrorist gang because under the definition, as long as the prosecution says he is a member, he is deemed to be a terrorist. We will not accept that.

The next objection is this. Madam Chairperson, when POTO was first promulgated on October 24, there was a Schedule to Section 18, which included only SIMI as an organisation, which would be deemed to be a terrorist organisation. There was a great hue and cry in this country and the reason was simple because organisations which had their objective as terrorism were excluded from the Schedule. I will name two such organisations, and that is, the Communist Party of India (Marxist-Leninst) called the People’s War Group, and the Maoist Communist Centre, MCC.

17.00 hrs.

These two organizations which profess to be terrorist organizations were excluded. Why? What is the answer of the Home Minister? If the intention was to fight terrorism, if the intention was to curb terrorist activity, then on 24^th of October when the Schedule was enacted, these two organizations should have been included. But they were not included. Your eye was on the UP election. You knew that the UP election was coming. You wanted to make this into a political issue. But then Shri Chandrababu Naidu, the Chief Minister of Andhra Pradesh, at the end of October and November asked why you have not included the People’s War Group. So, on 5^th December, 2001, you amended the Schedule and included the People’s War Group and the MCC but one organization is still not included. Which is that organization? It is the NSCN (IM) which professes to be a terrorist organization. Why is it not included? It is because your Home Minister is holding parleys with that organization. This also shows that when POTO was enacted, you had a specific purpose in mind.

Then, let me come to my fourth substantive objection. Unauthorised possession of arms is an offence under the POTO. Under TADA this provision was incorporated in Section 5. Many people, who had revolvers for which the licences have expired, continued to be in possession of those revolvers. And under the TADA, they were deemed to be terrorists because they were in possession of unauthorised arms. You have a similar provision now under this Act. So a person will be deemed to be a terrorist if he has a revolver or a gun for which the license has expired. How can any civilised society accept provisions of this nature? Please do explain that to us.

17.04 hrs (Shri K. Yerrannaidu in the Chair)

My next objection is this. You have a witness protection programme. You talked about the US law, the UK law and many other laws. Let me tell you this.

Under POTO, you could have preventive detention for 180 days before the chargesheet is filed. Under the American law, you cannot have such detention. Under the American law, you do have the normal bail provisions. Under this law, the bail provisions are drastic. So, please do not compare the American law with the Indian law.

Let me give you another example of the UK law. Under the UK law, for example, if a person is arrested up to five days preventively through an order of the Home Minister, the European convention on Human Rights has held that such a provision is unconstitutional even for aliens. In other words, under POTO, we treat our citizens much worse than the US and the UK laws treat their aliens. This is our objection and you have not answered it. We raised this objection not once but several times during the course of the debate but you have not dealt with this. … (Interruptions)

MR. CHAIRMAN : Please conclude now.

SHRI KAPIL SIBAL : I was interrupted for a long time. I will have to answer some of the questions that have been raised. … (Interruptions)

Let me now deal with the issue of MACOCA. Much has been made about the rate of conviction under MACOCA. The hon. Law Minister said that under TADA and under other laws of this country, the rate of conviction was 6.5 per cent but under MACOCA the rate of conviction was 76 per cent and this showed that MACOCA is efficacious. I do not know whether it is a legal argument or not but you can have a law in this country where the rate of conviction could also be 100 per cent. But will that show that that law is good or that law is efficacious? Why is it that you have a rate of conviction of 76 per cent? It is because the normal investigating agencies do not investigate the cases normally. What they do is to extract a confession. That confession becomes substantive evidence; that substantive evidence is made the basis of conviction; and so the rate of conviction would be high. But such a procedure is not recognised under civilized jurisprudence. Do we have such confessions in the United States? Do we have such confessions in the UK? The answer is ‘No’. So, the issue is not whether the rate of conviction is 76 per cent or 6.5 per cent. The issue is, in a civil society, will you adopt such procedures that tend to incriminate innocent persons who cannot fight against the State? This is what happens here.

Under MACOCA, you have the definition of organised crime. The definition of organised crime has nothing to do with the definition of terrorism. These are two different concepts. Let me read out the definition of organised crime under MACOCA. … (Interruptions)

‘Organised crime’, under MACOCA means, ‘any continuing unlawful activity by an individual’. Before anything becomes an organised crime, the prosecution has to show continuing unlawful activity, which is also defined under the Act but there is no such definition under POTO because you do not have to do any continuing unlawful activity if you have to be a terrorist. If you are a member of a terrorist gang, as the prosecution says, you are a terrorist. You do not have to be involved in any continuing illegal activity. So, please do not fool the country. Please do not talk about organised crime under MACOCA and compare it with terrorism under POTO. Under MACOCA you have organised gangs that are not defined like terrorist organisations. So, please do not compare apples with potatoes. That is exactly what you did.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Please try to conclude now.

SHRI KAPIL SIBAL : Let me just answer the question on confessions.

MR. CHAIRMAN: There are two more hon. Members from your party who want to speak. Please try to conclude in one more minute.

SHRI KAPIL SIBAL : Let me mention what the National Human Rights Commission says about confessions. This is what it says:

Mr. Chairman, Sir, I have now almost done. I will end by saying the following:-

A terrorist is a terrorist. There are no good or bad terrorists depending upon which side of the fence they stand. The record of the agency for implementation of POTO inspires no confidence in its objectivity, in its professionalism or its belief in the rule of law. You have seen the observations of the Chairman of the National Human Rights Commission (NHRC) on the lack of competence and lack of efficiency of the Gujarat Government, its real record for veracity and the inaccuracy of its proclamation that the situation in Gujarat had been brought under control in 72 hours. The Chairman of the NHRC says that the pall of insecurity still stands heavy on Gujarat and the Government’s actions and reports have been perfunctory. The Chief Minister has made his mindset clear through his own pronouncement. He saw the reprisals of innocent men, women and children as the operation of Newton’s third law of motion and not as the wanton criminal shedding of blood of those whose security was his constitutional responsibility. His kind of logic, one would have thought, was buried with the second world war and that Nero’s fiddle had ceased to resonate beyond the Roman empire. Its notes, however, seem painfully alive in Gujarat today. The terrorist is an enemy of the people and, as I have said before, there are no good or bad terrorists. However, the prism of the Gujarat Government through which terrorists were perceived as such and treated differentially was against all civilised canons and mores of action. The burnings in Godhra or in Gulburg society were two sides of the same coin and equally reprehensible. The State of Gujarat saw them otherwise. Unless we can learn a lesson from this and hasten slowly to this exercise that we have embarked upon with insufficient forethought and foresight, we will, I am confident, rue that day, we used the mailed fist through this legislation to bring a black law on our statute books that may unleash dark deeds of the blackest colour, stain human rights violations with shedding of innocent blood and trampling civil liberties under the hobnails of an enforcement agency that will exercise unrestrained power without the reins of necessary checks. We should not allow POTO to become an instrument of narrow partisan ends or division and dissentions that will fracture rather than integrate; generate distrust and discord that is violative of democracy and consensus. Let us be chary of passing a law not through persuasion but through brute force. Let us be patient, be ready for a dialogue, scrutinize together the inadequacies of the Act before us, and take time to give it a shape that may achieve purposes to which this Joint Session can commit itself.

If we can do this, we would not have met today in vain. But if not, a day may come when each one of us must deeply regret the loss of the unique opportunity we have today to pull back from the precipice on which we stand.

The mindless pursuit of a narrow agenda has belittled the greatness of this country as never before in history. Please do not aggravate the situation by pushing through a divisive piece of mistaken legislation.

MR. CHAIRMAN : Shri Prabhunath Singh – Not present.

Shri P.H. Pandian.

SHRI KIRTI JHA AZAD : What about calling me, Sir?

MR. CHAIRMAN : Madam Deputy-Chairman has promised you. I shall call you after Shri Pandian.
 
 

SHRI P.H. PANDIAN : This is not the way. I am talking for the country, not for you. … (Interruptions)

MR. CHAIRMAN: Shri Ramesh Chennithala, please sit down. No argument please.
 

SHRI P.H. PANDIAN : I am speaking for the country, not for you. … (Interruptions) Madam, your husband has been murdered, assassinated. Late Rajiv Gandhi was assassinated. … (Interruptions) Even for that reason, you should support this Bill. … (Interruptions)

MR. CHAIRMAN: Shri Pandian, please address the Chair. Do not argue with them.
 

