Papers laid on the table

MR. DEPUTY CHAIRMAN: Let us agree to that. ...(Interruptions)...

श्री नरेश अग्रवाल (उत्तर प्रदेश) : माननीय संसदीय कार्य मंत्री जी, ऐसा नहीं है कि हम लोग किसी रियल स्टेट को बंद करने के लिए आए हैं। मैं यहां यह क्लियर कर देना चाहता हूं कि इससे गांव का किसान भी जुड़ा हुआ है। अगर रियल स्टेट बूम करेगी, तो गांव के किसान को जमीन का पैसा मिलता है। आज उसकी कीमत कितनी हुई है, इसके लिए आप नोएडा को देखिए, फरीदाबाद को देखिए, गुड़गांव को देखिए और गाजियाबाद को देखिए। यह पूरे देश से जुड़ा हुआ मामला है, इसलिए एक नया तरीका हो गया है कि दो-तीन दिन में हर चीज तय करें। इससे पहले Payment and Settlement Systems (Amendment) Bill और उससे पहले The Coal Mines (Special Provision) Bill, सब में कह दिया गया कि तीन दिनों के अंदर कर दीजिए। यह तीन दिनों वाली बाइंडिंग गवर्नमेंट की है। श्रीमन्, इससे सदन का कोई सदस्य सहमत नहीं है। यह सेलेक्ट कमेटी को जाए और अगले सत्र में आए। इसके लिए इतनी जल्दी क्यों है? अगर कहीं कोई गलती हुई है, तो आपने इतने दिनों से उसको नहीं रोका, तो देश पर महीने, दो महीने में कौन सा पहाड़ टूटा जा रहा है? इसलिए जो सेलेक्ट कमेट बनाने के लिए मूव किया है...

श्री उपसभपति : मूव नहीं किया है। मैंने मूव करने के लिए परमिशन नहीं दी है। नोटिस होगा, मूव नहीं किया है। मूव कहां किया है?

श्री नरेश अग्रवाल : नोटिस दिया है।

(समाप्त)

SHRI JAIRAM RAMESH (ANDHRA PRADESH): Sir, the Bill, that was introduced in 2013, is substantially different from the Bill that has been introduced by Shri Venkaiah Naidu. All the pro-consumer, pro-public provisions of the 2013 Bill have been diluted in this Bill. To argue that there is an urgency and that we should pass this Bill in the next couple of days, because we want to protect the public, flies in the face of the evidence. All the Amendments that have been made to the original Bill go against the interests of the public and the consumers. So, I

request that this should be referred to a Select Committee and, in the next Session of Parliament, the Report can be submitted.

(Ends)

SHRI TAPAN KUMAR SEN (WEST BENGAL): Sir, I would also suggest the same thing. In the original Bill, which was widely scrutinized by the Standing Committee, and the Bill, which we are facing now, that is, the 2013 Bill along with official Amendments, there are substantive differences, and it needs scrutinisation. That is why a Select Committee be appointed and let them go into it and report in the next Session.

(Ends)

SHRI NARESH GUJRAL (PUNJAB): Sir, as the hon. Minister has stated, the objectives of the Bills are very noble. We all know how lakhs of people have been taken for a ride by unscrupulous players in this country. They have to be protected. There are thousands of cases going on in Consumer Courts, and this Bill provides that Fast Track Courts would be set up. We welcome all that. At the same time, you cannot throw the baby out with the bath water. Industry cannot be killed. They have certain reservations which must be addressed. And, I think, all stakeholders need to be consulted. The hon. Minister has stated that he is willing to set up a Select Committee. In the past also, we have seen that Select Committees have done very, very good work in five, six or seven days. ...(Interruptions)... I have a right to give my suggestion. You can differ with it. So, I would recommend that a Select Committee be set up straightaway and before this House adjourns on the 13^th, we should be able to present the Report so that this can be taken up. Thank you, Sir.

(Ends)

(Followed by SSS/2J)

SSS-AKG/2J/2.35

SHRI A. NAVANEETHAKRISHNAN (TAMIL NADU): Sir, this is a very important Bill. The Bill is dealing with a State subject, namely land. The Central Government has no locus standi to introduce this Bill, and although Parliament has no legislative competency to enact this law it must be referred to the Select Committee or the Central Government must withdraw this Bill. This is my humble submission.

