MR. SPEAKER: Shri Dasmunshi, please ask your Members to take their seats.

SHRI MADHAVRAO SCINDIA : Mr. Speaker, Sir, I would just like to stress the point that I have also been a Member of Parliament for many years now. This is a matter of propriety. We are dealing with an issue involving the former Prime Minister. This particular portfolio is also handled by the present Prime Minister himself. So, it would be appropriate, according to propriety of the House and also it would be the minimum courtesy that the Government ____________________________________________________________________________

*Not Recorded.

could show to the Opposition, if the hon. Prime Minister could respond to us. We are not insisting that he should respond immediately. But at an appropriate time, whenever he chooses to do so, let the Prime Minister respond to us. This is the minimum courtesy that we are asking from the Government.

SHRI L.K. ADVANI: Sir, this is not a regular debate. It has been raised during `Zero Hour' and, with your permission, submissions have been made by the main Opposition Party and also by other Opposition parties.

12.00 hrs.

In fairness, the Government's response should also be heard today. If there is a fullfledged debate, I can understand the Prime Minister being asked to reply. But the matter has been raised during `Zero Hour'. ... (Interruptions)

MR. SPEAKER: No, no. Please let him complete. ... (Interruptions)

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

... (Interruptions)

MR. SPEAKER: Please take your seat first. What is this?

SHRI A.C. JOS : How can a junior Minister reply?

MR. SPEAKER: No, no; please take your seat. There is no question of a junior or a senior Minister.

... (Interruptions)

MR. SPEAKER: Shri Jos, what is this? Let him complete.

... (Interruptions)

MR. SPEAKER: Please take your seat.

SHRI L.K. ADVANI: I am told that a notice was given under Rule 193 for a debate. We would be very happy and the Government would be very happy if the entire issue of Bofors and the charge-sheet are discussed. ... (Interruptions)

MR. SPEAKER: Let him complete. What is this? Why are you objecting to it?

... (Interruptions)

MR. SPEAKER: Now, please take your seats.

SHRI L.K. ADVANI: When that debate comes, naturally, the House would expect that the Cabinet Minister in charge of the CBI replies to the debate.

SHRI A.C. JOS : We want the name to be deleted.

SHRI L.K. ADVANI: In this particular case, the Prime Minister has specifically asked Shri Arun Jaitley to reply to it. I would plead with you that the Government's response to the debate should be heard. ... (Interruptions)

MR. SPEAKER: Shri Arun Jaitley.

... (Interruptions)

SOME HON. MEMBERS: No, no. ... (Interruptions)

MR. SPEAKER: Nothing will go on record except what Shri Arun Jaitley says.

(Interruptions)*

SHRI ARUN JAITLEY: Sir, the Deputy Leader of the Opposition has raised two vital points. His first vital point is that he has a serious objection to the addition of the name of a particular person in Column 2 of the charge-sheet.

In his second point, he says that the Government must take steps to delete that name altogether. ... (Interruptions)

The Deputy Leader of the Opposition has said that he wants the law to take its own course. Other Members, particularly, Shri Chatterjee, have also raised a question that the law must take its own course.

After nine-year investigation by the CBI, the CBI registered the first information report. The CBI conducted the investigation. After conducting the investigation, the CBI has finally filed an interim charge-sheet. ... (Interruptions) The Deputy Leader of the Opposition was insisting that the law must take its own course. ... (Interruptions)

MR. SPEAKER: Please understand that you have asked the Government to reply. When the Government is giving a reply, you are objecting to it. What is this? ... (Interruptions)

______________________________________________________________________________

*Not recorded.

MR. SPEAKER: This is not good. You have asked the Government to reply.

... (Interruptions)

MR. SPEAKER: Why have you asked the Government to reply?

... (Interruptions)

+h V]: hɶE +ɮ V E l E Vɤ ɽ i i BiɮV xɽ x SʽB* +{x Eɴ] {ɮ BiɮV l i V Sɮ i Ex Sɽi , = {ɮ BiɮV E i E ?

... (ɴvx)

+vI V, ʴ{I E ={xi x E E Exx E +{x |F {ڮ Ex SʽB* Exx c {ɹ] * ɮEɮ E ɽ +vEɮ xɽ E V BEVb , =xE S E E xɨ Vc + E E xɨ xEɱ*

... (ɴvx)

When the Deputy Leader says that the law must take its own course, the law is very clear. ... (Interruptions) It is not the Government of the day which has to decide the names of the accused.