SHRI P.H. PANDIAN : Now, barring three Members from Lok Sabha – we have 39 Members from Tamil Nadu – all are supporting this Bill. … (Interruptions) irrespective of party affiliations. Barring three Members, all are supporting this Bill. So, you must understand the terrorist echo in Tamil Nadu. What about Veerappan? You want that Veerappan to be handled by IPC; he should be handled under TADA. … (Interruptions) In that way, hardened criminals should be dealt with severely, with stringent provisions. The attack on railway coach at Godhra took place. We visited and we saw that coach. Madam Sonia Gandhi also visited. We saw the carriage that was attacked. Who was the aggressor? First, you must think about the aggressor and then only the next event, the subsequent event. Who is the aggressor? So, I would say that we support POTO Bill lock, stock and barrel.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Shri Digvijay Singh.
 

MR. CHAIRMAN: Shri Akhilesh, we will decide about it later. So many Members are there to speak.
 

SHRI SONTOSH MOHAN DEV (SILCHAR): Where is the Home Minister? Where is the Prime Minister? … (Interruptions)

MR. CHAIRMAN: Shri Sontosh Mohan Dev, please sit down. I have called Shri Digvijay Singh.
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 

MR. CHAIRMAN: Okay, I will call the Home Minister. The Home Minister is coming. Please sit down.
 

DR. RAGHUVANSH PRASAD SINGH : Rethinking process has started. The Prime Minister, the Home Minister and the Law Minister are absent. … (Interruptions)

BÉÖEÆ´É® +ÉÉÊJÉãÉä¶É É˺Éc (àÉcÉ®ÉVÉMÉÆVÉ, =.|É.) : ºÉ£ÉÉ{ÉÉÊiÉ àÉcÉänªÉ, ºÉɪÉÆBÉEÉãÉ BÉEä U& ºÉä VªÉÉnÉ BÉEÉ ºÉàÉªÉ cÉä MɪÉÉ cè, ãÉäÉÊBÉExÉ +É£ÉÉÒ iÉBÉE ´ÉÉäÉË]MÉ xÉcÉÓ BÉE®É<Ç MÉ<Ç cè* àÉä®É +ÉÉ{ɺÉä +ÉÉOÉc cè ÉÊBÉE ´ÉÉäÉË]MÉ BÉEÉ ºÉàÉªÉ ÉÊxÉÉζSÉiÉ ÉÊBÉEªÉÉ VÉÉA +ÉÉè® càÉå ¤ÉiÉɪÉÉ VÉÉA ÉÊBÉE ´ÉÉäÉË]MÉ BÉE¤É cÉäMÉÉÒ* …(BªÉ´ÉvÉÉxÉ)

MR. CHAIRMAN: If everybody agrees, we will go for voting. Please sit down. Now, Shri J. Chitharanjan to speak.
 

MR. CHAIRMAN: Shri Akhilesh, please sit down. I have already called one Member and he is on his legs. He is about to speak. This is not the way.
 

gÉÉÒ ºÉÆVÉªÉ ÉÊxÉâó{ÉàÉ (àÉcɮɭ]Å) : àÉé ABÉE ºÉÚSÉxÉÉ ºÉnxÉ BÉEÉä näxÉÉ SÉÉciÉÉ cÚÆ, ÉÊVÉºÉ ÉÊ´É­ÉªÉ {É® +É£ÉÉÒ ºÉnxÉ àÉå SÉSÉÉÇ SÉãÉ ®cÉÒ cè*…(BªÉ´ÉvÉÉxÉ) àÉé ABÉE àÉci´É{ÉÚhÉÇ ºÉÚSÉxÉÉ näxÉÉ SÉÉciÉÉ cÚÆ*

MR. CHAIRMAN: Shri Sanjay, please take your seat. I have called the next speaker to speak.
 

ºÉ£ÉÉ{ÉÉÊiÉ àÉcÉänªÉ : +ÉÉ{ÉBÉEÉÒ {ÉÉ]ÉÔ BÉEä ÉÊãÉA VÉÉä ÉÊxÉvÉÉÇÉÊ®iÉ ºÉàÉªÉ lÉÉ, ´Éc xÉÉè ÉÊàÉxÉ] lÉÉ, +ÉÉìãÉ®äbÉÒ 29 ÉÊàÉxÉ] <xcÉäxÉå ãÉä ÉÊãÉA MɪÉä cé*

MR. CHAIRMAN: No. I have called the next speaker to speak.
 

MR. CHAIRMAN: Nothing will go on record.
 

gÉÉÒ ºÉÆVɪÉ, àÉéxÉä =xÉBÉEÉä ¤ÉÖãÉÉ ÉÊãɪÉÉ cè*
 

MR. CHAIRMAN: I have called the next speaker to speak. Please take your seat.
 
 
 
 
 
 

*Not Recorded.

Sir, the Constitution of India has assured us, every individual, dignity, liberty, equality, secularism and a society free from exploitation. So, it is not that the Constitution has given us only the Universal Declaration for the Human Rights. How can we give it up? My friends, Shri Chitaranjan….

MR. CHAIRMAN : Please wind up.

SHRI R.S. GAVAI : Sir, I wind up. We are not there at the cost of human liberty and dignity. I again oppose this Bill.

gÉÉÒ ºÉÆVÉªÉ ÉÊxÉâó{ÉàÉ : ºÉ£ÉÉ{ÉÉÊiÉ àÉcÉänªÉÉ, àÉé +ÉÉ{ÉBÉEä àÉÉvªÉàÉ ºÉä nä¶É BÉEä ºÉ¤ÉºÉä ¤É½ä ÉÊ´É®ÉävÉÉÒ nãÉ ºÉä {ÉÚUxÉÉ SÉÉciÉÉ cÚÆ ÉÊBÉE ÉÊVÉºÉ àÉÉäcààÉn +É{ÉE®ÉäVÉ xÉä {ÉÖÉÊãÉºÉ BÉEä ºÉÉàÉxÉä +ÉÉiàɺÉàÉ{ÉÇhÉ ÉÊBÉEªÉÉ +ÉÉè® º´ÉÉÒBÉEÉ® ÉÊBÉEªÉÉ ÉÊBÉE =xÉBÉEÉ <®ÉnÉ <ÆMãÉéb, £ÉÉ®iÉ +ÉÉè® +Éɺ]ÅäÉÊãɪÉÉ àÉå +ÉÉiÉÆBÉE´ÉÉnÉÒ BÉEɮǴÉÉ<Ç BÉE®xÉÉ lÉÉ* =ºÉ {É® ªÉä ãÉÉäMÉ {ÉÉä]Éä BÉDªÉÉå c]ÉxÉÉ SÉÉciÉä cé…(BªÉ´ÉvÉÉxÉ) àÉé ªÉcÉÒ {ÉÚUxÉÉ SÉÉciÉÉ cÚÆ ÉÊBÉE {ÉÉä]Éä BÉEÉ ÉÊ´É®ÉävÉ +É{ÉE®ÉäVÉ VÉèºÉä +ÉÉiÉÆBÉE´ÉÉÉÊnªÉÉå BÉEÉä ¤ÉSÉÉxÉä BÉEä ÉÊãÉA BÉDªÉÉå ÉÊBÉEªÉÉ VÉÉ ®cÉ cè…(BªÉ´ÉvÉÉxÉ) àÉÖZÉä +É{ÉxÉÉÒ ¤ÉÉiÉ JÉiàÉ BÉE®xÉÉÒ cè, àÉÖZÉä ºÉ£ÉÉ{ÉÉÊiÉ àÉcÉänªÉÉ xÉä ºÉàÉªÉ ÉÊnªÉÉ cè <ºÉÉÊãÉA ¤ÉÉÒSÉ àÉå ®ÉäBÉE]ÉäBÉE xÉcÉÓ cÉäxÉÉÒ SÉÉÉÊcA*…(BªÉ´ÉvÉÉxÉ) àÉÖZÉä ´ÉBÉDiÉ ÉÊnªÉÉ cè SÉäªÉ® xÉä +É{ÉxÉÉÒ ¤ÉÉiÉ BÉEcxÉä BÉEä ÉÊãÉA <ºÉÉÊãÉA àÉÖZÉä {ÉÚ®É +ÉÉÊvÉBÉEÉ® cè ÉÊBÉE àÉé +É{ÉxÉÉÒ ¤ÉÉiÉ ªÉcÉÆ ®JÉÚÆ*…(BªÉ´ÉvÉÉxÉ)

SHRIMATI AMBIKA SONI (DELHI): Madam, Chairperson, he should take his words back… (Interruptions)

SHRIMATI RENUKA CHOWDHURY (KHAMMAM): Madam, it should be deleted from the records… (Interruptions)

gÉÉÒ ºÉÆVÉªÉ ÉÊxÉâó{ÉàÉ : ªÉc BÉEÉèxÉ ºÉÉÒ ºÉƺÉnÉÒªÉ {É®à{É®É cè, ªÉc BÉEÉèxÉ ºÉÉ MÉhÉiÉÆjÉÉÒªÉ {É®à{É®É cè* àÉÖZÉä ºÉ£ÉÉ{ÉÉÊiÉ àÉcÉänªÉÉ xÉä ºÉàÉªÉ ÉÊnªÉÉ cè, àÉé +É{ÉxÉÉÒ ¤ÉÉiÉ BÉEcxÉÉ SÉÉciÉÉ cÚÆ* ªÉä ãÉÉäMÉ àÉÖZÉä +É{ÉxÉÉÒ ¤ÉÉiÉ £ÉÉÒ xÉcÉÓ BÉEcxÉä näxÉÉ SÉÉciÉä…(BªÉ´ÉvÉÉxÉ)

MR. CHAIRMAN: Please take your seats. You cannot come to the Well of the House.
 