(Ends)

THE MINISTER OF URBAN DEVELOPMENT (SHRI M. VENKAIAH NAIDU): Sir, where we are going to go I am not able to understand. This matter, whether the Parliament of India has got the jurisdiction or not, has been referred to the Attorney General of India. The Attorney General of India, after a thorough study, has opined that it is within the legislative competence of Parliament to enact a Bill. And earlier, a Bill has come here. It was referred to the Standing Committee.

MR. DEPUTY CHAIRMAN: Even if there is no legislative competence, it should have been raised when it was introduced. It was not raised.

SHRI M. VENKAIAH NAIDU: I am not on technicalities. At the end of the day, I want the consumers to be benefited. I want even the real estate people not to be harassed also. I have no problem if people say it also. I am not considering the real estate people or the developers or the builders are the enemies of the nation. They are also performing their responsibilities. But we need to have certain regulations and you must also safeguard people from the unscrupulous elements which are trying to exploit the situation and then, spoiling the name of the sector. That being the case, we must find out a via-media where the larger interests of the consumers as well as those people are taken into consideration. Sir, we are trying to bring transparency. We are trying to hasten up the proposals for a speedy clearance of projects also and then, that being the case, on the one side, we are saying you are going slow, and on the other side, you are saying no, no; this much time is not sufficient ...(Interruptions)... I have confidence in the wisdom of the Members of the House that they can complete the job at the earliest.

MR. DEPUTY CHAIRMAN: Okay, Shri Tyagi, there is nothing more to say. और कुछ नहीं बोलना है।

SHRI TAPAN KUMAR SEN: Sir, the Government is going slow. We have no complaints on going slow. It is going too fast.

श्री के.सी. त्यागी : सर, आदरणीय मंत्री जी ने मेरा ज़िक्र किया है। मैं तो इनको बहुत प्यार की नजरों से देखता हूँ। हमारा और इनका जो तलाक हुआ था, उसमें गाली-गलौज भी नहीं हुई थी, क्रुएल्टी के आरोप भी नहीं लगे थे और हमारे तलाक में इद्दत की जो मियाद थी, वह भी अभी खत्म नहीं हुई है। इसलिए ऐसा नहीं है कि मैं आपको बुरी नजर से देखता हूँ।

MR. DEPUTY CHAIRMAN: There is one suggestion from the hon. Minister that he needs a few days.

SHRI JESUDASU SEELAM: No.

MR. DEPUTY CHAIRMAN: Now, please let me complete. Allow me to speak. I have also the right of a Member. Isn’t it? So, I am invoking that right. One suggestion given by the Minister is that two, three days or a few days may be allowed to him. ...(Interruptions)... Why are you impatient like this? Allow the Minister for further consultation with the Opposition and others also so that he will try to have a compromise. Maybe, he can bring some amendments also. He may think of bringing amendments also. That is one thing. The other suggestion which came from this side is that it should be sent to the Select Committee. Now, if it is to be sent to the Select Committee, a resolution has to be taken. First, the Minister has to move the Bill. He has not moved the Bill. After his motion only, Shri Naresh Agrawal can move his motion for which my special permission is required because it is an Amendment Motion. One day’s notice is required. You have not given that notice. So, there should be a consensus of the House on that.

श्री नरेश अग्रवाल : सेलेक्ट कमेटी के लिए वन डे नोटिस की जरूरत नहीं है, अमेंडमेंट के लिए वन डे नोटिस की जरूरत है। हमने अमेंडमेंट नहीं दिया है। हमने सेलेक्ट कमेटी का नोटिस दिया है, इसके लिए वन डे बिफोर की जरूरत नहीं है। आप रूलिंग देख लीजिए, रूलिंग में कहीं नहीं है।

MR. DEPUTY CHAIRMAN: All right. We will come to that. Anyhow, what I am going to say is that the House is supreme. The House can take any decision. If your Motion has to be accepted, the House can decide. I have no objection to that. That is the point. However, that process can be started only if the Minister moves the Bill.

