We repeat what Shri Rajiv Gandhi stated in this House twice over. Once on the 28th of December, 1989 he said, "We would like you to find the people who have taken the money because we know that when you find the people, all the accusations that have been made all these years will turn out to be false". There is nothing in the recitation of the chargesheet which establishes anything other than that Rajiv Gandhi was in no way a beneficiary in any manner to whatever payments that have been made.

There is no link that has been established which would indicate any justification for it to be there. It is furthermore extremely malicious to include his name in Column 2 because not even in the course of the trial, will he be given an opportunity to clear his name. We demand deletion of his name from Column 2 because he was never interrogated by the investigative agency and there is no evidence of any substance or significance that has been adduced in the recitation. There is no possibility that he has of clearing his name in trial. He has been defamed, maligned and we will not stand for this kind of politically motivated defamation. We insist and demand that the

Government delete the name of Shri Rajiv Gandhi from the List of Accused. We are ready to await a reply. We wish to have a reply. We wish to know whether the Government will delete his name. This is our demand and we insist upon it.

ֱɪɨ ʺɽ n : +vI ɽn, +{x c E{ E E x E E n n*

+vI ɽn : n n x*

ֱɪɨ ʺƽ n : xɪɨɴɱ E ={n nx ɱ BE |lx E E |vx j V, xi ʴɮv n E ɮ n E xi ` l + +{E ɨI ɽ iɪ + l E vxɴn |ɺiɴ E ɨlx {ɮ ɽ M + =E n bVɱ {ɮ ɽ M* Ex Vɤ ɽ ɴɱ =` Mɪ i ɽ EE <ix n E V E +{x x] xɽ n* Ex +{VҶx b + |vx j V + ɮ xi+ E S ɽ ɱ + * =E n ɮ ɽ E xxҪ n E <SU l, Ex x ɤ E E* <ʱB EU M xɪɨɴɱ ɽ x {gɪ* BE i xɴnx +{ɺ E x {ɽ nx E l E +Mɮ ƮIh xɽ ʨɱM i ƮIh x E ʱB EU Ex E ʱB nx iɮ M, Sɽ +{ ɮ ni *

Vɽ iE E ɴɱ , ɮ ɴɱ Vc + * x <E ʱB Pɹ E, Vxi E S Pɹ E* +V V ʮ{] +< , ..+<. V VS Ei , = {ɮ Z E< ]{{h xɽ Ex Ex ɮ ɪ B + E ɽi +{ɮv ʱVɨ ʮi Jx ɱ S , <ʱB ɮ {jɴɱ E l, SE n E ֮I E ɴɱ , <ʱB {ڮ ʴɺiɮ , < j xɽ, +M BE nx E, n nx E j ֱE < {ɮ ʴɺiɮ SS x SʽB* ɮ n E ֮I Vc B ɴɱ E E ɮ xʶSi ɪ , i E EU M S Mɪ * ɽ iɦ ɨɴ EM, Eix Mɽ <E E l, ɽi ɮ E ɨڱ i , BE Exx E nɪɮ ʤx ɤi E E-E 302 E Vʮ S Vi , Ex B M , VxE SS l E Eix Mɽ EE ni + Ex E E x ɱ , E ɨxv , E EE ɮ SV , ɽ ɮ E ɮ, Eix ɽ E B * Sɽi E ɽ n E ֮I Vc + ɴɱ <ʱB < {ɮ ʴɺiɮ SS x SʽB* = Ei + ʴɺiɮ +{x i Jx SɽM, EE x <E ʱB BE ɱ xɽ, 1987 E 1989 iE Pɹ E * Ex Eix Ex E|ɪ l, < {ɮ ɽ xɽ Ex Sɽi + Vɤ E< BE ɮ S xɽ , ɮ =xE l ʮi +SU l, Ex E|ɪi E E< ɴɱ xɽ * ɴɱ , <Ǩx E, ɹ]Sɮ E + ֮I E, <ʱB <ɨ Sɽi E < {ɮ ʴɺiɮ SS x SʽB* + ʴɺiɮ SS x SʽB*

... (ɴvx)

+vI ɽn : +{ `, {W*

ֱɪɨ ʺƽ n : Vɴɤ n* +{ E <xE* xɽ * ... (ɴvx)

SHRI P.H. PANDIAN : Kindly permit me to mention my view point. ... (Interruptions)

MR. SPEAKER: Nothing will go on record except what Shri Mulayam Singh says.

