The Special Protection [ RAJYA SABHA ] 1991

63 The Special Protection [ RAJYA SABHA ] Group (Amendment) 64 Bill, 1991

[Shri Ashis Sen]

ragement of NRI investment. Did he suggest amnesty being given to persons having illegal money and laundering black money? (Interruptions) . Did he make that suggestion? The name of Jyoti Basu in this context has a significance. That is why I raise this point. (Interruptions) .

THE VICE-CHAIRMAN (SHRI BHASKAR ANNAJI MASODKAR): Please sit down.

Now I shall put the motion regarding consideration of the Bill to vote.

The question is:

"That the Remittances of Foreign Exchange and Investment in Foreign Exchange Bonds (Immunities and Exemptions) Bill, 1991, as passed by the Lok Sabha, be taken into consideration."

The motion was adopted.

THE VICE-CHAIRMAN (SHRI BHASKAR ANNAJI MASODKAR): We shall now take up the clause-by-clause consideration of the Bill.

Clauses 2 to 7 were added to the Bill.

Clause 1, the Enacting Formula, the

Preamble and the Title were added to the

Bill.

SHRI RAMESHWAR THAKUR: I move:

"That the Bill be returned."

The question was put and the motion was

adopted.

The Special Protection Group (Am-endment) Bill, 1931.

THE VICE-CHAIRMAN: We now proceed to the Special Protection Group (Amendment) Bill, 1991.

THE MINISTER OF HOME AFFAIRS (SHRI S. B. CHAVAN): Mr. Vice-Chairman,

Sir, I beg to move:

"That the Bill to amend the Special Protection Group Act, 1988, as passed by the Lok Sabha, be taken into consideration."

As the hon. Members 'are aware, the existing Special Protection Group Act, 1988, provides for security cover only to the Prime Minister in office. After the unfortunate assassination of late Shri Rajiv Gandhi, former Prime Minister, many of the hon. Members have demanded that the Special Protection Group security cover should be provided to the members of the family of late Shri Rajiv Gandhi in view of the fact that they are under a high risk of security. The Government considered the matter and the Special Protection Group (Amendment) Bill, 1991, was introduced in the Lok Sabha which was aimed at amending the Special Protection Group Act in order to cover the family of late Shri Rajivji. However, some of our hon. Members had expressed the opinion that no distinction between the assassinated ex-Prime Minister and the living Prime Ministers should be made. Honouring the views expressed by the hon. Members in this House, the Gov-ernment has reconsidered the Bill and it has now proposed to amend the SPG Act in order to cover the former Prime Ministers. The Gov-ernment has decided that the SPG cover may be provided to the former Prime Ministers and members of their families for a maximum period of five years from the date of their demitting the office of Prime Minister. Time is a great healer and it is expected that with the lapse of five years the threats will recede and will become less imminent and could be dealt with by non-SPG security cover. Sir, I hope the proposed amendment will meet the aspirations of a large number of people who have expressed their serious concern about the security of former Prime Ministers and members of their families. I commend this Bill for the consideration of this august House.

65 The Special Protection [ 14 SEP. 1991 ] Group (Amendment) 66 Bill 1991

The question was proposed.

THE VICE-CHAIRMAN (SHRI BHASKAR ANNAJI MASODKAR): There is one amendment by Shri Satya Prakash Malaviya but he is not present. So the amendment is not moved. Since the amendment by Shri Satya Prakash Malaviya is not moved, the Bill is now open for dis-cussion. Now, we are rising at 1.30 PM for lunch. Before that, the hon. Members can speak. (Interruption). There are several Members who want to speak on the Bill.

SHRI SURESH PACHOURI: He is not present.

SHRI K. G. MAHESWARAPPA: Mr. Vice-Chairman, Sir, there can be no two opinions regarding the need to provide special protection to the members of the family of the late Prime Minister, Shri Rajiv Gandhi, since they are living under the shadow of too great a tragedy. Some hon. Members in this House and outside, who are described as Rajiv's loyalists or coterie, brought so much pressure on the Prime Minister and the Home Minister that an amendment should be made in the existing law, to a great extent, embarrassing the Prime Minister and the Home Minister. It has been reported and I quote:

"The Home Minister is believed to have conveyed to the Prime Minister that these MPs were causing considerable embarassment to the Government by raising the issue of Sonia Gandhi and her children's security on every available occasion in Parlia-ment." (Interruptions)...

THE VICE-CHAIRMAN (SHRI BHASKAR ANNAJI MASODKAR): Please restrain yourself.

SHRI K. G. MAHESWARAPPA: These are facts staring at your face.

SHRI V. NARAYANASAMY (Pon-dicherry): You don't want to give protection to the family of the assassinated ex-Prime Minister. (Interruptions) ...

SHRI K. G. MAHESWARAPPA: (Karnataka): We are not opposed to the protection being proposed to be provided under this Act but the way in which... (Interruptions). I am reading a report stating that the embarrassment caused to the Prime Minister and the Home Minister... (Inter-ruptions)

THE VICE-CHAIRMAN (SHRI BHASKAR ANNAJI MASODKAR): Please restrain yourself.

