Papers laid on the table

SHRI A.K. ANTONY (CONTD.): Proposal for construction of another six submarines (Project-75(I)) is in the advanced stage of sanction. After all examination we have already prepared a CSE note for additional six submarines. So, total submarines are 12. If required the Government will go in for upgradation and life extension of existing submarines in order to ensure that required force levels for submarine fleet are maintained till new inductions take place. Above all, threat perceptions and required force levels are dynamic in nature. So, if needed, in consultation with the Indian Navy, the Government will examine all other options to strengthen the capability of the Indian Navy. For strengthening the capability of the Indian Navy, the Indian Army, the Indian Air Force, the Indian Coast Guard within our available capacity, the Government will give maximum support.

There was a time when we used to surrender a lot of money from the Defence Budget. Those are all part of history. In recent years we have not surrendered a single pie. As the hon. Members know, the country is passing through a difficult economic situation. So, we are not able to get the expected amount for the Defence Budget because of overall constraint. Our demands are more. So, according to our demands we are not getting enough money. At the moment, whatever Defence Budget is there, we are spending. ..(Interruptions)... It is an internal adjustment between the Army, the Navy and the Air Force. We are spending the entire allotted budget. At the same time, many proposals are in the pipeline. As the proposal materialises, there is no money. That is the problem. Now, in the Armed Forces we are realising the requirements of the Forces. You take into account the allotted money. For the budgeted amount, you have some priorities. The procurement should be on a priority basis. ..(Interruptions)... Actually, the Navy's importance is growing because Oceans are becoming life lines of the country. For a country like India our life line is Ocean. So, we have to strengthen the Navy. At the same time, we can't ignore our Army. We can't ignore our Air Force. To some extent, we can't ignore the Coast Guard. Every thing is in a kitty. If you want to give more platforms immediately, you must get more money. At the moment because of the present economic situation that kind of money is not coming. So, whatever budget is being given to the Armed Forces or to the Defence Ministry, we are not surrendering a single paisa. We will not do that. But, at the same time, we will continue to make efforts to get more money.

I assure you that to make our Armed Forces much more competitive, to face any challenges to the national integrity, territorial integrity, we will give more strength. There are limitations here and there. But at the moment with these limitations, the Indian Armed Forces are one of the best in the world. Almost all countries in the world are vying with each other to have strategic military cooperation with India. Everybody is after the Indian Armed Forces. They are one of the best in the world. Their morale is very high. Whenever a discussion on our Armed Forces issue and national security issue comes up in the House, I am glad to say that, cutting across political party affiliations, this House is one. I am thankful to all the Members for expressing solidarity with the Indian Navy. (Ends)

MR. DEPUTY CHAIRMAN: Okay, thank you. No time for further clarification.

SHRI RAVI SHANKAR PRASAD: As far as needs of our Armed Forces are concerned, we are all one. We are very proud of them. We have to ensure that their morale is kept high. Ultimately, they fight with their morale, not with weapons. I appreciate the hon. Minister's honest confession that whatever has happened in the submarine has cast a serious doubt on our capability as far as the emergent threat in the Indian Ocean is concerned.

(Continued by 2w/VK)

-KR/VK-SC/2W/3.15

SHRI RAVI SHANKAR PRASAD (CONTD): My specific query, hon. Minister, in the light of the subsequent statement is this. We have a serious threat and challenge to our national security. In the light of this bitter experience, including the sabotage which you are going to examine, are you going to have a security audit of all our assets, like frigates, ships, all submarines; a fresh new audit in the light of this challenge, so that wittingly or unwittingly, advertently or otherwise, there is no repetition of this? (Ends)

SHRI SATISH CHANDRA MISRA (UTTAR PRADESH): Mr. Deputy Chairman, Sir, the hon. Minister said that out of 18, seven bodies have been found and 11 are still to be found. Now what would be the position with respect to these 11 persons who are still to be found because the benefits, including employment to somebody in the family, pension, gratuity and other benefits to the family members, are given only after they are declared dead? Will they be treated as dead? The families would remain in a lingering mood during this period till you find the bodies. Otherwise, under the law, they would be treated as dead only after seven years, if the bodies are not found. So, are you taking any decision on this? What is your stand on this because these families would be taken differently than the other families in whose case the bodies have been found? (Ends)

