Hon. Members,
I rise in deep anguish to place on record the way this august House
is being subjected to sacrilege and that too propelled by a sense
of competition among some sections of the House since the
commencement of this Monsoon Session. Everything said or done, violating,
hurting or destroying the sacredness of any place amounts to an act of
sacrilege. We are a land of temples, churches, mosques and gurudwaras.
These are holy places with demarcated sacred areas which are known as sanctum
sanctorum. The Parliament, the apex legislature of our country, is regarded
as the temple of democracy. The Table area where the officers and the reporters
of the House, the Secretary-General and the Presiding Officer are120 seated is considered as the holy sanctum
sanctorum of the House. A certain degree of sacredness is attached to
this place. 140 In our
temples, devotees are allowed only up to this sanctum sanctorum and not
beyond. Entering this sanctum160
sanctorum of the House, in itself is an act of sacrilege and it has been
happening as a routine for some time. I am distressed by the way this
sacredness was destroyed yesterday. While some Members sat on the Table, some
others climbed on the Table of the House, perhaps to be more visible with
such acts of sacrilege. I have no words to convey my anguish and to
condemn such acts. As I spent a sleepless night last night, 240 I struggled to find out the provocation
or reason for forcing this august House to hit such a low yesterday. A
discussion on 'Agricultural problems and solutions' was listed. There can be
a difference of opinion and there can be a280 specific demand from anybody.
They could have discussed it in the House, protested and voted against
it. Members have got every right to demand for their withdrawal also. But it is
for the Government to act. You can't320
force the Government to do this or not to do this. Notices of Motions of
different kind are admitted by the Chair and the language to be used in the
'List of Business' is drafted in such a way that it is360 acceptable to all sections of the House
without denting the thrust of the issue to be discussed. It happened yesterday
too. The Chair has been doing it for years. I find it difficult to understand
as to how the way the subject was listed in the List of Business for
yesterday would have prevented any Member from raising any issue420 concerning the farm sector,
including the three farm Bills that some Members were keen to raise in the
House and even demanding their withdrawal. Yesterday, it was a golden
opportunity for the concerned Members to have gone on record with their
positions on all issues relating to the plight of the farmers. When the Chair
is saying something, at least you480
should hear it. It is a different matter whether you agree or disagree. But it
was not to be as the sole intention seems to be to not allow the
House to function. Right at the start of the proceedings of the House
yesterday, I cautioned that not taking up the listed discussion on farm sector would
be a negative approach. What is worrisome is that some Members of the House
have shot the sad moments of sacrilege in the House560 yesterday and posted it on the social
media. While doing so, they only ended up showing to the people the extent to
which this august House can degenerate due to the newfound competitive
and aggressive disruptions by some sections. 600 I was very sad. I am deeply anguished.
The nation is also anguished. As the Chairman of the House, I am scared
to visualize the implications and consequences of such competitive acts of
sacrilege in our Temple of Democracy. 640
I earnestly appeal to the collective conscience of this House to
seriously reflect on what happened yesterday and explore the remedies, if any.
Failure to do so would certainly render our parliamentary democracy irrelevant.
I would like to remind all of you that we begin to celebrate the 75th year of
our independence in a few days from now. The choice700 before each one of you is very clear. It
is either to be the best parliamentarian or the worst disruptor. 720 The choice is yours. I am told
that some people have complained about not showing this on the Rajya Sabha TV. I
do not know why Rajya Sabha TV is not showing this. This also can be shown.
I have no problem, and I do not want to run the House like this.
Hon.
Vice-Chairman Sir, this Bill has been brought keeping in mind the situation
in which micro, small and medium enterprises require a lot of help800 post the pandemic. Sir, this Bill will
help them. In that, we are increasing the threshold and coming up with a
pre-pack solution. Actually speaking, there was this feeling that
there could be a surge in the insolvencies after the suspension
ended of840 the period when some
sections of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code were suspended. As a
result of this, during the Corona period, nobody could take the micro,
small and medium enterprises to the court or demand insolvency processes to
commence with them. But, the suspension of these provisions ended on 24th
March, and there was this feeling that there could be a lot more surge
of insolvencies among the micro, small and medium enterprises. But, Sir, I wish
to suggest to you that given the kind of information that we have, there
is no surge in the insolvencies of micro, small and medium enterprises.
Now, what is the pre-pack? Why do we want a pre-pack? We want the
pre-pack to960 become a part
of the Code and this is very much in alignment with the Code’s processes
and spirit of980 the Code.
But, the reason why we want this is that there is an inadequacy
of existing options. The options available for the micro, small and medium
enterprises are not too many. Then, there are multiple competing options for
ease of doing business. By this, there will be a better way in which
these micro, small and medium enterprises can seek to have a solution. So, this
is being prepared. It is less costly. It is hybrid in nature. The debtor
will still be in control and the creditors will be working together and,
therefore, it is actually going1080
to cut the cost and speed up the process because the whole thing will be
over in 120 days. So, I request all the Members in the House, please understand
the seriousness as to why this Bill has to be passed1120 because it will be of great
importance for the MSMEs to have some relief and this will be a less
expensive way of dealing with it, a time-bound way of doing it. Therefore, I
request the hon. Members of the House to please consider passing it.
Sir, while speaking about the Bill, I
welcome the pre-pack arrangement which has been brought into the Insolvency
and Bankruptcy Code framework. Before getting into the details of
its implementation, let me refer to1200
the international jurisprudence in so far as Insolvency and Bankruptcy
Code is concerned. There is the United Nations Commission on International
Trade Law. It is referred to as expedited reorganisation proceedings to
combine voluntary restructuring negotiations in formal structure
in which a plan is negotiated and agreed to by the bulk of impacted
stakeholders. Even in South Korea, it has been1260 very successful. It is only
in the United Kingdom where the judicial jurisprudence has been
settled in favour of the1280
Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code even though the law is not there. However, there
are concerns about accountability and which has been expressed in the UK law.
Now, I will come to the concerns. While I welcome the Bill in its entirety,
I foresee the following problems that will come in the implementation of
the Bill. Number one is the valuation of the company. Since there is
a greater possibility that the arrangements in which the debtors
are still in possession, even though creditors are not, there is a possibility
of assets valuation by related party arrangement and also by an unscrupulous
resolution professional. Therefore, I think the base resolution plan
should have a minimum value which is the fair value1400 or the liquidation value set and no
Swiss challenge or any such arrangement should go below it. Otherwise,
it should automatically be referred to the Corporate Insolvency Resolution Process.
The other point that I would wish to bring in is1440 the minority shareholders' interest. The current
amendment to the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code basically wants to make the
entire situation quicker, cost-effective and value maximising. Invariably,
it has been found that the minority shareholders'
interest, if it can actually be taken care of, then I think it will be a
great arrangement. The minority shareholders' views are also very important in
making this resolution process acceptable. The third one and the latest one is
the continuation of the adjusting promoters. I am aware of the fact that
there are checks and balances which have been built into the
system. But what we have seen is that the conduct of the resolution
professionals has much to say in so far as the Corporate Insolvency
Resolution Process is concerned. I hope a similar kind of thing does not happen
in the current case. 1590