SHRI K. G. MAHESWARAPPA: No, I am not casting any aspersion on anybody. (Interruptions). In fact, they went to the extent of saying that "progress of this country would be possible only if the kith and kin of the late Prime Minister were to rule this country." I have no object:on if they have that kind of a view. But the point is whether we are going to give special protection on these considera tions. If we proceed according to the law and the provisions contained in the Constitution, under the Cons titution equality before law and equal protection is provided. But I am not opposed to giving special protection to the wife and children of the late Prime Minister, Shri Rajiv Gandhi. As I said in the beginning, they are living under the shadow of too great a tragedy. But the point is, the pro tection could have been provided without this also. If Government of India is so helpless that it cannot provide security without amending the Act -------

THE VICE-CHAIRMAN (SHRI BHASKAR ANNAJI MASODKAR): If you are not opposing it, then what is it ------

SHRI K. G. MAHESWARAPPA: Sir, from one point of view I may have to make some comments and from another point of view I have to support it. Political power, like ail other powers, has radiation effects, some fatal, some beneficial. Therefore, the risk is there. If anyone wants to aim at the highest political power, risk is there in public life. In fact, there are so many other leaders who

67 The Special Protection [RAJYA SABHA] Group (Amendment) 68 Bill, 1991

[Shri K. G. Maheswarappa] are also having a threat to their lives like Miss Jayalalitha in Tamil Nadu, Shri Mulayam Singh Yadav in U.P. and some Governors—the Governor of Jammu and Kashmir, the Governor of Punjab; their life has to be secured. I am not opposed to the protection, as such, given by this particular provision relating to the members of the family of the former Prime Minister, but the manner and the background in which this Bill was brought and the pressure under which it was brought indicate that we are considering the Parliament of this great country as concerned more with a particular family and their kith and kin than with any other political leaders. .. (Interruptions)

SHRI V. NARAYANASAMY: Why not? This family has sacrificed a lot for this country. The country has to honour it.

SHRI MADAN BHATIA (Nominated): Sir, the hon. Member's entire speech is marked by nothing except hypocrisy. Does he not understand hypocrisy? He is taking the. House for a ride. Does he think that we are dunces as not to take notice of it?.. (Interruptions)...

SHRI K. G. MAHESWARAPPA: You may have your own view. There are other people who are also under threat. Two of our leaders, two Ministers, in U.P. were killed ...................... (interruptions)...Two ex-Ministers and two important Ministers of Janata Dal were killed in U.P. and there are threats to so many important leaders in this country and therefore, I am not opposed to giving protection ---------------

(interruptions)... but this protection should be uniform. We are spending a lot of money on their security. In Delhi alone Rs. 100 crores are spent on the security arrangements. If there is a real threat, you give it to every body; you make a universal provision to give protection and incur expenditure. With these words, I support the Bill.

THE VICE-CHAIRMAN (SHRI BHASKAR ANNAJI MASODKAR): The House is adjourned for lunch till 2.30 P.M.

The House then adjourned for lunch at twenty eight minutes past one of the clock.

The House reassembled after lunch at thirty-four minutes past two of the clock, The Vice-Chairman (Dr. Nagen Saikia) in the Chair.

69 The Special Protection [14 SEPT. 1991] Group (Amendment) 70 Bill, 1991 .

71 The Special Protection [RAJYA SABHA] Group (.Amendment) 72

Bill. 1991

73 The Special Protection [14 SEPT. 1991] Group (Amendment) 74 Bill, 1991

79 The Special Protection [RAJYA SABHA] Group {Amendment) 80 Bill, 1991


SHRI V. NARAYANASAMY: I stand here to support the Bill moved by the hon. Home Minister to provide SPG security to the former Prime Minister's immediate family members. The demand for providing SPG security was made when we were in the opposition. We demanded from the then ruling party, when Shri V. P. Singh was the Prime Minister that our leader, Shri Rajiv Gandhi should be provided SPG security as he was under severe security threat. But on political considerations, V.Pr Singh Government refused in spite of IB report to the

effect that there was a threat to his life from the extremist and terrorist forces. I would say in this connection that this demand was not acceded to not because they felt that there was no threat to Shri Rajiv Gandhi and his family but it was only on petty considerations, on political considerations and the V.P. Singh Government refused SPG security to Shri Rajiv Gandhi. If they had wanted to give protection to our leader, they could have amended the Act. We had made a demand in this House that the SPG Act should be amended to give protection to Shri Rajiv Gandhi and his family. But it was not taken care of. And for that, we have paid a heavy price. We lost our leader who was about to take over the throne. We have lost him. Not only it is a loss of Congress party alone; it was taken but some leaders as if it was the loss of the Congress party alone. I would say it is not the loss of the Congress party; it is the loss of the whole country, and not only our country, it is the loss to the world because Shri Rajiv Gandhi was regarded as the world leader by leaders of other

countries. Therefore, it is 3.00 P.M. an unbearable loss for

the Congress Party and the nation as a whole, because of the mistake committed by the then V.P. Singh Government. Apart from that, even when the Chandra Shekhar Government was there, there was a specific I.B. report to the effect that there was a threat to the life of Shri Rajiv Gandhi by the LTTE. There was a specific report. But even the Chandra Shekhar Government did not do anything. We also raised this issue in the House, but the Chandra Shekhar Government took it very lightly. That was also one of the reasons. Now, when we raised the issue after the assassina-tIon of our leader that Rajiv Gandhi's family members should be given the SPG security, we find criticism everywhere from all corners of this country. One should not forget that in this country, those who have laid down their lives for the unity and

[Shri V. Narayanaswamy] integrity of our country were the great leaders—apart from the freedom fighters Mahatma Gandhi, Smt. Indira Gandhi and Shri Rajiv Gandhi. These three leaders laid down their lives without compromising on their principles.

SHRI CHATURANAN MISHRA (Bihar): Why don't you consider the lives of freedom fighters as valuable?

SHRI V. NARAYANASAMY: I said, "apart from the freedom fighters", kindly listen to what I say. It is on record. With great respect, hon. Member, I said that.

SHRI R. K. DHAWAN (Andhra Pradesh) : But, they did not lose then-lives because of security threat or security reasons. Don't forget that.

SHRI V. NARAYANASAMY: The three leaders have laid down their lives to keep our country united. But, which of the leaders from the other side have sacrificed their livea for the unity of this country? In the 11 months of the Janata Dal period .........(Interruptions)

SHRI CHATURANAN MISHRA: This is not the way to challenge. We all respect Smt. Indira Gandhi, Shri Rajiv Gandhi and Mahatama Gandhi. If you challenge, I can give you lots of names. Our Party Secretary, Mr. Zahoor was killed in Kashmir... (Interruptions)

SHRI R. K. DHAWAN: Many Congress workers are killed throughout this country. So, you cannot compare the workers with the leaders.

