Press
Briefing Monday, 6th December 2010
Shri
Abhishek Singhvi addressed the media today.
Shri Abhishek Singhvi said that the demand for the joint
parliamentary committee (JPC) and for obstruction of
Parliament until that demand is met is neither
reasonable nor fair. Let me give you some different
facets of this issue. It is illogical, it is purely
political, it is not intended to achieve any result, it
is not intended to punish anyone, it is not intended to
reform the system and therefore, the only inevitable
conclusion is , it is intended for political grand
stand. Let us look at five options. There is a CBI – as
you know, it can act under any act of Indian Penal Code
– number of offences, it can punish by arrest and by
criminal punishment not only for the IPC but under the
Prevention of Corruption Act. That is a concrete result
under two mega enactments the IPC and the POCA, the JPC
cannot do either. Then there is Enforcement Directorate
or let me say some other revenue authorities. If it is
under the Money Laundering Act, again, the penal
provisions of arrest and severe action are available.
The JPC cannot do that. If it is the Income Tax Act,
there are innumerable provisions providing for monetary
penal fines of large amounts. The JPC cannot do that. If
it is a Supreme Court monitored investigation, which
extremely rarely, I cannot think of any other case,
where the Government has invited upon itself, it is an
investigation monitored by no less than the Apex Court
of the land. Every aspect, every minute detail, I
remember, if the slightest thing is wrongly stated, it
leads to contempt of court. The JPC cannot have contempt
of court. The JPC cannot punish in the way the Supreme
Court monitored investigation can. Then we come to the
Public Accounts Committee (PAC). It is but obvious but
unfortunately forgotten by the opposition. It is also a
joint parliamentary committee – a committee of both
Houses - again perhaps forgotten headed by a senior
leader of the opposition. It is a legitimate question
mark whether you do not have enough confidence in your
own senior leaders. Certainly the JPC would not be
headed by a senior BJP leader. Thirdly, the PAC is not
necessarily reflecting a party political constitution or
decision making process. And yes, there is a specific
rule – rule 199 under which the PAC cannot summon the
Ministers directly but there is no specific rule saying
the JPC can summon the Ministers but it is established
that the normal rules applying to parliamentary
committees will apply to JPC also. So it is very
similar. But there is one except and I accept that. The
exception is that with the concurrence of permission of
the Speaker, a JPC can request a Minister. That too, the
procedure has to be set down with the concurrence of the
Speaker. Incidentally, even a PAC, although it cannot
call a Minister, can informally talk to him and apprise
him of the errors of policy or lacunae found by the PAC.
It is just a matter of information. But then this boils
to a question, which I am asking myself, is the only
object of the opposition to summon a Prime Minister? Is
that the only object of the exercise? Remember, while a
PAC cannot summon a Minister, one of the persons
concerned is no more a Minister. So, therefore, the only
object is to insist on obstructing Parliament in “the
national interest”- which national interest, I do not
know because the only object is to summon the Prime
Minister. This, we submit, is more sensationalism and
less sense. This is less public interest and more
political interest or personal interest. It is less
constructive reform and more political grand standing.
It is a uni-focal, short sighted, self-centered
insistence. On something completely contrary to the
interest – the national interest of letting Parliament
run. In that sense, this entire demand is meaningless.
To a question over the mounting pressure by TMC over the
UPA to accept the demand of the opposition for a JPC,
Shri Singhvi that there is no question of any such
pressure. Meetings, of course, are held all the time. I
am not aware of any particular meeting you are talking
about, but it could be that there are meetings held for
several issues and certainly I do not agree that there
are problems of pressure as you put it in this respect.
To another question related with the constitution of JPC,
Shri Singhvi said I have just explained to you in detail
why the demand for JPC is meaningless, wrong,
imbalances, unreasonable, political grand standing and
if from that the conclusion is, I cannot say anymore.
To a further question whether the demand for JPC is
anti-parliament when 200 MPs are demanding for the same;
Shri Singhvi said there is no question of
anti-parliament. What is anti-parliament is happening
under your very eyes for the last 15 days. I will remind
you that if you are talking of numbers, there has been
an official specific suggestion if those are the
numbers, then why don’t you have a No-Confidence Motion.
In a democracy, which is not the perfect system, but is
the best available system in the universe, the majority
has to have some meaning and if you are so doubtful
about the majority or so confident of your minority,
then please test it. Let us not go into speculative
figures thrown, which are meaningless.
Shri Singhvi further said the simple question is not
answered by why not. Questions are answered by ‘why’.
They have to prove ‘why’. We have not to prove ‘why
not’. I am not agreeing to the perception that JPC is a
single issue JPC. We do not consider the JPC demand to
be anything more or less than meaningless and political
grand standing. If it had some good of the nation, if it
had a concrete result which could be achieved, we would
have reacted otherwise, but for the reasons given in
details, we think, it is meaningless and a political
demand intended for total sensationalism and no sense.
Shri Singhvi further said the proof the pudding is very
clear that despite the very categorical challenge
thrown, you have had no movement but instead a sheepish
dismissal of that challenge.
To a further question on the appointment of CVC, Shri
Singhvi said that in respect of CVC, let me make it
clear, all that happened was in a 3-4 minutes hearing.
Notice was issued to all the respondents and an attempt
was to be made on the next date to dispose it off
finally and the next date of 27th January was given. I
think it is unfair to read more and to read less than
these short words indicate. Any other speculation would
be more of sensationalism and less of sense but I do
want to condemn and use the strongest possible word for
those entities including political parties who are
widely speculating less than 24 hours before a Supreme
Court hearing on the very same subject where exactly the
same issue is to be raised. Giving their own verdict
before the Supreme Court’s verdict, acting like super
Supreme Courts before the Supreme Court hears it today,
this is especially for the political parties extremely
irresponsible. It is a lack of faith and trust in the
most important apex institution of this country. It is
an absence of patience which is what the court is
counseling us to have and it is to be completely totally
unqualifiedly deprecated.
To another question on the food-scam, Shri Singhvi said
that is the judgment, which we will have to study and
come back to you. It is also to be checked up at what
stage the appellate process is involved in that. You can
rest assured that if those findings are either not
challenged or are upheld and that is the process which
would not take very long either way, this government
more than any is concerned at all nitty-gritty grass
root leakages. Therefore, if there is a specific case,
full action will be taken departmental and criminal.
Tom Vadakkan
Secretary, AICC