DR. CHANDAN MITRA (MADHYA PRADESH): Sir, I want to seek a clarification on what the hon. Minister has said. He said that there was complete refitting and when the submarine came back to India, it was as good as brand new. But the Minister did not seem to focus on the fact that when it was coming back from Russia, after all this refitting and becoming brand new, it ran into a serious problem near Egypt and the submarine had to send out distress calls to the Egyptian Navy which came, rescued it and took it to Alexandria Port for repair. Even when it was coming back to India, it developed problems. I would like know from the hon. Minister why it was not sent back immediately to Russia to rectify the problem. You have... (Time bell)... spent 156 million dollars on refitting and after that it developed problems even when it was coming back to India. Why were not adequate steps taken immediately? (Ends)

SHRI A.K. ANTONY: Sir, immediately after this incident, the Navy has already ordered safety audit of Standard Operating Procedures (SOPs) on all operational submarines. They have already ordered it. As for the hon. Member’s suggestion on all other assets, I will discuss about it with the Navy.

Regarding the bodies of remaining Navy personnel, one thing is clear now that there is no possibility of any of these Navy persons alive. All of them, in all probability, all of them are dead. On this point of compensation and all other things, we will take care of this. We will take this incident as a special one. We will take this incident as special one. I will request the Navy to handle it as a special case.

Regarding its travel from Alexandria, its return passage from Russia, the answer is, during her return passage, INS Sindhurakshak was scheduled to halt at Port Alexandria. That was a scheduled halt. That was not an extended halt. It was a scheduled halt. However, when the submarine arrived, the port was closed due to severe cyclonic storm off Alexandria, with no tugs and pilots allowed to operate. Therefore, a request was made to the Egyptian Navy to facilitate entry into the port. The Egyptian Navy duly arranged tugs and pilot, and Sindhurakshak entered Alexandria as scheduled.

(Contd. by RG/2X)

-VK/RG/3.20/2X

SHRI A.K. ANTONY (contd.): It is pertinent to mention that there was no defect onboard INS Sindhurakshak. It is mandatory for ships and submarines to use pilots and tugs to enter port and berth alongside. It is pertinent to mention that utilization of tugs by INS Sindhurakshak at Port Alexandria has no connection with the present accident at Mumbai. So, that trip was a scheduled one and all these were done procedurally.

(Ends)

MR. DEPUTY CHAIRMAN: Now we will take up the Parliament (Prevention of Disqualification) Amendment Bill, 2013. Before the hon. Minister moves the Bill, I would like to tell the House that the BAC has, in fact, not allotted time for this Bill. Therefore, it is for the House to decide how much time it wants on this. It is a non-controversial Bill. I think, in half-an-hour or forty-five minutes, it can be finished.

SHRI SATYAVRAT CHATURVEDI: Sir, it is a very technical kind of a Bill. There is nothing contentious about it. The House could think of passing it without a discussion.

SHRI RAVI SHANKAR PRASAD: No.

MR. DEPUTY CHAIRMAN: Okay, the Minister to move the Bill.

THE PARLIAMENT (PREVENTION OF DISQUALIFICATION) AMENDMENT BILL, 2013
THE MINISTER OF LAW AND JUSTICE (SHRI KAPIL SIBAL): Sir, I move:

“That the Bill further to amend the Parliament (Prevention of

Disqualification) Act, 1959, be taken into consideration.”
Sir, distinguished Members of this House are already aware that under article 102 of the Constitution, if a person holds an office of profit under the Central Government or the State Government, then, unless by a law made by Parliament, that office is protected and he is liable for disqualification as a Member of the House or of the Legislative Assembly. In that context, Parliament framed, as far back as 1959, the Parliament (Prevention of Disqualification) Act, 1959, in terms of which, under section 3, certain offices were put in the category which would protect them from disqualification that they are liable to under article 102 of the Constitution. I would like to remind the distinguished Members of this House that under article 338 of the Constitution of India, before the Eighty-Ninth Constitutional Amendment, there was the National Commission for the Scheduled Castes and the Scheduled Tribes. By virtue of the Eighty-Ninth Constitutional (Amendment) Act, 2003, two separate Commissions came into being, namely, the National Commission for the Scheduled Castes and the National Commission for the Scheduled Tribes. Once that was done, there had to be a consequential amendment, to protect the office of Chairpersons of both the National Commissions, namely, the National Commission for the Scheduled Castes and the National Commission for the Scheduled Tribes and to incorporate them in the 1959 Act, so that their offices are protected. That Constitutional Amendment was not done. So, all that we are doing now is to bring forward a Bill by amending section 3 and incorporating therein that the office of chairpersons of the National Commissions for the Scheduled Castes and the Scheduled Tribes, constituted under clause 1 of article 338 of the Constitution, will be protected. So, it is only a consequential Amendment and it is a technical issue now. Now, I commend this Bill to the distinguished Members of this House.