SHRI CHATURANAN MISHRA: But why are you challenging? .. (Interruptions)

THE VICE-CHAIRMAN (DR. NAGEN SAIKIA): Please don't enter into argument... (Interruptions)

SHRI R. K. DHAWAN: None of your leaders have lost their lives because of security failure... (Interruptions)

THE VICE-CHAIRMAN (DR. NAGEN SAIKIA): Mr. Mishra, Mr.

Group (Amendment) 84 Bill, 1991

Dhawan, If you want to say something, you say it through the Chair, not directly to the Members... (Interruptions)

SHRI GOPALSINH G. SOLANKI (Gujarat): Under your Government, Mahatma Gandhi was murdered and you did not do anything. This is not the way you should raise, when the Opposition is co-operating... (Interruptions)

SHRI V. NARAYANASAMY: You do not know the agony of the Congress men... (Interruptions)

THE VICE-CHAIRMAN (DR. NAGEN SAIKIA): Mr. Mishra, do you have a point of order? if you don't have a point of order, you can't enter into argument.

SHRI V. NARAYANASAMY: Now, the issue is, an amendment has been brought to this Bill. Really speaking, the cvigfnal Bill that was brought was to give protection to the family of the assassinated Prime Minister or the Prime Minister or his family or families of the assassinated ex-Prime Minister. Now, that was amended in the Lok Sabha and the new Bill has come here. Now, the Government is equating the assassinated Prime Minister with the ex-Prime Ministers who are alive. I feel that they have done injustice by moving an amendment in the Lok Sabha. Why do I say this? The ex-Prime Minister should be given protection. There can be no two opinions about that. But I say that the family which has sacrificed for the country should be respected more than the other people. Therefore, I say that the earlier clause, when this Bill was introduced in the Lok Sabha, i.e. members of the immediate family of the Prime Minister, assassinated Prime Minister and assassinated ex-Prime Ministers should have been there.

SHRI R. K. DHAWAN: Not this one.

SHRI V. NARAYANASAMY: I would also say that this limitation of five years should not be there. The family of the assassinated ex-Prime

83 The Special Protection [RAJYA SABHA]


Minister shuld be placed on a different footing.

Through this Bill, protection is given to the family of the Ex-Prime Minister. But I want to point out that a list if 110 persons has come from the Ex-Prime Minister's family to the Home Minister, seeking protection for these people. The definition says: members of the immediate family'. It means, wife, husband, children and parents. How can they seek protection for 110 persons, including members of the third and fourth generation and other distant relatives under this term third and fourth generation and other distant relatives under this term members of the immediate family'? Protection should be given only to those who are in dire need of it.

Sir, right from the beginning, Rajiv Gandhi and his family have been facing a serious threat. Now, there is a clear threat to Soniaji. Her children could not study in Delhi. What is the crime they have committed? Even to school they cannot go? (Interruptions) Therefore, as I said, this limitation should not be there. There should be a clause in the Bill. The family members of the assassinated ex-Prime Minister should be in a special category because they have laid down their lives for the unity and integrity of the country.

I have just one more point. The Central Government did not give protection to Shri Rajiv Gandhi. I have seen myself personally. Rajivji visited Tamil Nadu several times when he was the Leader of the Opposition. No security was provided to him by the then Tamil Nadu Government. I have seen it myself. They ignored him. Even though it was known that Rajiv Gandhi was facing a serious threat, they completely ignored him. They did not give any protection. Therefore, the LTTE militants chose Tamil Nadu for assassinating our leader. Apart from the national and international conspiracy, I blame the then DMK Government for not giving full protec-tion to our leader. As a result, we

lost our leader. The DMK Government which was ruling at that time is responsible for this.

SHRI S. VIDUTHALAI VIRUMBI (Tamil Nadu): Sir, on a point of order. The Hon. Member is alleging that the DMK Government did not give proper protection to Shri Rajiv Gandhi whenever he toured Tamil Nadu. I want to make it clear and put it on record.

SHRI V. NARAYANASAMY: Sir, is it a point of order? This is not a point of order. (Interruptions)

THE VICE-CHAIRMAN (DR. NAGEN SAIKIA): Let me decide whether it is a point of order or not

SHRI S. VIDUTHALAI VIRUMBI: Sir, during the period of the DMK Government, Shri Rajiv Gandhi visited Tamil Nadu nine times. (Interruptions) I have not completed. He visited Tamil Nadu nine times. He got full security and returned back Delhi safe and sound.

THE VICE-CHAIRMAN (DRt NAGEN SAIKIA): What is your point of order?

SHRI S. VIDUTHALAI VIRUMBI: He was assassinated during the President's rule. Therefore, there is no ground for accusing the then DMK Government. It is a false allegation. It is a false charge. (Interroptions)

SHRI V. NARAYANASAMY: Sir, this is not a point of order How can it be? (Interruptions)

THE VICE-CHAIRMAN (DR. NAGEN SAIKIA): Mr. Narayanasamy, please conclude now.

SHRI V. NARAYANASAMY: I am concluding. I said that whenever Rajivji, as the Leader of the Opposition, visited Tamil Nadu, he was not given protection.

SHRI V. NARAYANASAMY: He was not given security and that provoked the militants to fix this place. They selected this place...(Interruptions) .

SHRI S. VIDUTHALAI VIRUMBI: I have clearly understood what you said.

87 The Special Protection [RAJYA SABHA] Group (Amendment) 88 Bill. 1991

THE VICE-CHAIRMAN (DR.

NAGEN SAIKIA): Please confine yourself to the Bill and conclude. Do not enter into the argument.

SHRI V. NARAYANASAMY: DMK was also responsible.

SHRI S. VIDUTHALAI VIRUMBI: Nine times he visited Tamil Nadu and returned safely... (Interruptions) .