(Contd. by NBR/2K)

-SSS/NBR-SCH/2K/2.40.

MR. DEPUTY CHAIRMAN (CONTD.): He has not moved the Bill. That is the point. So, now, the Minister is of the view that he should be given 2-3 days. So, why don't we consider a via-media and give 2-3 days and see what can be done?

SHRI M. VENKAIAH NAIDU: Sir, what I suggest is: If I consult some of my colleagues and if they are still of the view that it should go to a Select Committee, then, I will consider it and then we can go accordingly. इसमें क्या प्रॉब्लम है?

MR. DEPUTY CHAIRMAN: That is okay. यह ठीक है।

श्री एम. वेंकैया नायडु: मैं इतना ही कहना चाहता हूं ...(व्यवधान)...

श्री शरद यादव : ये ठीक कह रहे हैं कि दो-तीन दिन के बाद वे कंसल्टेशन कर लेंगे, इसके बाद सेलेक्ट कमेटी की राय से यह हो जाएगा। इसमें क्या दिक्कत है?

श्री उपसभापति : ठीक है। See, I think, the hon. Minister has said that within 2-3 days he will do consultation and if all of you want Select Committee he himself will come with that proposal. There is no problem. So, I think, we allow him...(Interruptions)...Okay. So, I hope...

श्री नरेश अग्रवाल : सर, 4 तारीख़ तक तो हॉलिडे है।...(व्यवधान)...

श्री उपसभापति : हां, 5 तारीख़ को कर लेंगे। He can come on 5^th or 6^th or 7^th. The House is up to 13^th. See, the House is for discussion, dialogue and then we arrive at decision. We have had discussion and we arrived at decision. So, I am, with the consent of the House, deferring the Bill for a couple of days for the Minister to facilitate consultation and then come back to the House during this Session itself.

SHRI M. VENKAIAH NAIDU: Sir, I am eager to come back at the earliest.

SHRI TAPAN KUMAR SEN: Sir, the hon. Minister will consult, come back and consider the proposition for sending the Bill to a Select Committee. That has to be taken together.

MR. DEPUTY CHAIRMAN: That is okay. Tapanji, something will emerge out of consultation. He will come with that.

श्री नरेश अग्रवाल : श्रीमन्, क्या इससे चेयर मिनिस्टर को बाउंड करती है कि यह इसी सत्र में लाएं? मिनिस्टर कंसल्ट करें, लेकिन कंसल्ट करने के बाद अगर वे इस सत्र में लाने को राज़ी नहीं हैं, तब यह डैफर तो है ही।

श्री उपसभापति : मैंने बोला, 'in this session only'

श्री नरेश अग्रवाल : आपने यह कहा कि मिनिस्टर इसी सत्र में लाएंगे।

नेता विरोधी दल (श्री गुलाम नबी आज़ाद) : इन्होंने यह कहा, 'He will come back after consultation process.'

SHRI NARESH AGRAWAL: In this session. Mr. Deputy Chairman, we will do like this. यह नेसेसरी नहीं है। पीठ का यह जो आदेश है, इसमें यह बाउंड नहीं होना चाहिए कि कंसल्ट करने के बाद वे कब आएं, इस सेशन में आएं या मानसून सेशन में आएं। आपकी यह जो रूलिंग है कि इसी सेशन में आएं, यह रूलिंग ठीक नहीं है।

श्री उपसभापति : नरेश जी, आप मेरी बात सुनिए, आप बैठ जाइए, what has been said by the Minister is, after consultation, if there is no agreement and if the House wants a Select Committee, he is amenable to that, he is agreeable to that. It is after that statement, I asked him to come back in this Session itself.

श्री नरेश अग्रवाल: श्रीमन्, यह प्वाइंट ठीक नहीं है, 'in this session only'. यह चेयर की रूलिंग से हटना चाहिए।

श्री उपसभापति : यह क्या झगड़ा है?

श्री एम. वेंकैया नायडु : नहीं, यह रूलिंग चेयर की नहीं है, Okay, agreed. It is not for the Chair. The Government is keen to have consultation at the earliest and come back to the House in this Session itself.