(Ends)

The question was proposed.

SHRI DILIPBHAI PANDYA (GUJARAT): Sir, if this Bill had been brought either in 2004 or in 2005, 2006, 2007, 2008, 2009, 2010, 2011 or in 2012, when scholars became Law Ministers, they would have been congratulated upon. Now, Chairpersons have to be excluded from becoming disqualified as Members of Parliament. As far as my knowledge goes, since 2004, two Parliamentary elections have been held and the third is likely to be held shortly.

(Continued by SSS/2Y)

SSS-ASC/2Y/3.25

SHRI DILIPBHAI PANDYA (CONTD.): Now, Sir, it is very surprising that to do such an easy thing जैसे बोलते हैं कि दो और दो चार होते हैं, तो फिर ऐसा करने के लिए दस साल का समय क्यों लगा? I do not know whether the Chairmen of these Commissions were the Members of Parliament or not, whether the efficient persons other than the Members of Parliament from Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes were available or not, whether the Government has searched for that or not. Except the Members of Parliament, some other Members of Scheduled Castes or Scheduled Tribes like Dr. Baba Saheb Ambedkar are there. Is there any other person who can be as good as Dr. Baba Saheb Ambedkar? If not, if they are a little less than that, then, why were they not appointed? Members of Parliament, Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes Members are there. There are also some other persons who are very intelligent. They are very intelligent for the cause of their caste. Those who cannot become a Member of Parliament due to some reason, some political reason, some economic reason, why were they not appointed? If they would have been appointed as a Member of Parliament, this question would not have arisen. Sir, as you have said in your remarks, these matters should not be taken lightly because it has come after ten years and this matter touches, directly or indirectly, Article 102 of the Constitution. A person is to be given exemption from Article 102 of the Constitution. Sir, it is a grave loss, negligence on the part of the Government to come after ten years before this Parliament asking that this Bill should be passed and my learned friend, Shri Chaturvedi, said, ‘It is technical. It is a very short point.’ It is not such an easy thing. What will an ordinary man of India think about it? An ordinary man respects the scholar Law Minister, Mr. Chidambaram, Mr. Ashwani Kumar, Mr. Kapil Sibal, and you bring this Bill after ten years! (Time-bell) In the Statement of Objects and Reasons also, this point has not been explained. However, this Bill concerns the Scheduled Castes, Scheduled Tribes but the poor Member who has been appointed as Chairman attracts disqualification. I support this Bill. Sir, I ask you whether the persons who occupied this post for a five-year term are ready to morally give up financial benefits which they have taken during this time. Are they prepared for it? I would ask them to please return.

(Ends)

MR. DEPUTY CHAIRMAN: Please conclude...(Interruptions)...Shri Satish Chandra Misra.

SHRI DILIPBHAI PANDYA: Please...

MR. DEPUTY CHAIRMAN: I gave you three minutes but you have taken four minutes.

SHRI SATISH CHANDRA MISRA (UTTAR PRADESH): Hon. Mr. Deputy Chairman, Sir, I fully agree with Shri Dilipbhai Pandya that a Constitutional Amendment has taken almost ten years and except only one thing I would like to add that he gave so many names.

MR. DEPUTY CHAIRMAN: Misraji, better late than never.

SHRI SATISH CHANDRA MISRA: But he gave so many luminary lawyers who became the Law Minster right from Mr. Chidambaram up to Kapil Sibalji. I congratulate him. At least, he has brought this Bill but he has forgotten the original names and he should have taken that. Mr. Arun Jaitley, now the Leader of the Opposition, and Mr. Ravi Shankar Prasad assisting him, brought that Constitutional Amendment and along with that Constitutional Amendment, they probably forgot about bringing this consequential amendment which has led up to all this from NDA to UPA and almost taking ten years for bringing this amendment. Besides that, since it is a consequential Amendment, since it was relating to an office of profit, they probably did not think that it should be brought so fast. Now, since it is a question which definitely would be asked from the Government that persons who have already worked for all these nine years under disqualification, what amendment is being sought to be brought from 2004? So you are admitting this that those Chairmen who have worked during this period have entered disqualification, they are disqualified and now you want to overcome that disqualification, bringing it back retrospectively from 2004. Otherwise, there is no requirement of bringing it retrospectively.