THE VICE-CHAIRMAN (DR.. NAGEN SAIKIA): Nothing will go on record. I have said, if you go on speaking without my permission, nothing will go on record. You have fclresdy had your say. I have given you a chance to make your point. Please take your seat.

Yes, please carry on and conclude. Do not enter into arguments. You know that you are a whip of the party, you know the constraint of time also. (Interruptions)

SHRI V. NARAYANASAMY: Only the Z category persons... (In-terruptions).

THE VICE-CHAIRMAN (DR. NAGE.N SAIKIA): Please take your seat. Mr. Dhawan, nothing is going on record.

SHRI S. VIDUTHALAI VII UMBl:

SHRI R, K. DHAWAN:*

THE VICE-CHAIRMAN (DR. NAGEN SAIKIA): Please do not record if anybody is speaking without the permission of the Chair. Why are you entering into an argument? You are entering into an argument directly with the Member. It is not good.

SHRI S. VIDUTHALAI VIRUMBI:*

SHRI R. K. DHAWAN:*

THE VICE-CHAIRMAN (DR. NAGEN SAIKIA): Nothing is going on record without my permission. Mr. Virumbi, please take your seat, you have said enough. If without the permission of the Chair anybody stands up and speaks something, it will not go on record. Yes, Mr. Narayanasamy.

*Not recorded.

SHRI V. NARAYANASAMY: I would like to plead with the hon. Home Minister that the security that has been provided in the Blue Book has also to be provided to the Z category people.

With these words I support the Bill and hope the hon. Home Minister will come with an amendment on the point which I have raised before this House.

Thank you.

SHRI GOPALSINH G. SOLANKI: Mr. Vice-Chairman, Sir, the need to introduce this Bill was felt in the year 1988. Now it is found that it is necessary to amend the Bill and, therefore, we are discussing this Bill. But I would like to say that the Bill does not show any object to bring this amending Bill. Every legislation is made with a particular object in view and we do know why the present amendment Bill has been brought forth but it has no object, particularly, shown in it. So, that may be shown.

We are in a democratic country but at present the situation has so worsened that criminal activities, crimes like kidnapping and terrorism are on the increase and this Bill terrorists are rampant. At the same time this Bill has been initiated not because of the mental shocks suffered by the Congressmen but with a view to giving protection to the family of the former Prime Minister and his near relatives. At the first stage it was brought with a view to protecting the family of the late Prime Minister Shri Rajiv Gandhi but, at a later stage, the words "the former Prime Minister and his near relatives" were added. It is for common good but, at the same time, in a democratic country we have to look after the interests of the common class of people also. We have for instance Mr. Ribeiro, on whose life an attempt was made abroad also and General Sunderji. I do not compare those people with Shri Rajiv Gandhi but, at the same time, protection is needed to be given to these people also.

89 The Special Protection [14 SEPT. 19913 Group (Amendment) 90 Bill, 1991

Not only are the lives of near relatives of Shri Rajiv Gandhi important but the life of the common man working in the street is also important if he enters politics and, therefore, the interests of the common people also have to be protected in a democratic nation.

In clause' (i) of sub-section (2) of section 4 of the Act it is mentioned, "any former Prime Minister or the members of his immediate family for a period of five years from the date on which the former Prime Minister ceases to hold the office of Prime Minister." So far as this aspect is concerned, the honourable Minister must have put this clause with a view, perhaps, to reducing the expenditure or because otherwise it could be construed as discrimination against other former Prime Ministers. Bui what kind of protection is to be given to Soniaji? She had gone abroad and has come back now. Was protection given abroad? What kind of protection is provided for Shri Rajiv Gandhi's son and daughter? Would this amount of Rs. 4.5 crores be sufficient to meet the security demands of his family? If such protection is given arboad, I don't think this amount would be sufficient. So this aspect is also required to be surveyed. By all means this protection is required to be maintained.

Therefore, Sir, I support this Bill. Thank you.

THE VICK-CHAIRMAN (DR. NAGEN SAIKIA): Shri S. S. Ahlu-walia. Within ten minutes you shall have to complete your speech.


THE VICE-CHAIRMAN (SHRI BHASKAR ANNA JI MASODKAR): Wihout referring to me, please try to conclude.

95 The Special Protection [RAJYA SABHA] Group (Amendment) 96

Bill, 1991

SHRI P. UPENDRA: Nobody can refuse it.


[. ] Transliteration in Arabic

Script.

99 The Special Protection [RAJYA SABHA] Group (Amendment) 100

Bill, 1991


SHRI G. SWAMINATHAN (Tamil Nadu): Mr. Vice-Chairman, Sir I

welcome this Special Protection Group (Amendment) Bill, 1991. As it is well known, Sir, the original Bill was passed in the year 1988 and according to that Bill SPG was radsed to provide proximate security to the Prime Minister and his immediate family. Subsequently,' as amended, now it has been given to the former Prime Minister and his immediate family. After the tragic, assassination of Rajiv. Gandhi special protection has to be given to Shrimati Soniaji and her children; we are very happy that this Bill contem-plate such a protection to them. We are very happy that such protection is bering given to them.

Sir, with discussion that had been going an some of our Members had spoken in Hindi I could not follow it completely, yet it appears they said "family!' means a large number of members. Someone was saying that it may even be a hundred people. It has clearly been defined, in the eriginal Act, the Act of 1988,— this is the only Bill have with me— "the members of the immediate "family" means wife, husband, son, daughter and parents..." The same has teen brought into this amendment "The immediate family" only means wife, husband, children and parenls. That is what it means. It will not mean hundred people in a family. I don't know why this question has come about. This Bill envisages protection only for a period of five years. It has already been Said by many hon. Members and 1 also endorse their view that a period of five years seems to be too short a time. Under the present tragic circumstances through which our country is passing, five years may be took short a time and I personally feel at least ten years' time initially should have been given; otherwise a provision should' have been made in this Bill. After five years suppose the security threat is still there, on the request of the family, Government should have the power to extend it again for another five years. According to the Bill, as we see it,


the Government has been empower ed to give protection only for five years. Subsequently for another five years i£ the Government has to give protection, without that provision in his Bill I don't know how it can give. I would like to know whether another amendment is to be brought. I do not say for ten years you should immediately bring yet. I think it is better. Suppose you are no1 able to bring it and suppose after five years you are not able to extend it and the security threat continues, then... (Time bell rings)... {Interruptions)

You have given so much time to other Members. How can I complete it in such a short time?