(Interruptions) ... (Not recorded)

MR. SPEAKER: Shri Somnath Chatterjee, please.

ֱɪɨ ʺƽ n : xɽ-xɽ, + ɮ {ڮ i x SʽB*

+vI ɽn : +{E i M< ?

Shri Chatterjee, would you please take your seat? Shri Mulayam Singh has not completed his speech.

ֱɪɨ ʺƽ n : Z S E n*

+vI ɽn : xɽ, +{ ɨ{i EʮB x*

ֱɪɨ ʺƽ n : ɨ{i E * V Ex Sɽi l, <xx ֱ n* +{ɺ +{ұ Ei E ɽ I ɨxv, ֮I ɨxv ɴɱ , +Mɮ < SVǶ] E xɨ {ɮ +nɱi E xɨ {ɮ ɽ iSi EE Uc nM i =Si xɽ M* < nx E {ڮ +vEɮ E V M S MB , =xE ʨɱ E VB* <ʱB Sɽi E < {ɮ SS * nںɮ i ɽ E < j <ix ɨɪ xɽ <ʱB < ɨɱ E ʱB E E n nx E ʴɶ j ֱɪ VB + ʴɺiɮ SS * + V r ɨ{i + , M Ei E Pֺ{` l, Ex Sɽi E Pֺ{`B xɽ l, v-v {Eix E {ɮ ɱ l* <ʱB < i E +{ұ Ei E E < ɮ ʱB BE <xɱ ɴɱ * <E E M {ɮ `SV + , V n B , x c Pɹ E * Eɱ EO {] + ɮEɮ xڮ Eֶi cE Uc n, ɽ xɽ Ei* <ʱB xɴnx E < ɴɱ {ɮ ʴɶ j ֱE ʴɺiɮ SS E VB*

SHRI P.H. PANDIAN : Sir, let me make a mention.

MR. SPEAKER: I have called Somnath Babu.

Pxl Z : M E xB*

+vI ɽn: Vɰ xM*

SHRI SOMNATH CHATTERJEE (BOLPUR): Mr. Speaker Sir, so far as we are concerned, our stand is very clear that the law must take its own course. This is a matter on which naturally the country is very much agitated. We had, as a matter of fact, even resigned from the House. Therefore, we are not minimising the importance of this matter. The only thing that we have noticed today is that materials which formed a part of the present charge-sheet were available with the Government for quite some time. Nothing new has come to the possession of the Government. As a matter of fact, the earlier Government had not decided to proceed further until the last batch of documents were made available which are now still with the Swiss authorities because it was apprehended that there were many other persons, some names are obviously known, who are suspected to be involved. Their complicity or their participation in whatever may have happened was likely to come out of this document. Therefore, when these materials were available with the document all along even with the previous Government, even the present Government which was then in the opposition had not insisted piecemeal filing of the charge-sheet. It was never suggested. Therefore, until and unless those documents came, why suddenly the Government decides to proceed with the charge-sheet which is apparently not a complete charge-sheet?

What we felt is whether the Government has anything in its mind to protect somebody, some highly placed persons who may have now made up with the ruling party or the ruling combination. They are very powerful people, known to be very powerful, very affluent people also. Therefore, I think the Government owes an explanation as to why this bifurcation of the charge-sheet, why suddenly as soon as the results are out, as soon as the Government is constituted, without any new material, they come and submit this charge-sheet.

I am not holding brief for anybody who is mentioned there as an accused. My party is not concerned. As I said, we insist that the law must take its course. Now the matter is before the court, whether the court takes cognizance....(Interruptions)

You need not support me. You are already interrupting others. I found that on the first day itself. Kindly spare us. I do not know you.

