Hon.
Speaker Sir, I am thankful to you for the opportunity that
has been offered to me to speak on this small Amendment Bill. Sir, when
this Parliament discussed the 42nd Amendment, it was said that the legislative
competence of the Parliament cannot be questioned in the court of law. This
triggered the controversy. Ultimately, it was settled down later by
virtue of the 44th Amendment. The legislative capacity of Parliament could
not have been questioned in those days. Now, Parliament’s capacity
of legislation has become a mockery through this Bill. I do not know how
this Bill100 was drafted
without giving any due care for the legislative competency of this
Parliament. Ever since this Government came into120 power, Parliament is being misused. Most
of the laws under State subject were brought here for amendment encroaching the
State power. Ultimately, the State autonomy and cooperative federalism became a
laughing stock. It is a small Bill but I am not able to understand the
way nationalism was put up everywhere even in the Advocates Act. The hon.
Minister talks about colonial law. In 1879, the provision was there.
You want to repeal it. But by way of200
repealing it, you are introducing the same section in the new law. What
does it mean? Is it not the same colonial law? I am not able to understand the rationality
of the Government behind this amendment.
What
happened to240 Article 356? Article
356 says that a State Government can be dismissed on the recommendation of the
Governor or otherwise. The word ‘otherwise’ was used by the President when the
Tamil Nadu Government was dismissed without the Governor’s recommendation. It
is such a dangerous provision for Advocates Act. You are putting the same word
‘otherwise’ here.300 Nobody
can say how it is going to be used or misused. This House many times has
discussed corruption at length. The Prevention of Corruption Act has been
periodically amended which says that not only the receiver, but the giver of
the money is also a culprit under the Act and he has to be convicted. The tout
is going360 to be eliminated
and given imprisonment or penalty. Does it not mean that the person who
is giving money is also liable to punishment? What type of justice are you
rendering to A and B between whom the money is400
exchanged? So, the very purpose of the Prevention of Corruption Act itself is
defeated here by the way in which the Bill is drafted. For the first
time, I have come across a Bill which has been submitted to
Parliament, in which the objects and reasons were not at all given. For
what purpose are you going to introduce this Amendment? I want to know whether
the Bar Council of India is going to be consulted when a person is480 going to be listed as a tout. What will
be the role of the Bar Council? Sir, former Chief Justice500 of India, Justice Bharucha, a
decade ago said in the open meeting on the eve of his retirement that 20 per
cent of the judiciary has become corrupt. He made an open statement. If
a litigant is having a case in a particular court, how will he know that the
judge comes under that 20 per cent or the remaining 80 per cent? So, you want
to keep the entire judicial system clean, but for a small matter, you are not
able to draft a clear law to serve the purpose. What type of purpose is
it going to serve?600
Ignorance of law is not an excuse. That is a legal maxim. A person cannot claim
that he did not know the law. What about the society? Still, 30 per cent of
people are illiterate so far as law is concerned; 70 per cent of people
are unaware of the legal system. If you want to regularize the system of
touts, you should frame some reasonable guidelines by permitting or not
permitting them. A healthy discussion must be there in all the forums
including the Bar Council of India. After the examination done by the Bar
Council of India or700 Supreme
Court Judges, a man has been designated as Advocate on Record. A senior
advocate designated by the High Court720
and the Supreme Court cannot be Advocate on Record. Advocate on Record is
afraid; senior advocate is afraid. Who is approaching the senior advocate? Is
it the litigant? No. It is Advocate on Record. The role of the Advocate on
Record becomes quite similar to that of a tout as far as the senior
advocate is concerned. So, a judicial system needs some middlemen to
bypass every loophole in the judicial system. The important question is whether
that must be800
eliminated or that may be regularized with a rational application. That
is a question before this House. I think that this Bill is having no
meaning at all because you are just mechanically transporting a section
which is available in840 1879
Act to the new Act without application of mind. What type of exercise has been
done by the Government? What inference has been drawn from this
100-year-old law? Is this provision essential? Is this provision
workable? Has the practicality of the provision been applied? Nothing
has been done by this Government. But you want to900 remove the corruption in the name of
Narendra Modi starting from small Bill up to a big Bill. So, my only submission
is this. Do not make this Parliament a laughing stock. Do not do the
meaningless exercise for which the competency of the Parliament is
undermined. I request you to revisit the law, draft carefully and try to
make a law which is workable in the judicial system.969
