THE RAJYA SABHA
understand the various implications of this Bill. A debate, I concede, is a wholesome thing. I am all for debate. But the committee system has also helped us. The select committee by itself is an institution which examines a Bill in all its details, takes into account all the points and the implications. That is why I want the Honourable Minister to accept our suggestion in the interest of the nation. I am sure he would stand up and say that he accepts our contention and send this Bill to a select committee of the House,” said Shri Gujral. The forthright stand taken by
the Members in defence of the Rajya Sabha spoke volumes for the unfettered law-making power of the House. The preceding statements sharply bring out the assertion of the Rajya Sabha in dealing with legislations at its disposal in a manner which would serve the national interest.
However, Shri Karunakaran
was not agreeable to constituting a select committee to have a fresh look at the legislation. On 31 July 1995 he said that the Department- Related Standing Committee on Industry which had Members of both the Houses of Parliament recommended for alterations and the government was willing to accept all the recommendations. He wondered if the matter could be settled through dialogue and discussion. On 7 August 1995, the Minister
informed the House that, through a series of meetings with all the political parties represented in the Rajya Sabha, a unanimous decision was taken to refer the Bill to a select committee and accordingly he moved a motion to that effect and the House adopted it.
No duplication of committee work The Coast Guard (Amendment) Bill, 1996, was referred by the Rajya Sabha to a select committee on 4 August 1997 even though it had been examined by the Department- Related Standing Committee on Defence and passed by the Lok Sabha.
When the then Minister of State
in the Ministry of Defence, Shri
N.V.N.Somu, moved that the Bill be commended for consideration by the House, three Members (Shri
J.Chitharanjan, Shri Gurudas Das Gupta and Shri Ramachandran Pillai) expressed their desire to refer the Bill to a select committee of the Council of States and move amendments. The Minister argued that it had already been examined by the standing committee of Members of both Houses, recommended unanimously and passed by the Lok Sabha so there was no need to refer it to a select committee. While some Members supported
the Bill, Shri Pillai pleaded that many important issues were not considered by the standing committee. He said that the object of the Bill was to make the Coast Guard Act conform to the Army and Navy Acts but that the proposed amendments were not in consonance with that objective. Many other Members also suggested improvements to the scope and content of the Bill. Finally, Shri Somu took note of
the suggestions and withdrew his objection to referring the Bill but called for the Select Committee to report as soon as possible as one committee had already been through the Bill. A Member replied that there was no duplication of work between the two committees. These examples affirm the full
extent of the power of the Council of States for further study and evaluation of legislation in its select committees as mandated by Rule 69 of the Rules of Procedures and Conduct of Business in the Council of States. It states that when a Bill is introduced or on some subsequent occasion, the Member in charge may move the motion for, among others, referring it either to a select committee of the Council or a joint committee of the Houses with concurrence of the House. Rule 125 states that any Member
(if the Bill has not already been referred to a Joint Committee of the Houses, but not otherwise) move an amendment that the Bill be referred
“The reference of the aforementioned Bills to select committees of the Rajya Sabha, in spite of the fact that they had previously been considered by department-related standing committees and passed by the Lok Sabha, yet again proves beyond doubt the immense legislative power of the Council.”
to the Select Committee and, if such a motion is carried, the Bill shall be referred to a Select Committee, and the rules regarding Select Committees on Bills originating in the Council shall then apply.
Asserting its law-making duty On 21 May 2012 when the Minister of State in the Ministry of Personnel, Public Grievances and Pensions, Shri V. Narayanasamy, continued the discussion on the Lokpal and Lokayuktas Bill, 2011, he urged the House to pass it on the basis of consensus. However, Shri Sitaram Yechury moved that the Bill, although passed by the Lok Sabha, be referred to a select committee of the Rajya Sabha.
Many Members objected but
the Minister of Parliamentary Affairs clarified that “a motion for referring a Bill to a select committee…acquires precedence over everything…. It is for the House to accept it or not.” Many Members argued that only the Minister or the Member in charge of the Bill could move a referral. The Vice-Chairman of the House,
Prof. P.J. Kurien, said any Member has right to move an amendment and the House has every right not to accept it. Finally, the Minister moved the
motion that the Bill be referred to a select committee of the Rajya Sabha and the question was adopted. A prominent daily newspaper The Indian Express reported that the Rajya Sabha opted for more debate by referring the Bill to its select committee. These debates testify to the
credibility and power of the Rajya Sabha to make laws for our country.
This power is validated by the Rules of Procedure and Conduct of Business in the Council of States. The reference of the aforementioned Bills to select committees of the Rajya Sabha, in spite of the fact that they had previously been considered by department-related standing committees and passed by the Lok Sabha, yet again proves beyond doubt the immense legislative power of the Council. Erskine May’s Treatise on The
Law, Privileges, Proceedings and Usage of Parliament refers to the select committees in the House of Commons and states: “Select committees are appointed by the House to perform a wide range of functions on the House’s behalf. Most notably they have become over recent years the principal mechanism by which the House discharges its responsibilities for the scrutiny of government policy and actions. Increasingly this scrutiny work has become the most widely recognized and public means by which Parliament holds government Ministers and their departments to account. “It is the tradition of select committees, bolstered by their practice of deliberating in private, to proceed as far as possible by consensus and without regard to party affiliations.” The detailed analysis of the three aforementioned Bills further testifies to the proposition that the Council of States of India’s Parliament has deepened the traditions of democracy and parliamentary work by referring Bills to select committees to hold the government accountable.
The Parliamentarian | 2013: Issue One | 61
Page 1 |
Page 2 |
Page 3 |
Page 4 |
Page 5 |
Page 6 |
Page 7 |
Page 8 |
Page 9 |
Page 10 |
Page 11 |
Page 12 |
Page 13 |
Page 14 |
Page 15 |
Page 16 |
Page 17 |
Page 18 |
Page 19 |
Page 20 |
Page 21 |
Page 22 |
Page 23 |
Page 24 |
Page 25 |
Page 26 |
Page 27 |
Page 28 |
Page 29 |
Page 30 |
Page 31 |
Page 32 |
Page 33 |
Page 34 |
Page 35 |
Page 36 |
Page 37 |
Page 38 |
Page 39 |
Page 40 |
Page 41 |
Page 42 |
Page 43 |
Page 44 |
Page 45 |
Page 46 |
Page 47 |
Page 48 |
Page 49 |
Page 50 |
Page 51 |
Page 52 |
Page 53 |
Page 54 |
Page 55 |
Page 56 |
Page 57 |
Page 58 |
Page 59 |
Page 60 |
Page 61 |
Page 62 |
Page 63 |
Page 64 |
Page 65 |
Page 66 |
Page 67 |
Page 68 |
Page 69 |
Page 70 |
Page 71 |
Page 72 |
Page 73 |
Page 74 |
Page 75 |
Page 76 |
Page 77 |
Page 78 |
Page 79 |
Page 80 |
Page 81 |
Page 82 |
Page 83 |
Page 84 |
Page 85 |
Page 86 |
Page 87 |
Page 88 |
Page 89 |
Page 90 |
Page 91 |
Page 92