19.27 hrs
 

MR. CHAIRMAN: Please go back to your seats.
 

19.28 hrs
 

MR. CHAIRMAN: Please sit down now.
 

SHRI SHIVRAJ V. PATIL : Madam, I am on a point of order… (Interruptions)

gÉÉÒ ºÉÆVÉªÉ ÉÊxÉâó{ÉàÉ : =xÉBÉEÉ BªÉ´ÉºlÉÉ BÉEÉ |ɶxÉ cè, ´Éc +ÉÉ{É ºÉÖxÉ ãÉå*…(BªÉ´ÉvÉÉxÉ)

SHRI SHIVRAJ V. PATIL : Madam, I am referring to rule 356. I would read that rule. It says:

My submission is that under the Rules, he should be asked to withdraw.…(Interruptions)

SHRI SANJAY NIRUPAM : I will have to make my submission. … (Interruptions) àÉÖZÉä +É{ÉxÉÉÒ ¤ÉÉiÉ {ÉÚ®ÉÒ BÉE®xÉä nÉÒÉÊVÉA*…(BªÉ´ÉvÉÉxÉ)

MR. CHAIRMAN : Let him finish his submission and go back. I cannot ask him to leave.
 

SHRI SANJAY NIRUPAM : How can I be asked to go away? … (Interruptions) àÉÖZÉä +É{ÉxÉÉÒ ¤ÉÉiÉ {ÉÚ®ÉÒ BÉE®xÉä nÉÒÉÊVÉA*…(BªÉ´ÉvÉÉxÉ)

ºÉ£ÉÉ{ÉÉÊiÉ àÉcÉänªÉ : +ÉÉ{ÉBÉEÉä ¤ÉÉÒVÉä{ÉÉÒ xÉä +É{ÉxÉä ]É<àÉ àÉå ºÉä nÉä ÉÊàÉxÉ] ÉÊnªÉä lÉä* nÉä ÉÊàÉxÉ] ºÉä VªÉÉnÉ cÉä MÉA cé* +É¤É +ÉÉ{É +É{ÉxÉÉÒ ¤ÉÉiÉ ºÉàÉÉ{iÉ BÉEÉÊ®A*
 

gÉÉÒ ºÉÆVÉªÉ ÉÊxÉ°ô{ÉàÉ : àÉÖZÉä ªÉc ¤ÉiÉɪÉÉ MɪÉÉ ÉÊBÉE àÉé VÉÉä ÉÊ´É­ÉªÉ ®JÉ ®cÉ cÚÆ, ´Éc ®äãÉä´Éå] xÉcÉÓ cè*…(BªÉ´ÉvÉÉxÉ) àÉé ªÉc ¤ÉiÉÉxÉÉ SÉÉciÉÉ cÚÆ ÉÊBÉE "{ÉÉä]Éä" VÉèºÉä àÉci´É{ÉÚhÉÇ ÉÊ´É­ÉªÉ {É® ÉÊVÉºÉ {É® ªÉcÉ SÉSÉÉÇ cÉä ®cÉÒ cè,…(BªÉ´ÉvÉÉxÉ) àÉÖZÉä +É{ÉxÉÉÒ ¤ÉÉiÉ {ÉcãÉä ºÉàÉÉ{iÉ BÉE®xÉä nÉÒÉÊVÉA*…(BªÉ´ÉvÉÉxÉ)

MR. CHAIRMAN: Can I say something, please. Can I not say anything?
 

MR. CHAIRMAN: I am sorry, this is not the way. If there is anything objectionable, I will expunge it from the record. It will be looked into and expunged. What else can I say?
 

MR. CHAIRMAN: Shri Nirupam, please conclude.

SHRI SANJAY NIRUPAM : I will conclude, Madam but I should be allowed to make my submission. ªÉc BÉEÉä<Ç iÉ®ÉÒBÉEÉ xÉcÉÓ cè*…(BªÉ´ÉvÉÉxÉ)

19.34 hrs (Mr. Deputy-Speaker in the Chair)

MR. DEPUTY-SPEAKER: I will hear you. Please resume your seats.
 

MR. DEPUTY-SPEAKER: I am on my legs. Will you please go to your seats?
 

MR. DEPUTY-SPEAKER: Whatever is objectionable, unparliamentary, and derogatory, I will expunge it. Please go to your seats.
 

MR. DEPUTY-SPEAKER: Let me understand what it is. If you behave like this, how can I understand things. Please resume your seats.
 

gÉÉÒ ºÉÆVÉªÉ ÉÊxÉ°ô{ÉàÉ : +ÉÆiÉiÉ& àÉÖZÉä <iÉxÉÉ BÉEcxÉÉ cè ÉÊBÉE +ÉÉ{É +É{ÉxÉÉÒ +ÉÉãÉÉäSÉxÉÉ ¤ÉnÉǶiÉ xÉcÉÓ BÉE® ºÉBÉEiÉä cé * +ÉÉ{É {ÉÉä]Éä BÉEÉ ÉÊ´É®ÉävÉ <ºÉ ÉÊãÉA BÉE® ®cä cé, BÉDªÉÉåÉÊBÉE +ÉÉiÉÆBÉE´ÉÉÉÊnªÉÉå BÉEÉä ¤ÉSÉÉ ºÉBÉEå* {ÉÉä]Éä BÉEÉ ÉÊ´É®ÉävÉ <ºÉÉÊãÉA BÉE® ®cä cé ÉÊBÉE àÉÉäcààÉn +É{ÉE®ÉäWÉ VÉèºÉä +ÉÉiÉÆBÉE´ÉÉnÉÒ BÉEÉä ¤ÉSÉÉ ºÉBÉEå* …(BªÉ´ÉvÉÉxÉ)
 

MR. DEPUTY-SPEAKER: Hon. Members, I will hear you. Please resume your seats first.
 

MR. DEPUTY-SPEAKER: If there is anything objectionable or unparliamentary or derogatory, I will expunge it from the records.
 

MR. DEPUTY-SPEAKER: I will re-look into the records. Please resume your seats.
 

MR. DEPUTY-SPEAKER: Hon. Members, please resume your seats now.
 

MR. DEPUTY-SPEAKER: We have already taken more than 7 hours.
 

MR. DEPUTY-SPEAKER: There are still a few more speakers. So, we will have to sit for one to two hours more.
 

MR. DEPUTY-SPEAKER: Please cooperate with me. We have to pass the Bill.
 

SHRI CHANDRA SHEKHAR : Mr. Deputy-Speaker, Sir, I have to make a request to you… (Interruptions)

MR. DEPUTY-SPEAKER: There is a lot of noise in the House. Order, please. I am asking the hon. Members, who are standing, to resume their seats.
 