(Contd. by NBR/2Z)

-SSS/NBR-LP/2Z/3.30.

SHRI SATISH CHANDRA MISRA (CONTD.): If they are already disqualified, then this Bill, if it is introduced only to overcome that disqualification, is something different. It should also have been brought in the Statement of Objects and Reasons of the Bill, which has not been brought here.

We are not opposing the Bill since it is consequential in nature. We support this Bill. Thank you.

(Ends)

SHRI SHASHI BHUSAN BEHERA (ODISHA): Mr. Deputy Chairman, Sir, this amendment is, certainly, a useful amendment. Even though it is late, but is timely. I am not going into the points made by Satish Misraji and Dilipbhai that the Bill has been brought after a lapse of ten years. It is necessitated due to bifurcation in 2003. It is a huge department. It deals with huge SC/ST population of the nation. So, it is necessitated. You have brought it late. Even through it is late, I welcome and support this Bill.

I hope this type of negligence towards SC/ST should not recur in future by this Government.

With these words, I support this Bill. Thank you.

(Ends)

SHRI M. VENKAIAH NAIDU: Sir, I have a small compliment to the hon. Minister.

During my long tenure in this House, I have not seen Kapail Sibalji receiving such an overwhelming support to a Bill.

SHRI PYARIMOHAN MOHAPATRA (ODISHA): Sir, I rise to oppose this Bill. If this is called a consequential amendment, it is not inconsequential.

My first question in this connection is this. Why should you rehabilitate MPs who could not become Ministers as Chairperson of such bodies? Are you proposing to include this in your 'Rehabilitation Bill' which you are bringing in? Are they displaced persons? The Members of Parliament are very much in place. They are not displaced persons to be rehabilitated. Why do you want to do this? I agree with Mr. Pandya that there are a plenty of eminent persons among SCs and STs who could not become MPs. And, if someone could not become Minister and wants to be Chairperson, let him resign from the post of MP and then become Chairperson. Why do you want to give a benefit to someone? This is a double benefit. We should not accept it. In fact, please amend this legislation to be retrospective and end it here; no more prospective. Give them a chance to resign.

The other question is: What was the need for two Commissions? One Commission was doing the work very effectively. Has there been any comparison between the performance of that one Commission for SCs and STs and the two Commissions? All that has happened is doubling the number of Members, doubling the number of Chairmen and satisfying two MPs who cried before the hon. Prime Minister or before the Chairperson of the UPA, 'please make us Chairman as we could not become Ministers.' This is not acceptable. I would urge, request and pray the hon. Minister to amend this, correct this and not make it prospective. Thank you.

(Ends)

श्री थावर चन्द गहलोत (मध्य प्रदेश) : उपसभापति जी, मैं “संसद (निरर्हता का निवारण) संशोधन विधेयक, 2013” का समर्थन करता हूं। इस बात की आवश्यकता इसलिए पड़ी क्योंकि अटल जी की सरकार ने एस.सी. और एस.टी. कमीशन, जो पहले एक ही हुआ करता था, उसके दो भाग कर दिए थे और अब दोनों अलग-अलग काम करने लगे हैं। 2004 में एस.टी. कमीशन का चेयरमैन अलग से नियुक्त कर दिया गया था। (3a/akg पर जारी)