THE VICE-CHAIRMAN (DR.

NAGEN SAIKIA): You know the strength of your party and you know the time-limit also.

SHRI G. SWAMINATHAN: I don't think you should stipulate it...

THE VICE-CHAIRMAN (DR. NA-GEN SAIKIA): Please conclude now.

SHRI G. SWAMINATHAN: Another point is protection is being given only to the former Prime Minister. I also plead through you, Sir, that if a former President also wants protection the security threat may be there to the former President also, he should also be given the protection because the former President is also an important person...

AN HON. MEMBER: Giani Zail Singh?

SHRI G. SWAMINATHAN: You may understand what I mean. When you give protection to your former Prime Ministers I don't say every President will have the security threat, then there should also be some power for Government in this Bill to give protection to the ex-President, if he also requires it. Suppose he is having a security threat and he wants this kind of protection, the Government should be able to give that protection to the ex-President and bis family also...

SHRI SURESH PACHOURI: What about the Vice-President?

SHRI G. SWAMINATHAN: one more thing. According a different Act, important persons were defined. The important persons are President, Vice-President, Prime Minister and Speaker. Now we are saying that it is only for the Ex-Prime Minister. I am bringing this fact to the notice of the hon. Home Minister to inform that there are other important people too who may need protection. We are interested in the highest office of the President. If tomorrow the President requires this kind of SPG protection, it is necessary that such a protection should be given to him as is given to the ex-Prime Minister. It will not be fair if full protection is not given to the ex-President when he requires it.

Now, coming to the most important point, I saw in today's newspaper that the hon. Home Minister had written to some of the Chief Ministers, including Assam, Haryana and Tamil Nadu, that the NSG protection given to them was to be withdrawn since the Black Cat Commandos—the NSGs were required for more important duties. This is what has appeared in the Press. I request the hon. Minister to inform us whether it is true because the INDIAN EXPRESS has given a very big news item, "3 CMs, other VIPs protest move to withdraw NSG cover" and it has been stated that the NSG is required for more important duties such as Independence Day duties. Sir, I wish to say that all the Chief Ministers who face threats should be protected, including the Chief Minister of Tamil Nadu. One month back when there was a discussion on this NSG cover I asked the hon. Home Minister whether he had written any letter to the Chief Ministers, and especially to the Tamil Nadu Chief Minister, that he was proposing to withdraw the NSG cover to them. The hon. Home Minister told us at that time that he had not written any such letter and I hope he has not

[Shri G. Swaminathan]

written—but the Press report says contrary to what he had said. The Tiamil Nadu Chief Minister is facing severe security threat from the LTTE militants and it is said that nearly 1.75 lakhs of Srilankans are outside the camp. It is also reported in .today's newspapers that the Tamil Nadu Chief Minister has stated in the Tamil Nadu Assembly that there was a plot against her by the Orga nisation for Civil and Democratic Rights, a Naxalite sympathiser orga nisation, to kill her. She is on top in the hit-list in the country. I re quest the hon. Home Minister that he should not withdraw the NSG cover to her so that the Tamil Nadu police may have time to get adequately trained. The NSGs Commandos as you are aware, are highly trained and highly motivated and you should give sufficient time for the State police to train its people to come up to the level of NSG and till that time NSG protection is to be given. Sir, in conclusion I support this Bill on behalf of my party.

SHRI DAVID LEDGER (Assam): Mr. Vice-Chairman, Sir, I am not opposed to this Bill, although I must say that I have certain reservations. The Special Protection Group Act was passed in May 1988. Provision was made in section 4 of the Act to create an armed force by the name of "Special Protection Group" for providing proximate security to the Prime Minister and his immediate family members. Sir, the present Bill, that is the Special Protection .Group (Amendment) Bill, 1991, inter , alia seeks to bring an amendment to Section 4 of the SPG Act. The amendment envisages a provision for providing proximate security to any former Prime Minister or members of his family for a period of five years from the day on which he ceases to hold the office of the Prime Minister. Sir, the .Bill, as we understand, has been brqught in view of a threat perception to Mrs. Sonia Gandhi and her children. . Nobody denies that the law

and order situation in the country is worsening day by day. Security of the citizens has become a matter of great concern. We agree that there is need to provide adequate security to the VIPs and VVIPs because they are more vulnerable because of the positions which they occupy. But the principle of bringing about a legislation for specifically providing security to one family is what we take objection to.

SHRI SURESH PACHOURI: Sir, I want to make it clear to the hon. Members that it is not a question of providing security to one family only. If you go through the Bill you will find that it is clearly indicated that security is to be provided to all the family members of the former Prime Ministers... (Interruptions)...

THE VICE-CHAIRMAN (DR. NA-GEN SAIKIA): Yes, that is there.

SHRI DAVID LEDGER: I have gone through the Bill, for your information.

Sir, we are all sympathetic to the widow and children of the late Rajiv Gandhi. And we would like to put it on record that whenever disagreed on the need to provide adequate security to them. But my impression is that the present Bill is trying to create a separate class of citizens in this country. The very principle of trying to create a separate class if citizens in the country is what we have taken objection to and there if nothing more to it. May I also point out that the lives of other citizens are equally important and valua-able and the responsibility of the Government cannot be confined to providing security to the member; of one family or two families o: three families alone? It is its respon sibility and duty to provide securit; to each and every family, to eacl and every citizen.