SHRI CHANDRA SHEKHAR : Mr. Deputy-Speaker, Sir, we were asked to be present here at 5 p.m. for voting. It is already 7.40 pm. It is high time that we should ask the Home Minister to reply to the debate, and then have voting… (Interruptions)

MR. DEPUTY-SPEAKER: I will get the sense of the House, and then we will do it accordingly.

gÉÉÒ àÉÖãÉɪÉàÉ É˺Éc ªÉÉn´É : ={ÉÉvªÉFÉ àÉcÉänªÉ, +ÉÉ{ÉBÉEÉÒ +ÉvªÉFÉiÉÉ àÉå ºÉÖ¤Éc ¤Éè~BÉE cÖ<Ç lÉÉÒ* º{É­] iÉÉè® {É® ªÉc ÉÊxÉhÉÇªÉ ÉÊãɪÉÉ MɪÉÉ lÉÉ ÉÊBÉE {ÉÉÆSÉ ¤ÉVÉä {ÉÚ®ÉÒ BÉEÉÒ {ÉÚ®ÉÒ ¤ÉcºÉ ºÉàÉÉ{iÉ cÉä VÉÉAMÉÉÒ +ÉÉè® ºÉÉfÃä SÉÉ® ¤ÉVÉä MÉßc àÉÆjÉÉÒ VÉÉÒ +É{ÉxÉÉÒ ¤ÉÉiÉ BÉEcåMÉä* ãÉäÉÊBÉExÉ <iÉxÉÉ ºÉàÉªÉ cÉä MɪÉÉ cè, càÉãÉÉäMÉÉå BÉEÉä +É{ÉxÉÉ BÉEɪÉǵÉEàÉ =ºÉÉÒ +ÉÉvÉÉ® {É® ¤ÉxÉÉxÉÉ cè* +ÉMÉ® +ÉÉ{É BÉEcå, iÉÉä ºÉnxÉ BÉEÉÒ BÉEɪÉÇ´ÉÉcÉÒ BÉEãÉ cÉä VÉÉA ªÉÉ <ºÉBÉEÉä ¤Éxn BÉE® ÉÊnªÉÉ VÉÉA* +ÉÉVÉ xÉcÉÓ BÉE®xÉÉ cè, iÉÉä +ÉÉVÉ BÉEä ÉÊãÉA iÉªÉ xÉcÉÓ BÉE®xÉÉ SÉÉÉÊcA lÉÉ* <ºÉBÉEÉä ¤Éxn BÉEÉÒÉÊVÉA*

MR. DEPUTY-SPEAKER:SÉxp¶ÉäJÉ® VÉÉÒ xÉä £ÉÉÒ ªÉcÉÒ ºÉÖZÉÉ´É ÉÊnªÉÉ cè* Is it the sense of the House that now we have the reply by the hon. Home Minister and then voting?

SEVERAL HON. MEMBERS: Yes.

MR. DEPUTY-SPEAKER: All right. Then, I will call the hon. Home Minister to reply.
 

THE MINISTER OF HUMAN RESOURCE DEVELOPMENT, MINISTER OF SCIENCE AND TECHNOLOGY AND MINISTER OF OCEAN DEVELOPMENT (DR. MURLI MANOHAR JOSHI): Mr. Deputy-Speaker, Sir, the hon. Prime Minister is also expected to intervene… (Interruptions)

MR. DEPUTY-SPEAKER: Hon. Members, the hon. Prime Minister wanted to intervene, and he is expected to come any moment.

DR. MURLI MANOHAR JOSHI: In the meanwhile, Sir, you may call another speaker to participate.

MR. DEPUTY-SPEAKER: In the meanwhile, I cannot do that. There are seven to eight more speakers. If I allow one or two, again there will be a problem.
 

MR. DEPUTY-SPEAKER: Or, we will adjourn the House and continue tomorrow. Otherwise, it will be difficult.
 

SHRI A.C. JOS (TRICHUR): Sir, let the Home Minister start his reply. When the Prime Minister comes, he may also intervene… (Interruptions)

MR. DEPUTY-SPEAKER: Now, let the hon. Home Minister may kindly reply.
 

MR. DEPUTY-SPEAKER: There are 7 or 8 more hon. Members to speak. I cannot allow anybody now. Please forgive me.
 

MR. DEPUTY-SPEAKER: Please forgive me. Shri Athawale, please resume your seat.
 

MR. DEPUTY-SPEAKER: It is the sense of the House that the hon. Home Minister should reply and the debate should end here. I am bound by the sense of the House.
 

MR. DEPUTY-SPEAKER: Hon. Home Minister may kindly reply now.
 

THE MINISTER OF HOME AEEAIRS(SHRI L.K. ADVANI): Sir, I will start. But the Prime Minister wanted to intervene. If the hon. Prime Minister comes in-between, then, I will sit down just for him to intervene. You may please permit it. … (Interruptions)

MR. DEPUTY-SPEAKER: That would be rather difficult. If you are replaying and in-between he wants to intervene, that would be difficult. That is rather difficult.
 

SHRI L.K. ADVANI: He wants to intervene. He is coming for that. It was communicated to him that there are many more hon. Members to speak. … (Interruptions) Sir, I will do as you direct. … (Interruptions) If you direct me to reply now, I will do it. … (Interruptions)

MR. DEPUTY-SPEAKER: The hon. Home Minister is replying. Please resume your seats.
 

gÉÉÒ ãÉÉãÉ BÉßE­hÉ +ÉÉb´ÉÉhÉÉÒ : àÉÉxªÉ´É® ={ÉÉvªÉFÉ àÉcÉänªÉ, +ÉÉVÉ |ÉÉiÉ&BÉEÉãÉ gÉÉÒ àÉÖãÉɪÉàÉ É˺Éc VÉÉÒ BÉEÉä àÉéxÉä ´ÉSÉxÉ ÉÊnªÉÉ lÉÉ ÉÊBÉE àÉé +ÉÆOÉäVÉÉÒ àÉå ¤ÉÉäãÉ ®cÉ cÚÆ ãÉäÉÊBÉExÉ VÉ´ÉÉ¤É ÉËcnÉÒ àÉå nÚÆMÉÉ* àÉÖZÉä JÉän cè ÉÊBÉE àÉä®ä £ÉÉ­ÉÉ BÉEä |ɪÉÉäMÉ BÉEä >ó{É® <iÉxÉÉÒ ]ÉÒBÉEÉ-ÉÊ]{{ÉhÉÉÒ cÖ<Ç +ÉÉè® ªÉcÉÆ iÉBÉE BÉEcÉ MɪÉÉ ÉÊBÉE VÉÉä º´É£ÉÉ­ÉÉ BÉEÉ ºÉààÉÉxÉ xÉcÉÓ BÉE®äMÉÉ ´Éc º´Énä¶É BÉEä ÉÊãÉA BÉDªÉÉ BÉE®äMÉÉ* àÉä®ÉÒ ªÉc BÉEàÉVÉÉä®ÉÒ cè àÉÉxªÉ´É® ÉÊBÉE àÉä®ÉÒ àÉÉiÉߣÉÉ­ÉÉ ÉËcnÉÒ xÉcÉÓ cè* àÉä®ÉÒ àÉÉiÉߣÉÉ­ÉÉ É˺ÉvÉÉÒ cè*

gÉÉÒ àÉÖãÉɪÉàÉ É˺Éc ªÉÉn´É : +ÉÉ{É É˺ÉvÉÉÒ àÉå ¤ÉÉäÉÊãɪÉä*

gÉÉÒ ãÉÉãÉ BÉßE­hÉ +ÉÉb´ÉÉhÉÉÒ : àÉä®ÉÒ ÉʶÉFÉhÉ BÉEÉÒ £ÉÉ­ÉÉ +ÉÆOÉäVÉÉÒ ®cÉÒ cè ãÉäÉÊBÉExÉ àÉéxÉä |ɪÉixÉ{ÉÚ´ÉÇBÉE ÉËcnÉÒ ºÉÉÒJÉÉÒ cè*

={ÉÉvªÉFÉ àÉcÉänªÉ : àÉÉxÉxÉÉÒªÉ |ÉvÉÉxÉ àÉÆjÉÉÒ VÉÉÒ xÉä àÉÖZɺÉä +ÉxÉÖ®ÉävÉ ÉÊBÉEªÉÉ lÉÉ lÉÉä½É ºÉÉ <Æ]®´Éå¶ÉxÉ BÉE®xÉä BÉEä ÉÊãÉA* +ÉMÉ® cÉ=ºÉ +ÉãÉÉ>ó BÉE®ä iÉÉä |ÉvÉÉxÉ àÉÆjÉÉÒ VÉÉÒ BÉEÉä àÉéxÉä ¤ÉÖãÉɪÉÉ cè, =ºÉBÉEä ¤ÉÉn cÉäàÉ-ÉÊàÉÉÊxɺ]® BÉEÉä ¤ÉÖãÉÉAÆMÉä*

