7to8pm

8/4/2019 7To8pm

1/8

8/4/2019 7To8pm

2/8

27.08.2011 Uncorrected / Not for Publication 2

the mechanism was suggested, which I indicated in the morning and it was the

Joint Drafting Committee. We have been criticised, there is no doubt about it.

But at the same time, please remember that in the largest functional

democracy of the world, encompassing 120 crore plus people, it is not necessary

that always we shall have to move in the conventional strait-jacket way,

mechanical way because it is the largest functional democracy. (Interruptions)

Please, most respectfully I would like to submit that we can have some control on

our tongue, Heaven is not going to fall, you are not going to be dumped from

tomorrow, you can use as many abusive languages as you prefer to us; only for

todays sake, I am requesting you with folded hands not to do so.

Therefore, it was decided like that. Yes, it is a non-conventional way. I am

not a new Minister. I know how Government functions. Normally, legislation is

drafted by the Ministry through the help of the civil servants. After that, with inter-ministerial consultations it gets the approval of the Cabinet. Then it is brought to

the House and after that, it is sent to the Standing Committee. The Standing

Committee has come into existence from 1991. But in the history of Indian

Parliament, from 1947 to 1950, it was the Central Assembly, from 1950 onwards,

it was the Provisional Parliament and from 1952 onwards, it is the Lok Sabha. In

1991, the Standing Committee came. Before that, there was a process of Select

Committee. Even when the Bill is being introduced, any Member could get up and

move a Motion asking for the Bill to be circulated for eliciting public opinion.That was the conventional way in which we were making legislation.

But recognizing the fact, admitting our own lapses, if we could not do it, it

is our lapse. I was a Minister in the 1970s, in the 1980s, in the 1990s and yes,

during our time we could not do it. As Sushmaji has admitted, during their time

also, the Bill was introduced twice. Even in 1996, when the United Front

Government was there, of which Mr. Gurudas Dasguptas Party was a participant,

they also could not pass it and it happened. We recognize that for 40 years,

legislation could not be passed. Therefore, if somebody is making an agitation,

8/4/2019 7To8pm

3/8


sitting on fast and demands a particular mechanism, through the process of

consultation we agreed.

(j5/1940/rs/har)

We tried; we tried our best. It is unfortunate that we could not agree on all points.

But there were substantial agreements. As I mentioned, out of 40 basic principles

on as many as 34 there were agreements; on six, there were differences.

I sought the opinion of the others. In democratic process we shall have to

always create a situation where there will be give and take. I thought in that

process we would be able to resolve it, but we could not. Then, we have to go

through it. And it is not new, I made clear from day one that this is prior

consultation before the normal legislation making process begins. Thereafter we

will follow the entire legislation making process in the usual course and we did so.

Yes, it may not be up to your expectation, you are free to do so. Whateverwas incorporated in the Bill would be subjected to the scrutiny of the Standing

Committee, it would be subjected to the scrutiny of this House and thereafter with

your approval, with the approval of the House, it would be passed. If you want to

include Prime Minister, you will be able to free to do so; if you want to delete any

provision, you will be free to do so; and if you want to strengthen it by making any

amendment, you are free to do so.

So, what is so grave that a particular Bill is to be withdrawn or a particular

Bill, which has been introduced, to be burnt publicly? That is, of course, not ademocratic way. There should be a distinction between mobocracy and

democracy.

In democracy, individuals should have the right to express their views and

also their dissent. You may not like it, till that was not the final. Thereafter I am

not going to recount because in the morning I did so I will like to share some

information with the hon. Members. I am not making any comment on the Bill

because in this Bill -- as I mentioned, which we have placed for the consideration

Comment: (Cd. by j5)

8/4/2019 7To8pm

4/8


a substantial number of principles, basic ideas, basic values of the Jan Lokpal

Bill have been incorporated in the our language.

The six issues where we have differences, there also we hope that it would

be possible to have some agreement and we are working on it. But unfortunately,

thereafter the line of communication was snapped. We were threatened with the

agitation that this Bill was to be passed by 15th

August, which I found that the

Session starting from 1st

of August, and by 15th

August it might be difficult.

Therefore, when the actual first thing started, again the line of

communication was started and we tried our best. We shared in the morning what

happened chronologically. Corruption is an important issue, but does anyone of us

believe seriously -- not to score a debating point -- one piece of legislation,

however, powerful and effective it may be, however, independent and empowered

it may be that piece of legislation will completely eradicate corruption? There is aneed for the change in the system and we are doing so.