Therefore, what we are concerned with is, while trying to denigrate `A' or trying to bolster `A', let something not be done to protect anybody; nothing should be done which will interfere with the course of justice and which also will not give an impression of any political vendetta.

Our position is this. Therefore, we say that the judiciary may decide this matter in accordance with the law and the Government must make the commitment that without any political vendetta, they would try to find out the real situation. They must tell the House today, since the matter has come up, as to when the next portion of the charge-sheet would be coming than merely leaving it to some political appeal that is pending somewhere. In that case, why cannot they wait for another five to ten days? Why could not they wait? Then it could have been a complete charge-sheet. That is why, there is suspicion in the minds of some people that the reasons may be something else. It is the Government's responsibility to disabuse the people's apprehensions in this matter...(Interruptions)

MR. SPEAKER: This is not a discussion. Please understand it. The Government is going to reply to this.

... (Interruptions)

SHRI P.H. PANDIAN : Sir, there is no provision under Criminal Procedure Code to launch a prosecution against a corpse or a dead person. Even under the provision of Section 173, it cannot be done. Moreover, two Ministers have come out with a statement outside the House. The Home Minister said that he was keeping the charge-sheet in abeyance for the last two months. Now he has permitted the CBI to file the charge-sheet before the court. Under what provision of law is the Home Minister or the Prime Minister authorised to withhold the chargesheet for two months? In 1998, in Jain hawala case, the Supreme Court has held that no Minister can interfere in any investigation and no Minister can control the CBI. That is pending and that has to be executed. This is quite important. The House should be apprised of the legal position.

The former Prime Minister, Mr. Rajiv Gandhi is dead. It is not a writ proceeding; it is not a civil proceeding. It is a criminal proceeding. If he is arraigned as an accused, then he will be undefended. There is nobody to defend him. Your prosecutor will prosecute the other accused persons but if they shift the blame to the former Prime Minister, who is going to defend him? So, the deletion of the name of the former Prime Minister who happened to be the Leader of the Opposition is essential under the mandate of law. It is against the canons of principles of criminal law....(Interruptions)

MR. SPEAKER: Please take your seat. You have had your say.

SHRI A.C. JOSE (MUKUNDOURAM): Sir, he has not given notice....(Interruptions)

SHRI P.H. PANDIAN : Why should I withdraw?...(Interruptions)

MR. SPEAKER: I have received all the notices given by Members.

... (Interruptions)

SHRI K. YERRANNAIDU (SRIKAKULAM): The TDP Members had resigned from the Lok Sabha on this issue...(Interruptions)

SHRI P.H. PANDIAN : These are the materials which should be placed before the House. In 1990, one of the witnesses cited in the prosecution was Mr. Ram. He moved the Madras High Court and obtained a stay of anticipatory search warrant. He first got the stay of anticipatory search in Delhi High Court and then he got the stay in the Madras High Court. I appeared and intervened but it is still pending for the last ten years. The stay is not vacated. So, he has been cited as a prosecution witness. The political part of this prosecution after the death of a person and launching the prosecution against a corpse is against all canons of criminal law in the whole world. Latin maxim says `actio personalis mortua cum persona'. Criminal action dies with the person. Civil action may survive. Since he is dead, his name should be removed from the list of the accused.

MR. SPEAKER: Please take your seat.

SHRI P.H. PANDIAN : Sir, I have come here to place my facts. Otherwise, I would not have entered this House. I sacrificed my profession and came here.

I have come to this House to make some contribution for the country. I have come to this House sacrificing my profession and I am here...(Interruptions) Under Section 173 of the Criminal Procedure Code, there is no provision for taking action against a dead person...(Interruptions)

MR. SPEAKER: Nothing will go on record. Only Shri Yerrannaidu's speech will go on record.


MR. SPEAKER: Let him finish it. What is this? Shri Pandian, how much time will you take? Please finish it.

SHRI P.H. PANDIAN : I will finish it.

MR. SPEAKER: There are other Members also to speak. Please understand it. You are not the only Member to speak. What is this?

SHRI P.H. PANDIAN : I will finish it. There is only one Member in the House to speak now.