={ÉÉvªÉFÉ àÉcÉänªÉ, àÉé ÉÊBÉEºÉÉÒ BÉEä n¤ÉÉ´É àÉå BÉEÉàÉ xÉcÉÓ BÉE®iÉÉ* {ÉÉÉÌãɪÉÉàÉé] BÉEÉ VÉÉÒ´ÉxÉ <ºÉ ¤ÉÉiÉ BÉEÉ ºÉÉFÉÉÒ cè* 1961 àÉå ºÉƪÉÖBÉDiÉ ¤Éè~BÉE àÉå VÉÉä àÉéxÉä £ÉÉ­ÉhÉ ÉÊnªÉÉ lÉÉ, àÉé =ºÉä +É£ÉÉÒ {Éfà ®cÉ lÉÉ* ´Éc ncäVÉ BÉEä ºÉ´ÉÉãÉ {É® ºÉƪÉÖBÉDiÉ ¤Éè~BÉE cÖ<Ç lÉÉÒ* àÉéxÉä =ºÉ ºÉàÉªÉ ncäVÉ BÉEÉ ÉÊ´É®ÉävÉ ÉÊBÉEªÉÉ lÉÉ* àÉÖZÉä ¤ÉÉn àÉå SÉSÉÉÇ àÉå ºÉÖxÉxÉÉ {ÉfÃÉ ÉÊBÉE +ÉÉ{É {ÉÖ®ÉiÉxÉ´ÉÉnÉÒ cé, {É®à{ɮɴÉÉnÉÒ cé, ªÉcÉÆ ncäVÉ BÉEÉ ÉÊ´É®ÉävÉ BÉDªÉÉå BÉE® ®cä cé?

gÉÉÒ àÉÖãÉɪÉàÉ É˺Éc ªÉÉn´É : xÉ +ÉÉ{ÉxÉä ncäVÉ ÉÊãɪÉÉ cè +ÉÉè® xÉ ncäVÉ ÉÊnªÉÉ cè*

gÉÉÒ +É]ãÉ ÉʤÉcÉ®ÉÒ ´ÉÉVÉ{ÉäªÉÉÒ : ={ÉÉvªÉFÉ àÉcÉänªÉ, ªÉc 1961 BÉEÉÒ ¤ÉÉiÉ cè* àÉé 1957 àÉå {ÉcãÉÉÒ ¤ÉÉ® ãÉÉäBÉE ºÉ£ÉÉ BÉEÉ ºÉnºªÉ |ÉÉÊiÉ{ÉFÉ BÉEÉÒ +ÉÉä® ºÉä SÉÖxÉÉ MɪÉÉ* +ÉMÉ® àÉé n¤ÉÉ´É àÉå BÉEÉàÉ BÉE®iÉÉ iÉÉä ÉÊ{ÉE® {ÉiÉÉ xÉcÉÓ BÉDªÉÉ cÉä VÉÉiÉÉ? n¤ÉÉ´É àÉå BÉEÉàÉ BÉE®xÉä BÉEÉ àÉiÉãÉ¤É cè ÉÊBÉEºÉÉÒ BÉEä n¤ÉÉ´É àÉå ?…(BªÉ´ÉvÉÉxÉ) +ÉÉ{ÉBÉEÉä ¤É½ÉÒ ÉÊSÉxiÉÉ cÉä ®cÉÒ cè ÉÊBÉE àÉé ÉÊBÉEºÉÉÒ BÉEä n¤ÉÉ´É àÉå xÉ ®cÚÆ* +É£ÉÉÒ BÉEcÉ VÉÉ ®cÉ cè ÉÊBÉE càÉ {ÉÉÊ®´ÉÉ® BÉEä n¤ÉÉ´É àÉå cé* càÉÉ®ä ´ÉÉàÉ{ÉÆlÉÉÒ ºÉnºªÉ BÉEciÉä cé ÉÊBÉE càÉ +ÉàÉ®ÉÒBÉEÉ ªÉÉ ÉÊ´Énä¶ÉÉÒ ¶ÉÉÎBÉDiɪÉÉå BÉEä n¤ÉÉ´É àÉå cé* +ÉMÉ® càÉ n¤ÉÉ´É àÉå cè +ÉÉè® n¤ÉÉ´É àÉå BÉEÉàÉ BÉE®iÉä cé iÉÉä ÉÊ{ÉE® àÉä®É nãÉ +ÉÉè® àÉä®ä ÉÊàÉjÉ nãÉ àÉä®É ºÉàÉlÉÇxÉ BÉDªÉÉå BÉE® ®cä cé? <ºÉBÉEÉ +ÉÉèÉÊSÉiªÉ BÉDªÉÉ cè? ´Éä VÉÉxÉiÉä cè ÉÊBÉE àÉé n¤ÉÉ´É àÉå BÉEÉàÉ xÉcÉÓ BÉE®iÉÉ* ºÉƺÉÉ® BÉEÉ ÉÊ´É®ÉävÉ àÉÉäãÉ ãÉäBÉE® càÉxÉä +ÉhÉÖ {É®ÉÒFÉhÉ ÉÊBÉEªÉÉ, càÉ ÉÊBÉEºÉÉÒ n¤ÉÉ´É àÉå xÉcÉÓ +ÉɪÉä* {É®ÉÒFÉhÉ BÉEä àÉÉàÉãÉä àÉå càÉÉ®ä ABÉE {ÉÚ´ÉÇ |ÉvÉÉxÉàÉÆjÉÉÒ xÉä ÉÊBÉEºÉ iÉ®c BÉEÉ BªÉ´ÉcÉ® ÉÊBÉEªÉÉ lÉÉ, àÉé ºÉÉ®É ÉÊSÉ]Â~É ºÉnxÉ BÉEä ºÉÉàÉxÉä ®JÉ ºÉBÉEiÉÉ cÚÆ* ABÉE ¤ÉÉ® {É®ÉÒFÉhÉ BÉE®xÉä BÉEä ÉÊãɪÉä MÉbÂfÉ JÉÉän ÉÊnªÉÉ MɪÉÉ lÉÉ, ºÉÖ®ÆMÉ iÉèªÉÉ® cÉä MÉ<Ç lÉÉÒ, {É®ÉÒFÉhÉ BÉEÉÒ ÉÊiÉÉÊlÉ iÉªÉ cÉä MÉ<Ç lÉÉÒ, àÉMÉ® AäxÉ ´ÉBÉDiÉ {É® {É®ÉÒFÉhÉ BÉEÉä ®q BÉE® ÉÊnªÉÉ MɪÉÉ BÉDªÉÉåÉÊBÉE ÉÊ´Énä¶ÉÉÒ n¤ÉÉ´É lÉÉ* àÉé n¤ÉÉ´É àÉå BÉEÉàÉ xÉcÉÓ BÉE®iÉÉ …(BªÉ´ÉvÉÉxÉ) +ÉÉ{É SÉÖ{É ®ÉÊcªÉä* ABÉE ºÉÉÒàÉÉ cÉäiÉÉÒ cè ºÉÖxÉxÉä BÉEÉÒ*

={ÉÉvªÉFÉ àÉcÉänªÉ, VÉ¤É BÉEÉ®ÉÊMÉãÉ BÉEÉ ªÉÖr SÉãÉ ®cÉ lÉÉ iÉÉä ®É­]Å{ÉÉÊiÉ ÉÏBÉDãÉ]xÉ xÉä xªÉÚªÉÉBÉEÇ +ÉÉè® ´ÉÉÉ˶ÉMÉ]xÉ àÉå àÉÖZÉä ¤ÉÖãÉɪÉÉ* =xcÉåxÉä BÉEcÉ ÉÊBÉE {ÉÉÉÊBÉEºiÉÉxÉ BÉEä |ÉvÉÉxÉàÉÆjÉÉÒ +ÉÉ MÉA cé, +ÉÉ{É £ÉÉÒ +ÉÉ VÉÉ<ªÉä* nÉäxÉÉå ÉÊàÉãÉBÉE® ¤ÉèÉÊ~ªÉä, càÉ ºÉ´ÉÉãÉÉå BÉEÉä iÉªÉ BÉE®åMÉä* càÉxÉä BÉEcÉ ÉÊBÉE VÉ¤É iÉBÉE {ÉÉÉÊBÉEºiÉÉxÉ BÉEä BÉE¤VÉä àÉå £ÉÉ®iÉ BÉEÉÒ càÉÉ®ÉÒ ABÉE <ÆSÉ £ÉÚÉÊàÉ £ÉÉÒ cè, iÉ¤É iÉBÉE àÉé ¤ÉÉiÉ xÉcÉÓ BÉE°ôÆMÉÉ* àÉé +ÉàÉ®ÉÒBÉEÉ xÉcÉÓ MɪÉÉ, +ÉàÉ®ÉÒBÉEÉ BÉEä n¤ÉÉ´É àÉå xÉcÉÓ +ÉɪÉÉ …(BªÉ´ÉvÉÉxÉ) <xÉ ãÉÉäMÉÉå BÉEÉä BÉDªÉÉå ¤ÉäSÉèxÉÉÒ cÉä ®cÉÒ cè? àÉÖZÉä ]ÉäBÉExÉä BÉEÉ BÉDªÉÉ àÉiÉãÉ¤É cè? +ÉÉ{ÉBÉEÉä ºÉSÉ ¤ÉÉiÉ ºÉÖxÉxÉÉ BÉE½´ÉÉ ãÉMÉiÉÉ cè* <ºÉBÉEä +ÉÉMÉä näÉÊJɪÉä- Þ His moment of reckoning has come.