I can give you one example. In my own Department, there was a constant

complaint Shri Yashwant Sinhaji will agree with me in regard to the refund

claim of the taxpayer.

(k5/1945/rcp/asa)

And, as a result in technical term our people are talking of; I did not hear the

English term electronisation in my school days through electronisation,

through taking the IT platform and net banking, from April onwards, we havebeen able to ensure the refund to the extent of more than 37 per cent. There the

tax collectors and the recipients of the refunds do not see face to face; everything

is transacted through electronic mechanism. These are the system changes we are

thinking.

We are hoping that by next month or by October, 20 crore people of this

country will have Unique Identity Number and Mr. Nilekani is assuring us that he

would be in a position in the next two to three years to provide the Unique Identity

Number to all the residents of India, not merely the citizens but to all the residents

Comment: cd. by k5

Comment: Shri Pranab Mukherj

contd.

8/4/2019 7To8pm

5/8


of India. That itself would create a new system where individual discretion will be

eliminated substantially.

We have introduced the PAN card in the area of taxation. The same PAN

card could be used for all sorts of taxes from commercial tax, Sales Tax, to Goods

and Services Tax if introduced, to Income Tax. So, these are the systemic changes

which we are trying to bring about. It is taking time. Sometimes we are through.

Therefore strong legislation is needed. Strong, powerful institution to supervise

the effective implementation of the legislation is needed. At the same time, a

systematic change is needed. This is the area where we shall have to work

collectively today.

Madam Speaker, I have not listened to all the speakers sitting here but they

should not have the feeling that I did not listen to them. Yes, I had to sometimes

consult the various leaders because this is an important debate. I must appreciatesubstantially the hon. Members who have participated. They have come to the

occasion, risen to the occasion, and have raised the level of the debate. Acrimony

which we see normally has been reduced substantially because, as I mentioned, it

is not merely an academic, a theoretical discussion. We are trying, through this

debate, to resolve an important issue, an agitation carried on by a very respectable

leader having very broad support. And, at the same time, being the Members of

the Parliament, we take oath by Constitution to abide by the Constitutional norms

and principles, to protect the Constitution, we shall have to abide by theConstitution which we have received from Baba Saheb Ambedkar. One young

man little impatiently was speaking, but for Baba Saheb Ambedkar, perhaps he

would not have entered into this House. But, without Baba Saheb Ambedkar,

Pandit Jawaharlal Nehru and other founding fathers of the Constitutions, I can

assure that hon. Member that not only he, perhaps as a village boy I could have

never entered into this Chamber. It is because it is possible today when we are

seeing the major changes which are coming in the horizon of Indian politics, the

8/4/2019 7To8pm

6/8


people coming from that sector of the society which could never imagine 50 or 60

years ago to assume the high offices which they are holding.Comment: Contd. by l5

8/4/2019 7To8pm

7/8


(l5/1945/rp-sb)

It is the contribution of democracy. It is the contribution of the constitutional

mechanism. It is the Constitution which has been just described by Sir Anthony

Eden as the biggest Magna Carta for socio-economic transformation which is the

Indian Constitution.

Therefore, it is our responsibility to abide by the Constitution to ensure that

there is no conflict with the desire of the people who are our masters, there is no

question of conflict. Our democracy is powerful enough, strong enough and

flexible enough to accommodate various view points. It can allow various

thoughts, various pools of thoughts to develop, to flourish and it has done so over

the years.

Madam Speaker, what I understand from the observations of the various

hon. Members who have participated in the debate, and if I can convert it into thesense of the House, then perhaps I can convey the sense of the House in the

following words:

The House discussed various issues relating to setting up of a strong and

effective Lokpal.

This House agrees in principle on the following issues: Citizens Charter,

Lower Bureaucracy also to be under the Lokpal through appropriate mechanism,

and Establishment of Lok Ayuktas in the States.

Madam Speaker, I will request you to transmit the proceedings to theDepartment-related Standing Committee for its perusal while formulating its

recommendations for a Lokpal Bill.

Thank you, Madam Speaker. Once again I thank you all the distinguished

participants.

MADAM SPEAKER: The House stands adjourned to meet on Monday the 29th

August, 2011 at 11.00 a.m.

1948 hours

Comment: Sh. Pranab Mukherje

8/4/2019 7To8pm

8/8


The Lok Sabha then adjourned till Eleven of the Clockon Monday, August 29, 2011/Bhadra 7,1933 (Saka). Comment: Friday, March 10,

2000/Phalguna 20, 1921 (Saka).

7to8pm

Documents