107 The Special Protection [RAJYA SABHA] Group (Amendment) 108 Bill. 1991


But what is the general impresssion today, Sir? The general impression today is that special security has become a status symbol and the general impression, the general feeling, is that the Constitutional provision of equality before law is being vilated by this Bill. Therefore, the general feeling is that there is discrimination. There is also a feeling that a poor country like our cannot afford to spend Rs. 4.5 crores per year for providing security to one or two or three families. This is the general impression now.

Sir, 1 am not going to take much time. I would only say that it is the duty of the Government to allay these feelings. How it is to be done is for the Government to decide. And, Sir, the Government should also give an assurance, because there is an apprehension, that adequate security arrangements will be made for each and every citizen whenever there is a threat perception.

I have already said that I am opposed to the principle of this Bill, but I am not opposed to this Bill.

With these words, Sir, I conclude.


SHRI MADAN BHATIA: Sir, I had made a suggestion to the hon. Home Minister from the floor of this House in the last session that the only amendment that need be made in section 4 should be to the effect "the Prime Minister and members of his immediate family or members of the immediate family of a Prime Minister or a former Prime Minister who is assassinated." The Bill that was originally moved by the hon. Home Minister in the Lok Sabha conformed to the suggestion that I had made in this House. Now that Bill which has been passed by the Lok Sabha and has been brought before this hon. House has been amended to a consi-derable extent. If these amendments had to be brought in by the hon. Home Minister under any legal objections that the Bill as it existed could be described as discriminatory being confined to particular individuals or to particular class of individuals and therefore, it might not be constitutional, then I respectfully submit, Sir, that this was not tenable. It has been held by the Supreme Court in Mrs. Indira Gandhi's election case that a single individual can constitute a class by itself under Article 14 of the Constitution.

[The Vice-Chairman (Prof. Chan-dresh P. Thakur) in the Chair.J

I put to the hon. Members of the House: Is it ever possible to place at par members of the family of an assassinated Prime Minister with the Prime Minister or members of family of that Prime Minister who holds office, say, for a period of two months, and is forced to resign or quit his office because he loses the support of the majority in the House? An assassinated Prime Minister has been the target of poli-tical forces on account of his performance as Prime Minister for the sake of his country. He constitutes a


dass by himself. The members of his family constitute a class by them selves. But a Prime Minister who leaves his office in the oridnary cour se of constitutional changes cannot be placed at par with the Prime Minister who has become the target of such forces. This is exactly what this Bill has done by virtue of this amendment. Here this Bill was brought and the Aims and Objects made clear the circumstances which impelled this Government to bring this Bill.

Mr. Rajiv Gandhi was assassinated. And it was no ordinary political assassination. He had been the target of forces of violence for years—not only from one side, forces of violence and terrorism from Punjab, forces of violence and terrorism of ULFA, forces of violence and terrorism of LTTE which had spread its strongholds in Tamil Nadu, but permit me to say, Sir, he had become the target of attack and elimination because he stood up to raise his voice during the Gulf crisis that India will not accept the hegemony of one super power. When it become clear that he was going to be the Prime Minister of the country and he would become the rallying point of the Third World countries against the hegemony of one super power, all the external forces which were interested in establishing hegemony over the world, they concentrated their efforts to see to it that Mr. Rajiv Gandhi does not occupy the office of Prime Minister. And there is a strong suspicion, there is a reason to believe, that behind the assassination of Mr. Rajiv Gandhi it was not just the LTTE, LTTE was also a coverage for other more sinister forces. Can, in the circumstances be said, that the family of Mr. Rajiv Gandhi does not constitute a class by itself within the terms of article 14 of the Constitution and has to be placed at par with the members of the family of the former Prime Ministers who had to resign from office, not because they incurred the wrath of those forces who were trying to destroy the unity and integrity

of the country but because of their own inappropriate actions, on account of their actions which threw them but of office?

I respectfully submit, Sir, to place the family of Shri Rajiv Gandhi by itself—I name it, and I deliberately name it, to place the family of

Shri Rajiv Ghndhi who was assassinated, in these circumstances, at par with former Prime Ministers, other former Prime Ministers, or at par with the members of their families, is by itself rather unconstituional. It is making an unequal equal. And the Supreme Court says that under article 14 of the Constitution even the unequals cannot be treated as equals.

With these words, I support the Bill.


THE VICE-CHAIRMAN (PROF. CHANDRESH P. THAKUR): Now the Minister will reply.

SHRI ASHIS SEN (West Bengal): Bir, before the Home Minister speaks I have got a small query.

THE VICE-CHAIRMAN (PROF. CHANDRESH P. THAKUR): You have already spoken several times.

SHRI ASHIS SEN: I am only asking a clarification.

THE VICE-CHAIRMAN (PROF. CHANDRESH P. THAKUR): When he has not spoken then what is the clarification?

SHRI ASHIS SEN: I am not interrupting him. I am only asking for a clarification so that he can cover it. I would like to know by way of re-captulation under whose direction, .under whose guidance and command the SPG will be operating. Is it under the Home Ministry or under the Cabinet or under one individual in the office of the Prime Minister? •.

SHRI S. B. CHAVAN: Mr. Vice-Chairman, Sir, I must express my satisfaction the way this Bill has been debated in this House. It was a very high-level discussion contributing in a big way as to what needs to be done and what the hon. Members feel should have been brought in this Bill rather than what the Bill contains. - I quite appreciate their point of view. But at the same time,- hon. Members will appreciate that this Bill, as- it is, has come from Lok Sabha where we had a lot of discus-sion and we had to concede this point that SPG cannot be provided only for one family. The" way the discussion went oh, I really felt that We Should not have made a mention of any particular name. The way

the discussion took place in the other House, I can't refer here. That is why, I would not like to go into de tails. The entire atmosphere, that we find not only in India but outside also, is not very congenial for free expression of opinion. We have come to a stage where we have become so intolerant that if somebody is ex pressing his view, we will not even allow him to finish his sentence. Im mediately we will spring up from our chair and say 'no' it is not correct'. If one is expressing one's view, one has full authority. Thereafter, if you get a chance you can express whatever you feel. It is not mere dissent.