MR. SPEAKER: Please understand that there are 543 Members in this House. You are not the only Member to speak.

SHRI P.H. PANDIAN : I will finish it in a minute...(Interruptions) They are interrupting me. They are blocking my mind.

MR. SPEAKER: Please conclude now.

SHRI P.H. PANDIAN : Under Section 173 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, a final chargesheet has been filed. There are various clauses but there is no clause for taking action against a dead person...(Interruptions)

MR. SPEAKER: Shri Pandian, you have already mentioned these points. What is this? Again, you are repeating the points. Please take your seat.

... (Interruptions)


*Not recorded.

SHRI P.H. PANDIAN : All right, Sir.

SHRI K. YERRANNAIDU : Mr. Speaker, Sir, from the very beginning, the TDP is opposing corruption. On the corruption issue, in the Ninth Lok Sabha, the TDP Members resigned. The law will take its own course. After twelve years, the CBI investigated everything and filed a chargesheet in the court of law. Now, the matter is pending in the court. The court will decide about the merits of this issue. This is not a court to hear the argument. Anyhow, the Deputy Leader of the Opposition has raised this issue. The Government has agreed to have a discussion in this House. So, we are accepting that. If the Government decides about it and whenever it comes up with a discussion, we will participate in the discussion on this issue.

MR. SPEAKER: Now, Shri Arun Jaitley to reply.


SHRI A.C. JOSE : Mr. Speaker, Sir, is he the Home Minister?...(Interruptions)

MR. SPEAKER: The Government is responding. Please take your seat. What is this?

... (Interruptions)

SHRI A.C. JOS : We are discussing an important matter. Therefore, the Home Minister should respond to it...(Interruptions)

MR. SPEAKER: You cannot prevent the Government from replying. What is this? Please take your seat. The Government is responding to it.

SHRI PRIYA RANJAN DASMUNSI : Sir, propriety demands that the Home Minister should reply to it...(Interruptions)

MR. SPEAKER: I am appealing to you to take your seat.

... (Interruptions)

SHRI PRAMOD MAHAJAN: Sir, the CBI is not under the Home Minister. Let them first study the Ministry position. The CBI is under the Prime Minister. The Prime Minister has given directions to Shri Arun Jaitley to reply on behalf of the Government. So, they cannot force that the Home Minister should reply...(Interruptions)

MR. SPEAKER: This is too much.

... (Interruptions)

SHRI PRAMOD MAHAJAN: They cannot force the Government on this issue...(Interruptions)

MR. SPEAKER: I am appealing to you to take your seat. I have not allowed anybody to speak.


SHRI PRAMOD MAHAJAN: Shri Munsi, it has got nothing to do with the Home Ministry...(Interruptions)

MR. SPEAKER: Nothing will go on record.

(Interruptions) *

SHRI P.H. PANDIAN (TIRUNELVELI): As the Additional Solicitor General, he has appeared in this case in 1997-98...(Interruptions)


*Not recorded.

MR. SPEAKER: Hon. Members, please take your seat. This is too much.

.. (ɴvx)

MR. SPEAKER: Please take your seat.

SHRI L.K. ADVANI: Mr. Speaker, Sir, I am rising only because Shri Priya Ranjan Dasmunshi has raised an issue. (Interruptions)

SHRI BUTA SINGH (JALORE): Mr. Speaker, he appeared as the prosecutor and so, he should not be allowed to make a statement here.

MR. SPEAKER: Shri Buta Singh, please take your seat.

SHRI L.K. ADVANI: Sir, I am rising only because the hon. Member, Shri Priya Ranjan Dasmunshi has raised an issue. Normally, anyone can reply on behalf of the Government, but in this case, perhaps, Shri Dasmunshi is not aware that this particular department, C.B.I., is with the Prime Minister and not with the Home Minister. So, the Prime Minister has directed Shri Arun Jaitley to reply to this issue. I have no objection and I can reply to this issue. Since the Prime Minister has directed Shri Jaitley to reply to this issue and also since this will be his maiden speech in the House, the tradition is that the maiden speech is never interrupted. (Interruptions)

MR. SPEAKER: Nothing will go on record.