ªÉc xÉäiÉÉ ÉÊ´É®ÉävÉÉÒ nãÉ BÉEÉ £ÉÉ­ÉhÉ cè* ªÉä |ÉvÉÉxÉàÉÆjÉÉÒ BÉEä ÉÊJÉãÉÉ{ÉE ¤ÉÉäãÉÉÒ MÉ<Ç £ÉÉ­ÉɪÉå cé, <ºÉBÉEÉ £ÉÉ´É BÉDªÉÉ cè? àÉä®ÉÒ {É®ÉÒFÉÉ BÉEÉ ÉÊnxÉ +ÉÉ MɪÉÉ cè, <ºÉBÉEÉ BÉDªÉÉ àÉiÉãÉ¤É cè? àÉé ®ÉäWÉ-®ÉäWÉ {É®ÉÒFÉÉ nä ®cÉ cÚÆ* VÉ¤É ºÉÉäÉÊxɪÉÉ VÉÉÒ ®ÉVÉxÉÉÒÉÊiÉ ºÉä BÉEÉäºÉÉå nÚ® lÉÉÓ, iÉ¤É ºÉä àÉé <ºÉ ºÉnxÉ àÉå, <ºÉ ºÉƺÉn àÉå BªÉ´ÉcÉ® BÉE® ®cÉ cÚÆ* +ÉÉVÉ àÉÖZÉä BÉE]PÉ®ä àÉå JÉ½É ÉÊBÉEªÉÉ VÉÉ ®cÉ cè.* =xcå BÉDªÉÉ +ÉÉÊvÉBÉEÉ® cè?… (Interruptions)

MR. DEPUTY-SPEAKER: Order, please.
 

MR. DEPUTY-SPEAKER: I appeal to all of you to please resume your seats.
 

MR. DEPUTY-SPEAKER: Let me regulate the House.
 

MR. DEPUTY-SPEAKER: All the hon. Members may please resume their seats.
 

MR. DEPUTY-SPEAKER: I appeal to all of you to resume your seats. If there is anything, we can certainly sort it out.
 

MR. DEPUTY-SPEAKER: Will you please resume your seats?
 

MR. DEPUTY-SPEAKER: May I request all of you to resume your seats?
 

MR. DEPUTY-SPEAKER: All the hon. Members may please resume their seats. If there is anything objectionable or anything that has to be sorted out, we can hear that and settle. Now, please go to your seats.
 

MR. DEPUTY-SPEAKER: I appeal to you to resume your seats. If there is anything that is to be settled, we can settle it if you cooperate with the Chair. Please resume your seats now.
 

MR. DEPUTY-SPEAKER: Will you please resume your seats?
 

MR. DEPUTY-SPEAKER: I appeal to all the Whips and the Leaders to please cooperate with the Chair. If there is anything objectionable we can talk and settle it. Will you please resume your seats? I appeal to all the Whips and all the Leaders. Please resume your seats now.
 

20.00 hrs.

MR. DEPUTY-SPEAKER: Mr. Prime Minister, you may continue now.
 

gÉÉÒ +ÉVÉÇÖxÉ É˺Éc (àÉvªÉ |Énä¶É) : ={ÉÉvªÉFÉ VÉÉÒ, àÉé BÉÖEU BÉEcxÉÉ SÉÉciÉÉ cÚÄ* …(BªÉ´ÉvÉÉxÉ)

gÉÉÒ +É]ãÉ ÉʤÉcÉ®ÉÒ ´ÉÉVÉ{ÉäªÉÉÒ : àÉé BÉÖEU ºÉÖxÉ xÉcÉÓ {ÉÉ ®cÉ cÚÄ* …(BªÉ´ÉvÉÉxÉ)

MR. DEPUTY-SPEAKER: Shri Arjun Singh, you can come here and speak.
 

20.01 hrs. (<ºÉ ºÉàÉªÉ gÉÉÒ |É£ÉÖxÉÉlÉ É˺Éc, gÉÉÒ AºÉ.AºÉ.+ÉÉcãÉÚ´ÉÉÉÊãɪÉÉ, gÉÉÒ SÉÆpBÉEÉÆiÉ JÉè®ä
 

MR. DEPUTY-SPEAKER: It is only point of order. Please help me. I will rule it out.
 

20.02 hrs. (<ºÉ ºÉàÉªÉ gÉÉÒ ºÉÆiÉÉä­É àÉÉäcxÉ nä´É, gÉÉÒ ®PÉÖ´ÉÆ¶É |ɺÉÉn É˺Éc iÉlÉÉ
 

MR. DEPUTY-SPEAKER: Dr. Raghuvansh Prasad Singh, please go back to your seat. What is this going on with all the leaders?
 

MR. DEPUTY-SPEAKER: What is your point of order? Hon. Prime Minister will yield only to a point of order.
 

MR. DEPUTY-SPEAKER: Hon. Members, please hear me for a minute. Why are you not hearing me?
 

20.04 hrs. (<ºÉ ºÉàÉªÉ gÉÉÒ |É£ÉÖxÉÉlÉ É˺Éc, gÉÉÒ AºÉ.AºÉ.+ÉÉcãÉÚ´ÉÉÉÊãɪÉÉ,
 

MR. DEPUTY-SPEAKER: Hon. Prime Minister is prepared to hear him. Please take your seats.
 

20.05 hrs. (<ºÉ ºÉàÉªÉ gÉÉÒ ºÉÆiÉÉä­É àÉÉäcxÉ nä´É, gÉÉÒ ®PÉÖ´ÉÆ¶É |ɺÉÉn É˺Éc iÉlÉÉ
 

MR. DEPUTY-SPEAKER: You are not even hearing. Then, what is the fun of my talking?
 

MR. DEPUTY-SPEAKER: Prime Minister is not yielding.
 

MR. DEPUTY-SPEAKER: Hon. Members, will you please resume your seats?
 

MR. DEPUTY-SPEAKER: Prime Minister has agreed that Shri Arjun Singh will speak for two minutes. Hon. Members, will you please resume your seats?
 

MR. DEPUTY-SPEAKER: Hon. Members, please resume your seats.
 

MR. DEPUTY-SPEAKER: Hon. Prime Minister has agreed to yield to Shri Arjun Singh. So, Shri Arjun Singh will speak for two minutes. He has yielded to him. So, please resume your seats. Shri Bagrodia, please resume your seat.
 

MR. DEPUTY-SPEAKER: I would like to inform all Leaders, Whips and hon. Members that hon. Prime Minister has agreed to yield to him for two minutes. Please patiently hear him and then the Prime Minister will speak. Order please. Hon. Members, you please take your seats.

May I request Sardar Buta Singh to take his seat?
 

MR. DEPUTY-SPEAKER: Shri Pramod Mahajan, please tell your Members to take their seats.
 

