 Hello and welcome to NewsClick. I'm Poranjoy Gohar Thakurtha and with me here in the studio, I have Satya Narayan Sahu, former joint secretary of the Rajya Sabha and he was an officer on special duty and press secretary to the former president of India, the late K.R. Narayanan and also served as a director in the Prime Minister's office when the Prime Minister was Dr. Manmohan Singh between 2004 and 2009 and has worked with the Rajya Sabha Secretary from 1989 till he retired as joint secretary in 2017. Thank you so much, Mr. Sahu, for coming here. The reason why I've called you is the article that you wrote for the citizen wherein you've said there is a sustained attack on the institution of parliament, which is endangering democracy in this country itself. Many would say, is this too alarmist of you? After all, the monsoon session is on for the first time in 15 years and no confidence motion against the government has been admitted. So why do you say that the institution of parliament is endangered or is being undermined? The main reason behind this is that the parliament is convened by the government of the country, government of the day and the sessions are also scheduled by the government of the day. And since 2014, what has happened is that the number of days for which the parliament is sitting now, that those number of days are shrinking. And this is one of the cause of concern. This has been going on for some time now, even under the UPA regime it was happening and this has continued under the... In UPA regime, at least they were sitting for 70, 80 days. So it has come down to even 60 days. So this is the cause of concern. Apart from that, this particular concern was expressed by many presiding officers that it is meeting less than 100 days per year. Who is responsible for this? It's the government which is responsible for this because the government convenes the session. The budget session was the least productive budget session in 18 years. The 2018 budget session, it worked just a little over a fifth. 21% of the schedule time in the Lok Sabha and 27% in the Rajya Sabha. So you would hold the government squarely responsible. Yes, because you see the Mr. L.K. Adwani, when he saw the parliament getting disrupted, he actually pinpointed one particular problem. The problem is that the Minister of Parliamentary Affairs is not engaging with the opposition to break the lock-jam. Mrs. Hahu, there has been din, there has been pandemonium. It has often marred the proceedings of parliament. So what is new? In what way is the presiding office of the Lok Sabha, the Speaker, Sumitra Mahajan, Mrs. Sumitra Mahajan, or the Rajya Sabha chairperson who is also the Vice President of India, Mr. Venkayanath. In what way do you feel that they have not been able to control the way the two house... No worries, it's not just the din and commotion. You know, a lot of work is also taking place in the committees of the parliament. And those committees, they function very smoothly. One minute, I'm going to come to the committees, but let's just talk about the din. Do you... You know, for instance, the budget was passed. But the Speaker said that, you know, accounted 50 speakers. On other occasions, when earlier, no confidence motion was, the Speaker couldn't find those 50 speakers. Now, there were very, very important legislation, say the Finance Bill, the Finance Act was passed. Some very, very important amendments, including the amendment on the whole issue of foreign funding of political action, all of these were adopted amid much commotion. Yeah, so the point is, you know, that particular amendment was adopted when the house was in complete disorder. But when it came to no confidence motion, you know, the Speaker said that the house is not in order, so therefore it's impossible to take it up. So this problem is that presiding officers, they are using this particular point, that the house is not in order, therefore certain things could not be taken up. So you're saying it's been conveniently interpreted? Yes, it has been interpreted very, very arbitrarily, and very, as you rightly said, very conveniently, to sidestep many of the pressing issues which have been placed before the House by the opposition. Because as Dr. Ambedkar said, the parliament belongs to the opposition, the opposition's space is shrinking. I mean, in terms of their numbers in the Lok Sabha... No, not just in terms of numbers, they must get adequate opportunities, you know, to express their viewpoints, both on the floor of the house and in other forums like committees and so on and so forth. So that is the biggest concern and worry as far as parliament is... No, no, how can the opposition, you have said the opposition should be vigilant, how can the opposition ensure that the reason... ...put forth by the presiding officer, that the house is not in order, be used to stall the working of the houses of parliament, and thereby a lot of important parliamentary business is not taken forward and remain spending. The opposition remains, you know, they have to remain vigilant in the sense, let me tell you one example. When Goa, when the governor didn't invite the single largest party, and invited the Post-Pole Alliance, you know, political formation, you know, then there was a substantive motion was moved in Rajya Sabha to discuss the conduct of the governor. That time, Swami Dhan Sarivati chairman. And the rule says that the substantive motion can be taken for discussion only after consulting the leader of the house. And the leader of the house was Arun Jaitley, he never gave time. So, you think this was deliberately done? It must have been deliberately done. Mr. Digbija Singh, who moved the substantive motion in the Rajya Sabha, because once the governor's conduct could have been discussed under the substantive motion, a lot of things could have been exposed. You know, putting the office of the governor in total embarrassment. Do you think there's any possibility of even the Karnataka government's, a governor, Mr. Vajuvai Vala's role being discussed in part? No, it was not discussed because nobody has given that notice. Question is, in case of Goa governor, the notice was given. But it was not taken up. It was admitted by the presiding officer, Mr. Ansari. And then, when Mr. Digbija Singh repeatedly