14.19 hrs.
Title: Introduction of the Prevention of Terrorism Bill, 2002.
THE MINISTER OF HOME AFFAIRS (SHRI L.K. ADVANI): I beg to move for leave to introduce a Bill to make provisions for the prevention of, and for dealing with, terrorist activities and for matters connected therewith.
MR. DEPUTY-SPEAKER: Motion moved:
“That leave be granted to introduce a Bill to make provisions for the prevention of, and for dealing with, terrorist activities and for matters connected therewith. ”
Shri Varkala Radhakrishnan, Shri G.M. Banatwalla, Shri Suresh Kurup, Shri Ramjilal Suman and Shri Basudeb Acharia have all given notices to oppose the introduction of this Bill.
(CHIRAYINKIL): Sir, I strongly oppose the introduction of this Bill. Just now, he had an opportunity of withdrawing the very same Bill. … (Interruptions)
MR. DEPUTY-SPEAKER: No, you are wrong. The Bill was not introduced and only the motion was there. That is exactly what I read out the rule.
SHRI VARKALA RADHAKRISHNAN : There is no difference between the one introduced and one that is now before the House. When this Ordinance was first promulgated, this is a Bill to replace an Ordinance. … (Interruptions)
MR. DEPUTY-SPEAKER: What subject are you talking about?
SHRI VARKALA RADHAKRISHNAN : I am referring to this Bill. This is a Bill to replace an Ordinance. That is why, I referred to the Ordinance.… (Interruptions)
SHRI SONTOSH MOHAN DEV (SILCHAR): Sir, he is correct.
MR. DEPUTY-SPEAKER: He was not correct earlier and he is now correct.
* Published in Gazette of India, Extraordinary, Part-II, Section-2, dated 8.3.2002.
SHRI VARKALA RADHAKRISHNAN : Sir, I am not doing well. Please do not interrupt always.
MR. DEPUTY-SPEAKER: I cannot interrupt all of you together.
SHRI VARKALA RADHAKRISHNAN : Sir, the Minister must realise that this Ordinance was issued long before. And it is in the expectation that terrorist activities should be prevented. We were not having enough criminal preventive Acts and on that understanding this Ordinance was issued. When this Ordinance was in promulgation or when it was in force, we had the bitterest experience of the December 13th attack on this House. The Ordinance did not help us in preventing that attack. So, for prevention of terrorist attacks, the Ordinance is of no avail to the Government in preventing the attack. If the Ordinance could save the country, definitely it would have been welcomed but it was not so preventive in any manner. It took place as usual. Due to the courage shown by our security staff, some of our lives could be saved. So, Ordinance is not the only effective order or effective step.
Sir, I would tell you that MISA could not prevent the occurrence of criminal acts in India. I remember I was also handling cases under the Defence of India Rules during Emergency. That also did not save the country. We remember the Maintenance of Internal Security Act. That also did not help us in preventing the criminal acts in India. On a perusal of the criminal records in our criminal jurisdiction, we could find out that most of the cases ended on acquittal. There is some inference.… (Interruptions)
SHRI KHARABELA SWAIN (BALASORE): Sir, I have a point of order.
THE MINISTER OF URBAN DEVELOPMENT AND POVERTY ALLEVIATION (SHRI ANANTH KUMAR): Has discussion on merit been allowed?
SHRI SU. THIRUNAVUKKARASAR (PUDUKKOTTAI): He can only oppose the Bill.
SHRI KHARABELA SWAIN : I have a point of order under rule 72. There is a point of order. Rule 72 says:
“If a motion for leave to introduce a Bill is opposed, the Speaker, after permitting, if he thinks fit, brief statements from the member who opposes the motion and the member who moved the motion, may, without further debate, put the question:
Provided that where a motion is opposed on the ground that the Bill initiates legislation outside the legislative competence of the House… ”
Is it outside the legislative competence of the House? He is making a full speech. You should not allow. How can he start a full-fledged discussion on this?
MR. DEPUTY-SPEAKER: Shri Radhakrishnan, you know the rules. I am not going to repeat it.
SHRI VARKALA RADHAKRISHNAN : I agree I shall refer to all these details at a later stage when I disapprove it.
MR. DEPUTY-SPEAKER: When it comes for discussion, you can go to the merit of the Bill. Now you have to only come to the legislative competence.
SHRI VARKALA RADHAKRISHNAN : Here the main question is about the competence of this House to discuss this matter. The Supreme Court has clearly laid down that there cannot be any excessive limitations on fundamental rights. There can be only reasonable restrictions on fundamental rights. Now this is a Bill curtailing the fundamental rights of a citizen. Reasonable restrictions have been placed on the fundamental rights of a citizen as provided under article 19 of the Constitution.… (Interruptions)
MR. DEPUTY-SPEAKER: You need not elaborate the other grounds.
SHRI VARKALA RADHAKRISHNAN : If you always intervene, I cannot continue my speech.
MR. DEPUTY-SPEAKER: Have I become a nuisance to you now! … (Interruptions)
MR. DEPUTY-SPEAKER: He is arguing his case. Please do not interrupt him.
SHRI KHARABELA SWAIN : Sir, a brief statement is required and not a full-fledged speech.