MR. DEPUTY CHAIRMAN: So, the Bill is deferred for a couple of days. The Government is to come back after consultation during this Session itself.

SHRI JESUDASU SEELAM: For referring it to Select Committee. You also tell that.

MR. DEPUTY CHAIRMAN: I told you that the Minister has not even moved the Bill. It is only after moving the Bill, you can think about the Select Committee.

Now, we will take up discussion on the working of the Ministry of Law and Justice. Dr. E.M. Sudarsana Natchiappan to initiate the discussion on the working of the Ministry of Law and Justice.

(Ends)
DISCUSSION ON WORKING OF MINISTRY OF LAW AND JUSTICE

DR. E.M. SUDARSANA NATCHIAPPAN (TAMIL NADU): Thank you Mr. Deputy Chairman, Sir, I rise to initiate the discussion on the working of the Ministry of Law and Justice. It is a very important Ministry. We are celebrating 125^th Birth Anniversary of Dr. Ambedkar who is the architect of the Indian Constitution.

Sir, at this juncture, I would like to draw the attention of the Government to three departments of the Ministry of Law and Justice. They are: Legislative Department, the Department of Law and the Department of Justice.

(CONTD. BY KGG/2L)

-NBR-KGG/2L/2.45

DR. E.M. SUDARSANA NATCHIAPPAN (Contd.): But, at the same time, we are not only ruled by the domestic rule of law but we are also ruled by the international laws. Many conventions and multi-lateral treaties are now binding the citizen of India. Knowingly or unknowingly, the citizens are controlled by the international laws. Take the case of multi-lateral treaties. They are already submitted to the Secretary-General of the United Nations and they cover a lot of subjects including human rights, refugees, narcotic drugs and psychopathic substances, traffic in persons, absence of publication, health, international trade and development, transport and communications, navigation, economic statistics, education and cultural matters, declaration of death of missing persons, status of women, freedom of information, penal matters, commodities, maintenance obligations, law of sea, commercial arbitration, law of treaties, outer space, telecommunications, disarmament, environment, fiscal matters, etc. In such a way, more than a hundred other conventions are binding the citizens of India. But there is no follow-up of implementation of the international treaties where we are participating. In certain cases we are signing treaties, in certain cases we are ratifying the treaties, in certain cases we are bringing the domestic laws. But many of the treaties are not followed by the domestic law. The Ministries/Departments involved in this are widening by the day. We can take the examples of the Ministry of Overseas Indian Affairs, Ministry of Water Resources, River Development and Ganga Rejuvenation, Ministry of Information and Broadcasting, Department of Atomic Energy, Ministry of Home Affairs, Department of Space, Ministry of Tourism, Ministry of Road Transport and Highways, Ministry of Shipping, Ministry of Defence, Ministry of Finance, Ministry of Civil Aviation, Ministry of Environment & Forests and Climate Change, Ministry of Commerce and Industry, Ministry of Social Justice and Empowerment, Ministry of Science & Technology, Ministry of Earth Sciences, Ministry of Health and Family Welfare, Ministry of Culture and so many other Ministries. We have got more than 108 Ministries. Every Ministry is bound by the international treaties. But, at the same time, we don’t have a separate Department for International Law in our Government set up. Every nodal Ministry is having its own advice. For example, when the Ministry of Finance goes for bilateral relationship of investment, it is getting some advice. They fix certain ad hoc period for the Ministry advices. Similarly, the Ministry of Environment & Forests and Climate Change is having its own system of seeking the help of the Treaties Division of the Ministry of External Affairs for the international obligations and other things when they want to go for negotiations. On many issues, the nodal Ministry is only giving some feedback to the Treaties Division of the Ministry of External Affairs. They are going and negotiating with different countries. I have some personal experience of representing in many cases on behalf of India. Counsels are there and professional groups are coming up around the world. Take, for example, the World Trade Organisation. If the U.S. is representing, it will have 150 counsels, professional groups, who are totally involved in negotiations and they know how to go about it. China too is having a similar system. Even a small country like the Netherlands is having so many counsels. But we are depending on our own Additional Secretaries and Joint Secretaries who are getting the feedback at the time of negotiations in the Treaties Division. This is how we are running the Government. At the same time, we want to be a super power and we want to be a hub of international investment. If the international law is not enforced, the International Law Division is not there in India and the Law Ministry is not having any accountability on that part to see whether the domestic law is properly followed by the nodal Ministry or not, but, at the same time, we are bound by the international obligations. If we violate on any count, then we are answerable to the international bodies. How many bodies are there! Take the United Nations itself, and it is having many bodies to make treaties and laws.