It is for the Investigating agency to do so... (Interruptions) The law is equally clear that when a chargesheet is presented in the court, it is for any person to approach the court for the purposes of deleting or adding the name of any accused. It is now under the supervision of the court, for any person aggrieved, the appropriate forum is the court, the Government of the day is not competent to take any action... (Interruptions)

Secondly, Shri Pandian has raised an objection as to why the name of the deceased person is in Column 2. This is not the first time that this has happened... (Interruptions) Every time that there is an accused who is deceased, his name is always added in Column 2. In Shrimati Gandhi's assassination case, Beant Singh who was killed on the spot, was an accused but his name was in Column 2. In Rajivji's assassination case, Dhanu, the humanbomb lady who actually killed Rajivji, died on the spot but she was an accused and her name was in Column 2. There is no rule, jurisprudence that the Congress Party or anybody can direct the investigating agency to delete the names in this case. The past precedents are absolutely clear that the name of the accused who is deceased, is always carried in Column 2. This is not for the first time that this has happened ... (Interruptions)

SHRI PRIYA RANJAN DASMUNSHI : Sir, we are not satisfied with this. We are walking out in protest... (Interruptions)

12.07 hrs

(At this stage, Shri Priya Ranjan Dasmunshi and some other

hon. Members left the House.)

SHRI ARUN JAITELY: Mr. Speaker Sir, the various questions which have been raised... (Interruptions)

MR. SPEAKER: I have not allowed you, Shri Pandian. Please take your seat.

SHRI P.H PANDIAN : People have sent me to speak here... (Interruptions)

nx ɱ J֮x (n n) : +vI ɽn, ɮ = xi xx Sɽi , n xx Sɽi * <ʱɪ xɴnx EM E j V E ]]] xi {ڮ x n*

SHRI ARUN JAITELY: Mr. Speaker Sir, let me clarify the objection which has been raised... (Interruptions)

SHRI P.H PANDIAN : Sir, before walking out, I want to make a statement... (Interruptions)

MR. SPEAKER: I am not allowing you, please.

... (Interruptions)

MR. SPEAKER: This will not go on record.

(Interruptions)*

MR. SPEAKER: Shri Pandian, please take your seat.

... (Interruptions)

MR. SPEAKER: I have not allowed you. Please take your seat.

... (Interruptions)

MR. SPEAKER: This will not go on record.

(Interruptions) *

SHRI P.H. PANDIAN (TIRUNELVELI): We are walking out of the House... (Interruptions)

______________________________________________________________________________

*Not recorded.

12.09 hrs

(At this stage, Shri P.H. Pandian and some other

hon. Members left the House.)

... (Interruptions)

MR. SPEAKER: Order please.

SHRI ARUN JAITELY: Mr. Speaker Sir, an objection was raised with regard to an earlier capacity in which I have been associated with the initial investigation of this case. I am fully aware of that limitation. I am therefore, not going to refer to any fact which has come to my notice in that capacity. I am only meeting some objections which the Deputy-Leader of Opposition had raised. He was fair enough to say that the law must take its own course and the law in this country is very clear.

It is not the Government of the day, either in the Centre or in the State, which has to decide who should be a particular accused in a case or otherwise. It is the investigating agency, the investigating officer and only the investigating officer who has an authority to decide this.

Our courts have very clearly ruled that no Government, no Minister has the power to add or delete an accused.

When Shri Scindia raised objection that the law must take its own course, he must be aware that the law very clearly is that the investigating officer is satisfied as to who are the category of persons as column 1 accused; who are the persons to be named in column 2; and, therefore, it is that investigation of the investigating officer which is final. If anybody is aggrieved, the remedy is that he goes to court; he challenges it before the court; he takes appropriate legal steps before the court. It will be a sad day if, on the basis of a political discussion, the Centre and the State Governments started adding or deleting accused persons. This has never been the law in this country. It should not be the law in this country.

The second objection which has been raised--Shri Pandian has raised --it is whether there is any precedent that a dead person can be added as an accused in a case. A person who is unfortunately dead can certainly not be put up for trial. There can be no trial of that person. He cannot be put up for any punishment, but because of his some erstwhile association he may have had with the offence that had taken place, the past practice has always been that his name has been put in column 2. For good legal reasons there is column 2 in the chargesheet. The chargesheet is filed under section 173 of the CrPC. It is a statutory proforma, which has column 2. The past practice has always been that a deceased accused is put in the category of column 2; you are an accused but you are not being put up for trial.

I have with me some particulars. Unfortunately when Mrs. Gandhi was assassinated, one of the assassins, who was the chief conspirator, was Beant Singh and he was killed on the spot. On the analogy that Beant Singh was dead, his name should never have been in the chargesheet. Beant Singh's name was appropriately put in column 2. Similarly, when Rajivji himself was assassinated, one of the accused persons, was the lady, Dhanu, who was a human bomb who died on the spot. She was the key conspirator; her name could never be put up for trial because she was dead but her name was put in column 2. So, the past practice has always been that whenever there is a deceased accused, under section 173 when a chargesheet is filed, the deceased accused is not put up for trial but because of his role or some evidence relating to his conduct, motive or participation earlier, he is always there in the case as an accused in column 2. This has always been the past practice. Merely because somebody is politically influential and very powerful, his supporters today are influential, it will be a very sad day for jurisprudence if it is said that now we make a new beginning and even if the person was associated with the crime, because he is no more we do away with this practice. If you do away with this practice, then under the Evidence Act you must also have to do away with the leading evidence relating to his motive, participation earlier and subsequent conduct which has never been done.