Now, a tendency is slowly develop ing wherein those who are in Politics consider that if you are not with me, you are against me. If he is against you then in a democratic set-up everybody has a right to express his view. We deny him of that right and sometimes we go to the extent of physically eliminating or assaulting him. There have been occasions when we find that people have been behaving in a manner—sometimes we do feel in both the Houses of Parliament also—that we feel quite apprehensive that somebody may not come and attack us. That is the kind of situation in which we are working.

SHRI P. UPENDRA: No, no, it is an exaggeration. We have not come to that stage.

THE VICE-CHAIRMAN (PROF. CHANDRESH P. THAKUR): Leave it at that. That should not be a bone of contention.

SHRI S. B. CHAVAN: I wish I could agree with you. But I have seen—but I would not like to say anything new because immediately somebody will get up to raise a point of order So, I would not go into the details.

Sir, about the assassination of Shri Rajiv Gandhi, you' cannot take it away from the background in. which


the whole thing happened. Mr. Bha-tia was very right when he said that communal situation had been developing in the country and how people were trying to make Shri Rajiv Gandhi—as it happened in the case of Shrimati Indira Gandhi also—a target of attack, as if by eliminating one person, the entire thing will change and they would have the way in which they want to act in this country or outside. In the international field also, many people may or may not like the idea; but the fact still remains that there are people who are, in fact, very much opposed to the idea of somebody trying to organise the Third World countries. It is not to the liking of some of the nations and that is why thus is not favoured. You may no favour it but I don't know it is considered antagonistic attitude. African countries and their Foreign Ministers are meeting in Delhi. If they want to organise themselves and see that newly-freed countries also form a kind of a bloc and not align with any particular bloc, that is also supposed to be a kind of a hostile act on the part of some of the people who take a lead in the battle. So, national and international—all these-—forces were working and there are incidents which had happened. When Rajivji had been to Sri Lanka, he was actually attacked. Attempts were made in some other countries also for which details could not come out; but there were constant efforts on the part of some organisations to see that, some physical harm was done to the life of a person whose ideas were not to the liking of certain people.

May I now go to the threat part where one of the hon. Members also said that in principle they are opposed to it but he is not opposed to the Bill. And the stress was on the distinction that we are trying to make between one person and the other in this country. I think if you look through the scheme of the Act of 1988, the SPG- Act itself was meant only for a particular class of people. It is only meant for the Prime Minis-

ters, and that is why this has been confined to Prime Ministers, Ex. Prime Ministers and their families. I have no quarrel with that. It is the primary resopnsibility of the Government to see that ordi nary citizens should also be provided all the security if there is a security threat. Are we prepared to accept the position that amongst the ordi nary citizens also there are some people to whom threat is more than the other? The hon. Members come to me and ask for providing some kind or security because of the fact that they feel that there are some people who are, in fact, trying to attack them, or that they feel that there is danger to their life and they ask for security. So, there is a distinction between an ordinary citi zen and a Member. Now, even among ordinary citizens also, for some, the threat is more and for others, threat may not be there or if it is there, it is only a sort of a small threat. So, we do not deny the fact that ordinary citizens will have to be provided with security and their life aid property will have to be protected. That is the primary responsibility of the State Govern ment as well as the Central Govern ment . But in the due discharge of ths duties, if the Prime Minister has to take certain decisions which are un- platable to certain class of people, are we not going to provide for their security and security for their family? This is the basic question on which every hon. Member should apply his mind and come to a definite conclusion. I think, it is highly necessary that this class of people will have to be provided with security because a number of decisions have to be taken which, in fact are not to the liking of some sections of the society. A point was also made that the President, the Vice President, the Speaker and certain other persons have also to be provided with security. In fact, they have been given security, but of a different kind. They are VVTPs and security has been provided to them. Now the only point is that in a democra-

[Shri S. B. Chavan]

tic set-up and the kind of set-up that we have accepted, the executive head and the decision-making power vests in the Prime Minister. And the President is the Constitutional Head of the country. So, nobody will say- that the President has taken this de cision; nobody will say that the Vice- President has taken the decision, with due respect to the Chairman of our House. But these are Constitu tional authorities. The seal decision making is done by the Prime Minis ter. It becomes all the more neces sary that we have to provide a spe cial kind of security to these people. I have set five years. It does not necessarily mean that we are not going to review the matter after five year's.

Maybe, in certain cases, we have to amend this Act. If an amendment is necessary, we can amend it earlier also in favour of the family members who, in fact, are facing great danger to their lives. A point was also made as to the kind of security which has to be provided to Soniaji and their children when they go abroad. I do not want to go into the details of that. I can assure you that we have an understanding with a number of countries. We just inform them and, thereafter they take care of the security measures. It is not on my part of divulge as to what kind of security is being provided to them when they go abroad.

I wouldn't like to go into what was asked for when Shri V. P. Singh was the Prime Minister and when Shri Chandra Shekharji was the Prime Minister and it was brought to their notice that there was a real danger to the life of Rajivji and that special protection needed to be given. But somehow, in their wisdom, they thought that special security was not called for. I won't possibly be able to give you any reasons as to on what basis they came to this conclusion.

Ultimately. as one of the hon. Members and this is not a matter

on which you can consider that this is a status symbol. With so many people, so many police officers accompanying them, some times some people do feel that it is a kind of nui-sance. They would not like to have this kind of security. But there are people who consider that this is a kind of status symbol and they would like to have it. Nothing of the type. Ultimately, the whole thing is decided on the basis of the threat perception. If there is a threat, whether one likes or not, we will have to provide security. If you decline the same, we will provide it in s. different manner. I quite agree with what Mr. Ahluwalia said. We cannot allow people who are exposing them-selves to such security risks to live alone. We will have to provide security in a; different form and see that there is a proper protection given to those people who are facing this kind of a hazard in their life.

