PARLIAMENTARY REPORT
entire amount. Shri K.C. Venugopal (INC) alleged that the BJP government took no new initiative except constituting a SIT under the insistence of the Supreme Court. The government was not serious about bringing back the money as the Finance Minister was busy in explaining the long procedures and technicalities involved in bringing it back and the DTAAs which prevented disclosing the names of the holders of black money. Shri Mekapati Rajamohan Reddy (YSR Congress) believed all social welfare schemes and developmental schemes could be implemented if all the black money was brought back. Dr Arun Kumar (RLSP) said black money could be checked at national and international level by providing good governance at various levels. Prof. Saugata Roy (AITMC) wanted the Finance Minister to say whether he was prepared to revisit the confidentiality clause and work out the DTAA. Shri Tathagata Satpathy (BJD) feared illegal money could be easily used for terrorism and insurgency and was happy that the Prime Minister at least thought that black money needed urgent attention.
Replying to the debate, the Minister of Finance, Minister of Corporate Affairs and Minister of Information and Broadcasting, Shri Arun Jaitley said it was an irony that all the tax treaties India had signed, the laws of the other countries contained a confidentiality clause. It did not mean that such information would never come out. However, after getting the information, evidence had to be gathered, a case filed in court and
INDIA
during the proceedings of the case, the information could become public from there. But prior to it, if the information was made public by the government, it was considered violation of the law or the treaty. After constitution of SIT the government provided all the details it had received about the account holders. Out of the total 627 who had accounts in the HSBC bank in Switzerland in between 2005-2007, the government had identified the names of most of them and they were being prosecuted. Criminal cases would be filed against the persons found guilty of holding illegal accounts and the SIT was taking action in this regard. India had 92 DTAAs with various jurisdictions and the government was trying to reach an automatic transmission of information agreement with all such countries where people might stash black money. The loophole in the law which was silent on the issue of bringing back the stashed money in case it was detected needed to be removed. The Money Laundering Act also needed attention. He assured the House that the government was treading on the correct legal path and soon the guilty people would be punished and they would be forced to bring back the black money.
Reported incident of religious conversion On 11 December 2014, some members demanded the suspension of the Question Hour to take up discussion on the reported incident of religious conversion in the state of Uttar Pradesh. Some Members had given notices for adjournment motion. The Speaker refused to suspend
56| The Parliamentarian | 2015: Issue One
the Question Hour as there was no rule under which a member could ask for the suspension of the Question Hour. She also did not allow the notices of adjournment motion. The Speaker observed that though the matter was important enough, it did not warrant interruption of the business of the day and the matter could be raised through other opportunities. Responding to the submissions made by Members, Shri M. Venkaiah Naidu said the issue was an important issue and the government had no problem discussing it. If the House wanted a central legislation, it could be done. The Speaker said she could allow a discussion once proper notice was received. Later in the day, some members made further submissions on the issue. The Minister of State of the Ministry of Skill Development and Entrepreneurship and Minister of State in the Ministry of Parliamentary Affairs, Shri Rajiv Pratap Rudy said that the government had already accepted the demand for a fully fledged discussion. However, a proper notice should be given. Later, Speaker, Smt. Sumitra Mahajan, after receiving notice, allowed a discussion under Rule 193 although the matter was not included in the day’s order paper. In this context, the Speaker said she was allowing discussion as a special case, without any entry in the list of business. She felt happy that there was a consensus to take up the discussion in the House. Initiating the discussion on the situation arising due to the reported incident of religious conversion, Shri Jyotiraditya M. Scindia (INC) said India was like a
bouquet with a variety of flowers, due to which the fragrance of India spread everywhere. Hinduism did not teach narrow mindedness and bitterness; it was a philosophy. He alleged that in Agra, Uttar Pradesh, several families belonging to a particular religion were forced to convert and were promised certain benefits. It was said that this was just a beginning and that they would convert people not only from one religion but from other religions also. He wanted the government to uphold the Constitution. Shri Sumedhanand Saraswati (BJP) complained that a small incident had been blown to very sensitive proportions while conversion was being forced on the entire eastern region by giving some allurement. The BJP was not in favour of conversion in this country. Shri P. Kumar (AIADMK) believed in equal respect for all religions and maintaining communal harmony. Prof. Saugata Roy (AITC) wanted the House to unanimously adopt a resolution endorsing that conversion was not the philosophy of the country and the whole House stood united against religious conversion. No one should be allowed to polarize society for political benefit. Shri Bhartruhari Mahtab (BJD) said all persons were equally entitled to freedom of conscience, and the right freely to profess, practice and propagate religion. But, if in this process somebody else was offended and public order was disturbed, it was the responsibility of the district magistrate to maintain public order. He mentioned that a Bill had been moved in the Odisha Legislative Assembly in 1959 to restrict
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