asked for time for discussion, because hardly few days were left for the house to be adjoined, Saini Dai, then Mr. Ansari said, Mr. Deputy Chairman, on behalf of the chairman, he said, the matter has been admitted, the notice has been admitted, and the rule says that Chairman may consult the leader of the house for allocation of time. He said, may consult. Then Mr. Digbija Singh said, it's not shall consult, it may consult. But, you know, so this means this presiding officer is not a duty-bound or it is not mandatory on the part of the presiding officer to consult the leader of the house to give the time, but time was not given. So, this means that it was deliberately actually scuttled. The motion could not be taken forward. Opposition is not being provided that space to take up issues which are of pressing concern for the interest of democracy. But what do you have to say about the manner in which money bills have been introduced and a whole lot of issues have been put into the money bill so that the Rajasabha doesn't have to vote on it and discuss it. No, it's not a question of money bill being introduced. Many bills are being certified as money bills. As money bills, all right. I stand corrected. I mean, this is exactly the phrasology which needs to be used. So, you know, when it never happened in the history of the Indian parliament, right since 52. Do you think it has everything to do with the fact that the BJP and the NDA did not have a majority in the Rajasabha whereas it has a majority in the Lok Sabha? So, this is how entire the institution of parliament is being subverted. So, who would you hold responsible? The speaker of the Lok Sabha? Obviously, because he is the speaker has the power under the constitution to certify the bills as money bills. So, therefore, if, see, for instance, there was one, you know, Andhra Pradesh Reorganization Bill regarding special status. It was a private member's bill. You know, the consent of the president was also obtained to go ahead with the bill. It was being discussed at the last moment when at the time of voting, certainly Mr. Arun Jaitley said it's a money bill. It cannot be taken forward. So, are you saying the classification of what is a money bill? Yes. It's become extremely arbitrary and it is being, I would go to the extent of saying, is it being misused in order to suit the interests of the ruling dispensation? It appears. It is quite evident. See, for instance, why should a member of Rajasabha, Mr. Jaira Bramesh, would knock the doors of the Supreme Court? I mean, adjudication of speaker's decision whether a bill is money bill or not. Finally, you know what the Supreme Court had to say. No, it is still being adjudicated. But as of now, I mean, that is the Supreme Court can say it is the discussion of the presiding officer. You know, whatever it is, the question is that if such matters concerning legislature are being taken to the courts of law. But that was the argument of the government that this is the discretion of the presiding officer. Am I correct or not? You know, that is OK, but then that can also be challenged. So question is, when a decision is taken by a presiding officer, whosoever it may be, then the presiding officer has to be extra careful to ensure that if it is challenged in the court of law, it would stand the judicial scrutiny. Is this the first time something like this has happened? Yes, exactly. First time. First time something is there were presiding officers like Mr. Robiray, he was the speaker of Luxoba, and he was held in such high esteem. OK, if you look at the functioning of the parliamentary committees in the last four years of the Narendra Modi government, according to you, it has revealed a shocking and a deplorable trend marked by non-reference of most of the bills to the department related parliamentary standing committees for scrutiny and examination. And the establishment of such committees, it happened in 1993, and there was a convention that the presiding officers of the Luxoba or the Rajasabha would refer to the appropriate committees to examine all issues and contentious issues so that members of parliament cutting across different political parties, different party ideologies could recommend changes and alterations and amendments to the bill. Now, what has happened in the last four years? You are saying that this entire convention is no longer in practice, it's not being used? Yes, yes. Actually, what has happened is bills are being pushed through Luxoba and they are being passed without much deliberation and consultation. Lawmaking process is a process which involves a lot of deliberation, a lot of discussion, a lot of application of mind. So, that deliberative and consultative mechanism which should be followed to frame a law is being bypassed, they are being rushed through. And to rush through such bills, they do not refer the bills, the government doesn't refer the bills to the speaker or the presiding officer should refer to the department related parliament standing committees. Let me just briefly tell you about this committee. These committees hold the bureaucracy to account while the ministers are held accountable inside the parliament on the floor of the house. Here in this department related to... The administration is the administration. Introduction of such committees in British House of Commons in 1789 was described as the parliamentary innovation of 20th century. OK, so we did it in 1989 when Mr. Rabire was the speaker. OK. And then Mr. Patil, when he became Sebra's Patil, became speaker. They were done in a full-fledged measure. Mr. K. R. Narayanan inaugurated them in 1983. Now a convention emerged that bills should be sent to the... And now this convention is being given the... Yes, even opposition is demanding Mr. Anand Sharma, he demanded on the floor of the house that please refer the bills to the department related parliament standing committees. 