AKG-KS/3A/3.35

श्री थावर चन्द गहलोत (क्रमागत) : यह हम सब लोगों की उदारता है कि हमने उस सम्बन्ध में कोई शिकवा-शिकायत नहीं की, वरना नियमों के अन्तर्गत तो अगर एक बार पद ग्रहण कर लेते हैं और एक दिन भी उस पद पर रह जाते हैं तथा अगर कोई शिकायत करता है, तो वे अयोग्यता के दायरे में आ जाते हैं। सामान्यत: संसद सदस्य भी मंत्री बनते समय इसी दायरे से गुजरते हैं। चूँकि यह इग्ज़ेम्प्शन लिस्ट में लिस्टेड होता है, इस कारण से वे लाभ के पद पर नहीं माने जाते हैं, पर बहुत सारे ऐसे पद हैं, जिन पर माननीय संसद सदस्यों को पदस्थ किया जाता है। एक अवसर ऐसा आया था कि इस देश में एक राष्ट्रीय दल के बहुत बड़े नेता भी लाभ के पद पर थे और इतना ही नहीं, अगर मैं गलत नहीं हूँ, तो लोक सभा के अध्यक्ष भी एक इसी प्रकार के लाभ वाले पद पर पदस्थ थे। उनके लिए तो 7-8 महीने तक की छूट दी गई, विलम्ब किया गया और फिर बाद में इस नियम में संशोधन किया गया, पर हमारी पार्टी के एक माननीय सदस्य के विषय में, जिसके बारे में किसी ने शिकायत की, उसमें उदारता नहीं बरती गई और उनको लोक सभा की सदस्यता से त्यागपत्र देना पड़ा। इस प्रकार की स्थिति न बने, इसके लिए इसमें कोई ऐसा प्रावधान किया जा सकता है कि अगर अनजाने में वह कहीं ऐसे लाभ के पद पर पदस्थ कर दिया जाता है और जब यह पता लगता है, तो उसको सूचना देकर यह अवसर दिया जाए, महीने भर या 15 दिन का, कि आप इस पद पर रहना चाहते हैं या उस पद पर रहना चाहते हैं, क्योंकि दोनों में से किसी एक पद पर रहना चाहिए। इसलिए अगर आप इस प्रकार की व्यवस्था के बारे में सोचेंगे, तो ज्यादा अच्छा होगा। (समय की घंटी)

सर, मैं एक और निवेदन करना चाहता हूँ। इसमें कई बार ऐसा होता है कि जो पद धारण किया गया, जैसे एससी/एसटी कमीशन के चेयरमैन का पद है, तो वे उसी दिन का भत्ता यहाँ से भी ले लेते हैं और वहाँ से भी ले लेते हैं। ऐसा कुछ जान-बूझकर करते हैं, तो कुछ अनजाने में करते हैं। वे भी डिस्क्वालिफिकेशन के दायरे में आते हैं। नियम में तो यह है कि या तो यहाँ का भत्ता लो या वहाँ का भत्ता लो, परन्तु कई बार वे दोनों तरफ के भत्ते ले लेते हैं। इस सम्बन्ध में भी कहीं-न-कहीं कानूनी प्रावधान करना चाहिए, अन्यथा कभी भी कोई शिकायत आने पर फिर यह परिस्थिति निर्मित हो जाएगी। इसलिए मैं इस बिल का समर्थन करते हुए यह निवेदन करना चाहूँगा कि भविष्य में ऐसी खामियों को दूर करने के लिए उपाय करना चाहिए। धन्यवाद।

(समाप्त)

MR. DEPUTY CHAIRMAN: Hon. Minister.

THE MINISTER OF LAW AND JUSTICE (SHRI KAPIL SIBAL): Sir, I thank all the distinguished Members of the House -- Pandyaji, Satishji, Shashi Bhusanji, Mohapatraji, Gehlotji -- to have given their unconditional and unqualified support in taking this Bill forward. Of course, Mohapatraji says formally that he wishes to oppose the Bill.

I just wanted to mention that the Bill has retrospective effect. There is a Section in the Bill, which says that it shall be deemed to have come into force on the 19^th day of February, 2004. So, it has retrospective effect.

Secondly, actually, the chairperson of the Commission for Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes was protected anyway. But, because the Commission was bifurcated into two separate Commissions, this particular technical amendment had to come. Otherwise, the protection was always there. Even under the original Parliament Act, the intention was to protect the office of the chairperson. So, it is not as if we are doing something which was not contemplated by Parliament earlier. That is why I said it is a technical amendment. It is only in that context. I do believe that this issue has come up earlier in Parliament also because several distinguished Members of Parliament did at one point in time hold offices of profit and you know that Parliament was rocked by this issue at one point in time. So, we all realise that we need to streamline the situation.

We take into account all the distinguished Members' observations in this regard. I am sure that we would further streamline the situation to ensure that people do not get double benefits. I take your observations with all seriousness and I am sure, as we move forward, we would streamline this.

I request, therefore, that the Bill be passed. (Ends)