A point was made by the hon. Member, Shri Swaminathan, about tome Chief Ministers who. are given the NSG security and sometimes it was reported in the Press. Press also, sometimes contributes to many things. I have told the hon. Member that we do not propose to withdraw it. This period is to end. But I can assure him that we have already taken a decision to extend the security to Miss Jayalalitha. In regard to the other persons to whom security is given, it is decided on merit. But so far as the Chief Minister of Tamil Nadu is concerned, we have already taken a decision to extend the NSG security. There is no question of withdrawing the same.

SHE! SUBRAMANIAN SWAMY (Uttar Pradesh): To Mulayam Singh Yadav also?

THE VICE-CHAIRMAN (PROF. CHANDRESH P. THAKUR): Let us not go into the details.

SHRI S. B. CHAVAN: Don't try to multiply.

Another point was made that there are HO persons who have asked for



security. The definition is very clear. According to the definition and according to my calculation, the number will be between 18 to 25. It may not exceed that figure. I am giving some kind of a margin for.. .

SHRI G. SWAMINATHAN: A large family.

SHRI S. B. CHAVAN: If it is a large family, the account of which has not been properly given to us. Might be 4—5. This is the kind of margin we have kept. According to our information, now, it is only 13 people who are entitled for this kind of security, who are facing some kind of a risk.

SHRI R. K. DHAWAN: Eighteen in all or eighteen per family.

SHRI S. B. CHAVAN: It is total 18.

THE VICE-CHAIRMAN (PROF. CHANDRESH P. THAKUR): It has been precisely defined.

SHRI S. B. CHAVAN: Yes. The definition is: 'wife, husband, children and parents'. If the term 'family' were to include others like daughter-in-law, son-in-law, etc., if security is to be provided to all such persons, I do not think that we can, possibly, provide them with this kind of security.

SHRI R. K. DHAWAN: If the daughter is married, what about the son-in-law?

SHRI S. B. CHAVAN: Sir, this is all I wanted to explain to the hon. House. I am thankful to the hon. Members for keeping the debates at a high level and contributing to the same. I have taken note of all the points and, in my own way, I will try to find solutions to these problems. With these observationB, I request the House to paas this Bill.

THE VICE-CHAIRMAN (PROF. CHANDRESH P. THAKUR): He has already said that. When the time goes, on case-by-case basis, he will review it.

THE VICE-CHAIRMAN (PROF. CHANDRESH P. THAKUR): Now, the question is:

"That the Bill to amend the Special Protection Group Act, 1988, as passed by the Lok Sabha.," be taken into consideration.

The motion was adopted.

THE VICE-CHAIRMAN (PROF. CHANDRESH P. THAKUR): We shall now take up clause-by-clause consideration of the Bill.,

Clauses 2 and 3 were added to the Bill.

THE VICE-CHAIRMAN (PROF. CHANDRESH P. THAKUR): We take up clause 4. There are two amendments, Nos. 1 and 2, by Shri S. S. Ahluwalia. Are you moving?

SHRI S. S. AHLUWALIA: I am not moving.

Clause 4 was added to the Bill.

Clause 1, the Enacting Formula and the

Title were added to the Bill.

SHRI S. B. CHAVAN: Sir, I move:

'"That the Bill be passed.

The question was proposed,

SHRI SUBRAMANI AN SWAMY: Sir,.the Bill is certainly welcome but it is a defence measure. It is also the responsibility of the Government to formulate, what is called, an offensive move.

THE VICE-CHAIRMAN (PROF. CHANDRESH P. THAKUR): It is a Bill for security.

Shri Subramanian Swamy.

It is a defence measure. The reason why I get up to speak is that the assassination of Mr. Rajiv Gandhi is not an ordinary thing that has happened, in the sense, it is not police case, it is actually insult to the national soverignty of India, it is a. challenge to our self-respect. Therefore, it is incumbent on the Government to take such action by which the organisation which is responsible for his assassination lives to regret for the rest of its life, so that it be-comes an example for all times to come tor

other organisations, There

tore, I would like to urge the Home Minister that he should take such action against the LTTE, as an organisation, that for the rest of the life they regretted and all other organisa-tions which are thinking on these terms will be dissuaded from doing so. Those offensive measures he could perhaps study around the world and see how terrorism is countered and adopt them in our country. So, measures for defence are not enough, we need offensive measures also.

THE VICE-CHAIRMAN (PROF. CHANDRESH P. THAKUR:): That is a good suggestion. Will you like to react?

SHRI S. B. CHAVAN: Two Commissions have been appointed in this respect. As soon as we get their report, we will consider it. We will consider this aspect also.

THE VICE-CHAIRMAN (PROF. CHANDRESH P. THAKUR): The question is:

"That the Bill be passed." The

motion was adopted.

THE VICE-CHAIRMAN (PROF. CHANDRESH P. THAKUR): Let me add from the Chair that I associate myself with the sentiments of the Minister for Home Affairs that the spirit in which the Bill has been dis-cussed here has been very welcome. Members from all sides o'f the Hpuse have joined and welcomed the spirit. The historical background has been unfortunate when this Act had to be amended, but the family of the assassinated Prime Minister deserve to be treated in this special way. In the process all Prime Ministers and their families have been included. So, the counrty has, through this House, a sort of unanimity on a very impor-tant Bill. We all welcome this meeting of minds and I fully endorse the sentiments expressed by the hon. Home Minister.

Now we have to take the Short Duration Discussion on the Bank of Credit and Commerce International.


[Shri S. S. Ahluwalia]

125 Short Duration [14 .SEPT 1991] Discussion 126

Shri Chaturanan Mishra will initiate the discussion.. .

SHORT DURATION DISCUSSION RE. THE AFFAIRS OF THE BANK OF

CREDIT AND COMMERCE IN-TERNATIONAL (OVERSEAS) LTD.

(BCCI)

The Special Protection [ RAJYA SABHA ] 1991

Documents

Transcript of The Special Protection [ RAJYA SABHA ] 1991