Chairman, Sir, I would not like to go into the merits of the debate (Interruptions). I would not like to go into the merits of various points, which the honourable members have referred to. During the course of the discussion, these will be covered.
First, I would like to assure that there is no question of an undue haste. The country has waited for 40 years — not one or two days — for the Lok Pal Bill. Several governments have come and gone. Even in 2001, one of the reports of a standing committee, which I presided over, recommended the Lok Pal Bill. The National Democratic Alliance (NDA) was in power at the time. After getting the report for two years, the NDA government could not bring the Bill for certain reasons. I do not blame anybody. The fact of the matter is several governments, several times, have made efforts to bring an effective Lok Pal — an ombudsman-type of organisation to deal with corruption at high places.
Since April, the efforts are on. The civil society started the agitation. The government had appointed a negotiating committee with the representatives of the civil society. There was a series of meetings. Four meetings of all political parties took place from June till the last one. Not one or two, but four meetings have taken place and various political parties have given their views.
There was a discussion in both the Houses of Parliament on August 27. Somebody was talking of duress, but where is the question of duress? Somebody, who is advising me to be strong, should advise his political leaders.
They went and sat on the dharna manch of Shri Anna Hazare. Please check what did they say there.
Therefore, my submission is that it is not being done in undue haste. There might have been a mismatch in the normal legislative process in submitting the order of business for the day and a delay in issuing the supplementary list. But, there is nothing unusual. All of you had said you were expecting it from 11 o’clock or 12 o’clock. So, there was an expectation. There had been some issues and problems, which we have to sort out.
Shri Yashwant Sinha has rightly said a corrigendum, normally, deals with factual errors, editorial mistakes, spelling mistakes and, sometimes, factual mistakes. It is actually a factual mistake. The original proposal was to include the minorities. Thereafter, we held some consultations with the various political parties.
A question was raised about the constitutional validity — whether it would be legally valid or tenable. Thereafter, there was further reflection on it. Post this, it was decided that we should not sit in judgment. We should let the judiciary decide whether it would be constitutionally valid or not.
Many laws have been passed within the legislative competence of Parliament, for which we had taken decisions. Sometimes, they were declared ultra vires by the higher judiciary. Sometimes, we accepted their verdict as the law of the land and, sometimes, we again came to Parliament to amend the law. Nothing is being dictated.
We, all 543 members of this House, will finally decide what would be the fate of Lok Pal. I will not decide it alone. I am one of the 543 members of Parliament. All of you will collectively decide which clause, sections and provisions you would like to have. But, please do not blame the government for something it is not responsible.
If you feel that it is not necessary, do not have it. It is because the Bill is to be passed by Parliament and by nobody else. The legislation and authority of the domain of Parliament is there. A legislation cannot be done at the dharna manch, on the streets or by threatening of an agitation.
Please remember — and do not forget — what the wish of the House was on August 27. You had expressed three concerns, which Shri Anna Hazare had indicated — lower bureaucracy should be brought within the purview of the Lok Pal, Citizens’ Charter should be a part of the Lok Pal and Lokayukta should also be a part of the Lok Pal. These were the demands of the House.
(Interruptions) I may tell Shri Bhartruhari Mahtab that appropriate mechanism was related to the placement of the lower bureaucracy under the Lok Pal. It was the phrase, which was used with appropriate mechanism, not with Lokayukta.
Therefore, it was thought that it is necessary to bring in Lokayukta. The constitutional point which has been made will be addressed. That is why it has been stated in Section-1 of Clause-4 that different sections of this Act will be notified on different dates. It is put in Part-III. When the question of operationalising it through notification will come, at that point of time, this issue will be addressed adequately.
Sir, therefore, my most respectful submission would be to see that this Bill be introduced. We already had more than a required debate for introduction. Normally, a brief debate is permitted by the Chair. As Mr Kalyan Banerjee has correctly pointed out, we could have had a brief debate, according to the rules. But, you have allowed an elaborate debate and rightly so, because it is an important issue.
I would like to reiterate that it is our collective responsibility to pass this Bill. The whole country is looking at us, as to what type of a Lok Pal Bill are we going to have. If you find that there are deficiencies and shortcomings, you can amend it and change it. The Bill is to be passed by the members of this House. Majority of the members will have to press the buttons in favour or against that. Therefore, keeping this in view, I would request you to allow the Bill to be introduced by putting the motion to vote (Interruptions).
Edited excerpts from leader of the Lok Sabha Pranab Mukherjee’s reply to a discussion before the Lok Pal and Lokayukta Bill 2011 was placed on the floor of the Lok Sabha in New Delhi on December 21