(Contd. By TDB/2M)

TDB-VNK/2M/2.50

DR. E.M. SUDARSANA NATCHIAPPAN (CONTD.): And we are party to it. More than 120 conventions have been held on different subjects. We are having different United Nations bodies. Take, for example, the Counter Terrorism Committee Executive Directorate, Department of Economic and Social Affairs, Food and Agricultural Organisation, International Labour Organisation, Office of Disarmament Affairs, Office of Coordination of Humanitarian Affairs, Office of the Special Adviser on Gender Issues, Office of Special Representative of Secretary-General for Children and Armed Conflict, United Nations Commission on International Trade Law, United National Conference on Trade and Development, United Nations Democracy Fund, United Nations Environment Programme, United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organisation, United Nations Human Settlement Programme, United Nations Interregional Crime and Justice Research Institute, United Nations International Research and Training Institute for Advancement of Women, United Nations Population Fund, Regional Commissions, the World Health Organisation, the World Intellectual Property Organisation, World Meteorological Organisation, World Tourism Organisation, Comprehensive Nuclear Test Ban Treaty Organisation, Preparatory Commissions, International Atomic Energy Agency, Organisation for Prohibition of Chemical Weapons, International Civil Aviation, International Fund for Agricultural Development, International Maritime Organisation, International Telecommunications and International Seabed Authority.

(THE VICE-CHAIRMAN, SHRI V.P. SINGH BADNORE, in the Chair.)

Other than that, there are non-UN organisations like WTO, World Group, International Finance Corporation, Universal Postal Union, World Intellectual Property Organisation, the Hague Conference on the Private International Law, Permanent Court of Arbitration, International Institute of Unification of Law, Commonwealth Secretariat, International Institute for Democracy and Electoral Assistance, Antarctic Treaty System, etc. In such a way, we are going on having many representations, but without any concurrence of the Parliament. The Parliament is not at all informed of any of the covenants or any of the treaties. Nobody is accountable. They take the provisions of the Constitution of India whereby international treaties are binding upon the country. This authority is given to the Executive, no doubt. But, at that time, we thought that this is sufficient. But now we need the accountability part. Our country is giving a lot of democratic process to every system. Now, we need the International Law Department to be created. I can even say to the extent that the rule of law is not the domestic law alone. The rule of law of international law is now prevailing upon the citizens of India. Therefore, now the Law Ministry should get next to the Prime Minister’s position. Even now we are following the colonial system of Home Ministry becoming second to the Prime Minister. Nowhere is it relevant now. We have to take into consideration that all the Departments are now covered under the international obligations and treaties. India is governed by international treaties. Therefore, we have to oblige by bringing a proper accountability part from the Cabinet. The Cabinet is answerable for everything. They cannot say that the nodal Ministry has said like that, the External Affairs Ministry has said like that. Therefore, this is the way they have done it. But when they are coming up with a follow up measure of the domestic law on the basis of the international treaty, then only this Parliament knows that this is the lacuna, this is the weakness, this is the way India has moved away from the international obligations.

Therefore, Sir, this is high time to see that the Ministry of Law is upgraded. It should have its own International Division, covering all the nodal Ministries by consultation. They should do it in a professional way. It should not be by way of hierarchy or by way of having a person who entered in the Legal Services and then he is having promotion to that extent after 25 years, having the institutional memory. Now, the institutional memory is overlooked by the international memory of the present status. What is happening today in international forums is that sitting in Geneva and in some other country, they are making some obligations. But our representation is very, very weak in the international conventions and also in the treaty-making bodies. Therefore, I feel, Sir, this is high time to make International Law as a separate department in the Ministry of Law.

(Contd. by 2n-USY)

USY/2N/2.55