MR. DEPUTY-SPEAKER: Shri Priya Ranjan Dasmunsi, please tell your Members to take their seats. The hon. Prime Minister has agreed to yield to Shri Arjun Singh for two minutes. Then, the hon. Prime Minister will continue with his speech. I would request you to maintain order in the House.

gÉÉÒ +ÉVÉÇÖxÉ É˺Éc : +ÉÉn®hÉÉÒªÉ ={ÉÉvªÉFÉ àÉcÉänªÉ, àÉÖZÉä ªÉcÉÆ +ÉÉBÉE® ¤ÉÉäãÉxÉä àÉå BÉEÉä<Ç |ɺÉxxÉiÉÉ xÉcÉÓ cÉä ®cÉÒ cè* àÉé +ÉÉVÉ VÉÉä BÉEc ®cÉ cÚÆ, ´Éc ¤ÉcÖiÉ nÖJÉÉÒ àÉxÉ ºÉä BÉEc ®cÉ cÚÆ* ªÉc ´Éc ºlÉÉxÉ cè VÉcÉÆ £ÉÉ®iÉ BÉEä ºÉÆÉÊ´ÉvÉÉxÉ BÉEÉÒ ®SÉxÉÉ cÖ<Ç cè* ªÉc ´Éc ºlÉÉxÉ cè VÉcÉÆ £ÉÉ®iÉ BÉEä º´ÉiÉÆjÉiÉÉ ºÉÆOÉÉàÉ ºÉäxÉÉÉÊxɪÉÉå xÉä +É{ÉxÉä ºÉÉÉÊnªÉÉå BÉEä ºÉÆPÉ­ÉÇ BÉEÉ +ÉÆÉÊiÉàÉ °ô{É ºÉÆÉÊ´ÉvÉÉxÉ BÉEä °ô{É àÉå nä¶É BÉEÉä ÉÊnªÉÉ cè* AäºÉä ºlÉÉxÉ {É® àÉÖZÉä JÉän BÉEä ºÉÉlÉ ªÉc BÉEcxÉÉ {ɽ ®cÉ cè ÉÊBÉE ÉÊVÉºÉ iÉ®ÉÒBÉEä ºÉä …(BªÉ´ÉvÉÉxÉ)

ªÉÖ´ÉBÉE BÉEɪÉǵÉEàÉ +ÉÉè® JÉäãÉ àÉÆjÉÉÒ (BÉÖEàÉÉ®ÉÒ =àÉÉ £ÉÉ®iÉÉÒ) : ={ÉÉvªÉFÉ àÉcÉänªÉ, ªÉc £ÉÉ­ÉhÉ nä ®cä cé* …(BªÉ´ÉvÉÉxÉ)

MR. DEPUTY-SPEAKER: Shri Sanjay Nirupam, what are you doing? I am trying to control the House. I seek the cooperation of all the leaders in maintaining order.

gÉÉÒ +ÉVÉÇÖxÉ É˺Éc : nÉä ÉÊàÉxÉ] àÉå +ÉÉè® BÉDªÉÉ BÉE®åMÉä ? BÉDªÉÉ Jɽä cÉäBÉE® àÉÉãÉÉ VÉ{ÉåMÉä ? …(BªÉ´ÉvÉÉxÉ)

MR. DEPUTY-SPEAKER: What is this? The hon. Prime Minister will speak now. Already, we are late. We will take another one-and-a-half hours.

gÉÉÒ +ÉVÉÇÖxÉ É˺Éc : ={ÉÉvªÉFÉ àÉcÉänªÉ, BÉÖEU SÉÉÒVÉå BªÉ´ÉºlÉÉ BÉEÉÒ cÉäiÉÉÒ cé* BÉÖEU SÉÉÒVÉå {ÉÚ®ä ºÉnxÉ BÉEÉÒ àɪÉÉÇnÉ BÉEÉÒ cÉäiÉÉÒ cé* àÉé ºÉàÉZÉiÉÉ cÚÆ ÉÊBÉE =ºÉ àɪÉÉÇnÉ BÉEÉ =ããÉÆPÉxÉ cÖ+ÉÉ cè +ÉÉè® <ºÉÉÒÉÊãÉA àÉé ºÉnxÉ ºÉä +ÉÉè® |ÉvÉÉxÉ àÉÆjÉÉÒ VÉÉÒ ºÉä ÉÊxÉ´ÉänxÉ BÉE®xÉÉ SÉÉciÉÉ cÚÆ* |ÉvÉÉxÉ àÉÆjÉÉÒ VÉÉÒ xÉä àÉÖZÉä ¤ÉÉäãÉxÉä BÉEÉ +ɴɺɮ ÉÊnªÉÉ, =xcÉåxÉä <ºÉ iÉ®c ºÉä ¤ÉcÖiÉ +ÉSUÉÒ {É®à{É®É BÉEɪÉàÉ BÉEÉÒ* àÉé =xcå vÉxªÉ´ÉÉn näiÉÉ cÚÆ ãÉäÉÊBÉExÉ ºÉnxÉ àÉå |ÉÉÊiÉ{ÉFÉ BÉEä xÉäiÉÉ BÉEÉ ºlÉÉxÉ £ÉÉÒ AäºÉÉ cÉäiÉÉ cè ÉÊVɺÉä xÉVÉ®+ÉÆnÉVÉ xÉcÉÓ ÉÊBÉEªÉÉ VÉÉ ºÉBÉEiÉÉ* àÉé ºÉàÉZÉiÉÉ cÚÆ ÉÊBÉE àÉÉxÉxÉÉÒªÉ |ÉvÉÉxÉ àÉÆjÉÉÒ xÉä ÉÊVÉºÉ ãÉcWÉä ºÉä =xÉBÉEä ¶É¤nÉå BÉEÉä ªÉcÉÆ ãÉäBÉE® +É{ÉxÉÉ |ÉÉÊiÉ®ÉävÉ VÉÉÉÊc® BÉE®xÉä BÉEÉÒ BÉEÉäÉÊ¶É¶É BÉEÉÒ cè, ´Éc =xcå ¶ÉÉä£ÉÉ xÉcÉÓ näiÉÉ cè* ªÉcÉÒ àÉä®ÉÒ àÉÉxªÉiÉÉ cè* …(BªÉ´ÉvÉÉxÉ)

gÉÉÒ +É]ãÉ ÉʤÉcÉ®ÉÒ ´ÉÉVÉ{ÉäªÉÉÒ : ={ÉÉvªÉFÉ àÉcÉänªÉ, +ÉMÉ® àÉéxÉä +É{ÉxÉä £ÉÉ­ÉhÉ àÉå ÉÊBÉEºÉÉÒ +ɺÉƺÉnÉÒªÉ ¶É¤n BÉEÉ |ɪÉÉäMÉ ÉÊBÉEªÉÉ cè iÉÉä +ÉÉ{É =ºÉä näJÉ ãÉå* =ºÉBÉEÉä ÉÊxÉBÉEÉãÉ nå, àÉé +ÉÉ{ÉÉÊkÉ xÉcÉÓ BÉE°ôÆMÉÉ* +É¤É àÉä®ä ãÉcWÉä {É® AiÉ®ÉVÉ ÉÊBÉEªÉÉ VÉÉ ®cÉ cè* àÉé ãÉcWÉÉ iÉÉä <ºÉ =©É àÉå ¤ÉnãÉ xÉcÉÓ ºÉBÉEiÉÉ* …(BªÉ´ÉvÉÉxÉ) gÉÉÒ VÉ´ÉÉc® ãÉÉãÉ xÉäc°ô VÉÉÒ xÉä àÉä®É ªÉc ãÉcWÉÉ º´ÉÉÒBÉEÉ® ÉÊBÉEªÉÉ lÉÉ +ÉÉè® =ºÉBÉEä ¤ÉÉn VÉÉä {ÉÉÒfÃÉÒ +ÉÉ<Ç, =ºÉºÉä £ÉÉÒ àÉÖZÉä BÉE£ÉÉÒ AäºÉä ¶É¤n xÉcÉÓ ºÉÖxÉxÉä {ɽä, VÉèºÉä <ºÉ ÉÊãÉÉÊJÉiÉ £ÉÉ­ÉhÉ àÉå ºÉÖxÉxÉä BÉEÉä ÉÊàÉãÉä cé* …(BªÉ´ÉvÉÉxÉ) +É£ÉÉÒ àÉéxÉä gÉÉÒàÉiÉÉÒ ºÉÉäÉÊxɪÉÉ MÉÉÆvÉÉÒ BÉEÉ {ÉÚ®É £ÉÉ­ÉhÉ {ÉfÃÉ xÉcÉÓ cè* àÉé =ºÉä =rßiÉ BÉE® ®cÉ cÚÆ : -