A very valid point was raised by Shri Mulayam Singh.

< i E +ɶɺx =xE n n E ɽ V {] SVǶ] < < , ɽ <ʱB < <

... (ɴvx)

xl S]V : x =`ɪ*

+h V] : xl V x =`ɪ E BE ] + BEVb B Vxx ʴn E +n +{x +{ұ < E < l* {ɽ E =xE Vix Exx +{ұ l, ɽ < ɱ 17 +Mɺi E bʨɺ SE * =xE +Jɮ {ʱ]E +{ұ E * ɮ niɴW ..+<. E {ɺ + SE * BE ] + niɴW ..+<. E {ɺ + +x , =xE Exx +{ұ JʮV SE * VxiE +{ұ E n, =E ʱB |iI E x E, {] SVǶ] n, {Ҩ] SVǶ] n, ɽ n֦M{h M E ɽ xhǪ ɮEɮ Ex M* +Mɮ ɮEɮ Exp B EM i E |i Vix ɮEɮ , EE ]] {ʱɺ ]] E {ɺ , i ʡ ʤɽɮ E ɮEɮ iɪ EM E b E EE Jɱɡ SVǶ] < x * E E iʨɱxb E J j iɪ EM x E <xɴʺ]M]M +ʡɮ* ɽ Exx ɪ , <xɴʺ]M]M BVx E ɪ + VxiE {I E, ɮEɮ E =ɨ iI{ xɽ Ex SʽB* Eɱ < i E +ɶɺx +{E n n E Vix VS M + V BEWb <ɨ , Sɽ Eix {ɮֱ + <xɡBʶɪɱ E x , |ɦʴi xɽ E EM* =xE Ei <ix l E x 1986 ɮ Eb +, 1987 ɨx +ɪ + nƤɮ 1989 iE Vɤ iE EO {] E ɮEɮ l, B.+<.+ɮ. nV xɽ <* Vɤ Vxɴɮ 1990 B.+<.+ɮ. nV <, BE=] W B, ɮ-ɮ +{ұ < E M<* nxɪ ɽi E =nɽh E ʺɺ E E F E icE < |Eɮ E niɴW + VB E +E=] EE xʡ] E ʱB l*

{ E ڴɨ] E + , <ơBʶɪɱ M E +{ұ + BiɮV E ɴVn ..+<. x + iE V VS E ɽ =E +xֺɮ + < i E +ɶɺx n n E Vix <ɨ BEVb VxE {ʱ]E +{ұ b E=ʺɱ {bM M, =ɨƤɽi +vE ɨɪ xɽ MM, Ex =E Ҩ xɽ v Ei, EE EMV ɽ +x + ɽ E Ei i , ɽ E b E=ʺɱ <ɨ E ɪ i , =E >{ɮ xɦǮ EM* V M Ei E Exx +{x n Jn iɪ EM, i Exx E n c {ɹ] * <xʺ]M BVx x ɽ ʮ{] x< , VxiE ɮEɮ < xɽ E Ei

... (ɴvx)

Vɽ iE SS E Ƥv , {ɹ] E n E EO {] E ʨj BE xɮ E { < Jc E , Ex ɽ + SS xɽ Ex Sɽi, EE SS ɽ S< ɨx +ɪM V c Ec Ei + c BʺM Ei *

SHRI SOMNATH CHATTERJEE : He has not replied to the main thing.

+h V]: BbVxǨ] x, ʮV䱪ڶx x, xɪɨ 193 <ix +vEɮ +{E {ɺ , +Mɮ Sɽ i E xɪɨ E iɽi < {ɮ ɨ ɽ E ʱB {ڮ iɮ iɮ *

SHRIMATI GEETA MUKHERJEE (PANSKURA): Our attitude towards this Bofors case is well-known because all of us had resigned on that question protesting against what that Government did with Bofors. We do stand by the same stand that we took at that time. But I would like to know why has the Minister not replied to this question raised by Shri Somnath Chatterjee because everybody knows Hindujas name was there and then the whole report has not come. So, what would have happened if it has been done after 10 days or so, so that they would get the whole report which they are expecting? Then a lot of troubles could have been avoided. Undoubtedly, the law will take its own course. But this question on Hindujas will remain in everybody's mind. So, I would like to know why he has not answered question.

ֱɪɨ ʺƽ n : ɽ <vɮ E ni + =vɮ E ni * ɽ SS ɽ +x SʽB E ni E EE l* ɮ i SS M* +{ SS E Eɮ E VB* <xE ni , =xE ni + ɽi ɮ

... (ɴvx)

Ҩx, SS E Eɮ E VB* ɽi c M E ni

... (ɴvx)

______


[NEXT PAGE]