2015, a record number of select committees were created by Rajya Sabha. Select committees are the committees of the house. So Rajya Sabha sent five bills to its own select committees because those bills were not sent to department related parliament standing committees. It's for the first time in a year Rajya Sabha itself sent five bills to its own committees for scrutiny and examination. You have also said that for the first time in the history of the parliament of India, presiding officers and even ministers are interfering in the functioning of parliament. And you cite reports in the media that in the budget session, Shashi Tharoor, who was the chairman of the department related parliamentary standing committee on external affairs, he was directed by the Lok Sabha speaker, Sumitra Mahajan, not to go ahead with the meeting of the committee, which was convened to discuss India-China issues including Doklam. Now the speaker apparently stated that members of the committee attending that meeting during that budget session would be deprived of opportunities to discuss the budget. However, it was subsequently found that this was an unprecedented decision and though Mr. Tharoor did go along with the decision of the speaker and cancelled the meeting, he got to know subsequently that many other department related parliamentary standing committees that had scheduled their meetings on that day went ahead with those meetings. And he wrote a letter to the speaker expressing his anguish at selectively picking out his committee, the committee on external affairs. So how do you make out of this rather unusual and as you say unprecedented situation? There is a rule which mandates the chairman of the committee to convene the meeting of the department related parliamentary standing committees during parliament session and the rule says that the meeting can be convened at 3 p.m. As per that rule, the committee meeting was convened by Mr. Sasi Tharoor by giving notices to the members of the parliament, members of the committees. Now apparently the committee was supposed to discuss Doklam issue and India-China relations and just few minutes before the beginning of the committee meeting, a letter was received by Chairman Mr. Sasi Tharoor that he has received complaints from the members that it is short notice the meeting was convened and that came on their way of participating in the budget discussion. So he said under rule 283 of the rules of procedure and conduct of business of the Loksova, you know, she directed the chairman of the committee to forth with cancel it because the committee's function under the overall jurisdiction of the presiding officer and in case of Loksova, it is speaker. So therefore, Mr. Tharoor abided by the instruction of the orders or instructions of the speaker and cancelled it. But he wrote a letter saying that it is unprecedented. We have all been conducting the meetings of the committee as per the constitutional provision and rules of procedure and never they were violated. Those were violated and then say the directions coming from the speaker to cancel the meeting is violative of speakers earlier direction which is enshrined in 51A, there is some 51A directions of the speaker which mandates that no committee meeting can be cancelled at the last minute. Okay. So why that meeting had to be cancelled? It was never. Only the speaker of the Loksova knows. Are you aware whether she has responded to? No, she never responded. She never responded. And Mr. Tharoor also never made a big issue out of it, I think. I think that letter was probably released to media and later on, on a subsequent date, the committee meeting was convened and Dukla Mishu and other issues were discussed. Question is, why only that committee was asked to cancel the meeting? On that day. When other committees were also scheduled to meet. So what are you trying to say? What does this reflect? The reflection is that committees are considered as mini-parliaments. So in case the members went to the speaker to complain to my mind, the speakers would have suggested that you take up the matter with the chairman because there is no violation of rule as such to hold the meeting at 3 o'clock on 8th February when the committee was scheduled to meet. So in such a situation the point, the apprehension is that possibly the Dukla Mishu was an uncomfortable issue. India-China relation issue may be an uncomfortable issue. So therefore all such things come to the mind. Number two, I have heard, I mean nobody, there is no such concrete evidence or substantive paper based on which one can say. Many chairman of the committees today, these days they say that ministers ask them not to go ahead with a particular issue. Are you making this allegation with the sense of responsibility? Yes, I have heard about it and I have also heard that many of the committees are there on meeting which is very, very unfortunate because I mean I do say keeping in mind the interests of the principle of accountability that the heart of parliament. So the monsoon session which is ongoing, you have described it as possibly the last important session for the NDA government, why do you say that? Because after this, there is a winter session and there is a budget session, if elections are held as per schedule it is going to be held in April, May of 2019. But then where is the time now? Because see this session is hardly few days. So the next session would be also very few days left. So budget session, etc., that would be only on vote and account and all that would be the formality. So effectively there is hardly any time. What is the big message you want to, those who are watching you, those who are listening to you, what is the message you want to leave behind with them? The next democracy in India is based on accountability of the executive to the legislature. So the whole parliament institution is there to scrutinize the activities of the executive, both inside Lok Sabha and Ajay Sabha and within the committees. And the scrutiny, you know, there is a beautiful report of the House of Commons, it is called modernization of the House of Commons. There is a wonderful sentence, it says good scrutiny leads to good governance. So here, you know, when the bills are not referred to the committees, this means there is no scrutiny at all. Thank you so much Mr. Sahu for coming here and giving us your views. It's a pleasure having this conversation with you. And you've just heard and watched Essence Sahu, former joint secretary of the Rajya Sabha, explaining why according to him, the institution of parliament has been severely undermined over the last four years of the Narendra Modi government. Thank you for being with us.