={ÉÉvªÉFÉ àÉcÉänªÉ, {ÉÉä]Éä BÉEä ¤ÉÉ®ä àÉå cÉÒ iÉÉä ªÉä +ÉÉ®Éä{É ãÉMÉÉA VÉÉ ®cä cé* xÉÉÒªÉiÉ {É® ¶ÉBÉE ÉÊBÉEªÉÉ VÉÉ ®cÉ cè* ¤ÉÉäxÉÉ{ÉEÉ<bÉÒWÉ BÉEÉÒ ¤ÉÉiÉ cÉä ®cÉÒ cè* +ÉÉ{É +ÉMÉ® ]ÉbÉ ãÉÉA iÉÉä ~ÉÒBÉE cè* +ÉÉ{É +ÉMÉ® àÉÉÒºÉÉ ãÉÉA iÉÉä ~ÉÒBÉE cè* iÉ¤É càÉxÉä +ÉÉ{ÉBÉEÉÒ xÉÉÒªÉiÉ {É® ¶ÉBÉE xÉcÉÓ ÉÊBÉEªÉÉ lÉÉ ãÉäÉÊBÉExÉ +ÉÉVÉ càÉÉ®ÉÒ xÉÉÒªÉiÉ {É® ¶ÉBÉE ÉÊBÉEªÉÉ VÉÉ ®cÉ cè +ÉÉè® <ºÉÉÒÉÊãÉA àÉÖZÉä {ÉÉÒ½É cÉäiÉÉÒ cè* +ÉMÉ® ¤ÉcÖàÉiÉ xÉèÉÊiÉBÉEiÉÉ ºÉä xÉcÉÓ SÉãÉ ®cÉ iÉÉä ÉÊ{ÉE® BÉDªÉÉ càÉ +Éã{ÉàÉiÉ ºÉä +ÉɶÉÉ BÉE®å ÉÊBÉE ´Éc xÉèÉÊiÉBÉEiÉÉ BÉEÉÒ nÖcÉ<Ç nä* ÉÊVÉxÉ ¶É¤nÉå BÉEÉ ªÉcÉÆ |ɪÉÉäMÉ ÉÊBÉEªÉÉ MɪÉÉ cè, ´ÉèºÉä àÉé ABÉE ºÉ´ÉÉãÉ BÉEÉä ãÉäBÉE® ºÉÉäÉÊxɪÉÉ VÉÉÒ BÉEÉÒ iÉÉ®ÉÒ{ÉE BÉE®xÉä ´ÉÉãÉÉ lÉÉ, <ºÉÉÒ £ÉÉ­ÉhÉ àÉå =xcÉåxÉä BÉEcÉ cè ÉÊBÉE càÉ +ÉÉiÉÆBÉE´ÉÉn BÉEä ÉÊJÉãÉÉ{ÉE +ÉÉ{ÉBÉEä ºÉÉlÉ JÉ½ä ®cåMÉä, ãɽåMÉä, ãɽiÉä ®cä cé, +ÉÉMÉä £ÉÉÒ ãɽäMÉä* =ºÉBÉEä ¤ÉÉn =xcÉåxÉä ãɽÉ<Ç àÉä®ä ÉÊJÉãÉÉ{ÉE Uä½ nÉÒ* ªÉä BªÉÉÎBÉDiÉMÉiÉ +ÉÉ®Éä{É cé* ªÉä xÉÉÒÉÊiÉ ºÉƤÉÆvÉÉÒ +ÉÉ®Éä{É xÉcÉÓ cé* ªÉä ÉʺÉrÉxiÉÉå BÉEÉ JÉÆbxÉ-àÉÆbxÉ xÉcÉÓ cè* ªÉc àÉä®ä BªÉÉÎBÉDiÉi´É {É® ãÉÉÆUxÉ cè +ÉÉè® àÉé <ºÉä ¤ÉnÉǶiÉ xÉcÉÓ BÉE® ºÉBÉEiÉÉ*…(BªÉ´ÉvÉÉxÉ)

àÉä®ä ºÉÉàÉxÉä nÉä cÉÒ ®ÉºiÉä cé - ªÉÉ iÉÉä àÉé VÉxÉiÉÉ BÉEä BÉEãªÉÉhÉ {É® SÉãÉÚÆ ªÉÉ n¤ÉÉ´É àÉå +ÉÉ>óÆ* +É¤É ªÉc BÉEÉèxÉ iÉªÉ BÉE®äMÉÉ? +ÉÉÉÊJÉ® àÉÖZÉä VÉxÉiÉÉ xÉä ªÉcÉÆ {ÉcÖÆSÉɪÉÉ cè +ÉÉè® +ÉMÉ® àÉé n¤ÉÉ´É àÉå BÉEÉàÉ BÉE® ®cÉ cÚÆ iÉÉä àÉä®ä ºÉÉlÉÉÒ £ÉÉÒ àÉÖZÉä UÉä½ nåMÉä, àÉä®É nãÉ àÉÖZÉä UÉä½ näMÉÉ* ÉÊ´É®ÉävÉÉÒ {ÉFÉ BÉEÉÒ xÉäjÉÉÒ BÉEÉä ªÉc ¤ÉiÉÉxÉä BÉEÉÒ VÉ°ô®iÉ xÉcÉÓ cè ÉÊBÉE ªÉÉ iÉÉä àÉé n¤ÉÉ´É àÉå BÉEÉàÉ BÉE°ôÆ, xÉcÉÓ iÉÉä |ɺlÉÉxÉ BÉE°ôÆ* àÉé +É{ÉxÉä fÆMÉ ºÉä nä¶É BÉEÉÒ ºÉä´ÉÉ BÉE®xÉä BÉEÉ |ɪÉÉºÉ BÉE®iÉÉ ®cÉ cÚÆ +ÉÉè® +ÉÉMÉä £ÉÉÒ BÉE°ôÆMÉÉ* ãÉäÉÊBÉExÉ +ÉMÉ® àÉÖZÉä +ÉÉ{ÉÉÊkÉVÉxÉBÉE ¤ÉÉiÉå ºÉÖxÉxÉÉÒ {ɽåMÉÉÒ iÉÉä àÉÖZÉä =xÉBÉEÉ =kÉ® näxÉÉ {ɽäMÉÉ* +ÉvªÉFÉ àÉcÉänªÉ, +É£ÉÉÒ £ÉÉÒ àÉé +ÉÉ{ɺÉä ÉÊxÉ´ÉänxÉ BÉE® ®cÉ cÚÆ*…(BªÉ´ÉvÉÉxÉ)

={ÉÉvªÉFÉ àÉcÉänªÉ : àÉé ={ÉÉvªÉFÉ cÚÆ*

gÉÉÒ +É]ãÉ ÉʤÉcÉ®ÉÒ ´ÉÉVÉ{ÉäªÉÉÒ : +É£ÉÉÒ £ÉÉÒ àÉé +ÉÉ{ɺÉä ÉÊxÉ´ÉänxÉ BÉE® ®cÉ cÚÆ ={ÉÉvªÉFÉ àÉcÉänªÉ, +ÉMÉ® àÉéxÉä BÉEÉä<Ç +ɺÉƺÉnÉÒªÉ £ÉÉ­ÉÉ BÉEÉ |ɪÉÉäMÉ ÉÊBÉEªÉÉ cè, àÉä®ä £ÉÉ­ÉhÉ àÉå ºÉä =ºÉä ÉÊxÉBÉEÉãÉ nÉÒÉÊVÉA*…(BªÉ´ÉvÉÉxÉ) BÉDªÉÉå xÉcÉÓ cè? iÉÉä ÉÊ{ÉE® <iÉxÉÉ àÉÉxÉ ãÉÉÒÉÊVÉA ÉÊBÉE +ÉÉ{ÉxÉä VÉÉä ¶ÉÉä®-MÉÖãÉ àÉSÉɪÉÉ, ´Éc ¤ÉäBÉEÉ® lÉÉ*…(BªÉ´ÉvÉÉxÉ)
 
 

MR. DEPUTY-SPEAKER: All right. Let the Lobbies be cleared –

There will be division by distribution of ‘Aye’ and ‘No’ slips in accordance with Rule 367AA of the Rules of Procedure and Conduct of Business in Lok Sabha. The Secretary-General may now announce the procedure with regard to division by distribution of slips.

SECRETARY-GENERAL: Kind attention of hon. Members is invited to the procedure regarding voting by distribution of ‘Aye’ and ‘No’ slips. A single slip will be given to each hon. Member at the time of division. The slip on which matter is printed in green ink is meant for recording of vote for ‘Ayes’ and that printed in red ink for recording of vote for ‘Noes’.

Hon. Members are requested to write legibly the following details on the slip at the time of recording votes: (i) Name; (ii) Division Number (this will be the same as the Division Number allotted to the Member in the Lok Sabha or Rajya Sabha); and (iii) House to which he belongs.

MR. DEPUTY-SPEAKER: There are three slips: ‘green’ for ‘Aye’; ‘red’ for ‘No’; and ‘golden’ for ‘Abstention’ .
 
 

MR. DEPUTY-SPEAKER: Now, the Lobbies have been cleared.

The question is:

20.40 hrs. AYES
 
 

Ahluwalia, Shri S.S.