MR. DEPUTY CHAIRMAN: We do not want a discussion on this.
श्री नरेश अग्रवाल:उपसभापति जी, हम सिर्फ समर्थन कर रहे हैं, जो नेता विरोधी दल ने कहा और शरद जी ने कहा है। इसमें कहीं न कहीं कोई साजिश नजर आ रही है, क्योंकि इधर लगातार देख रहे हैं कि राज्य सभा का चैनल, राज्य सभा, दोनों पर एक तरीके से साजिश के तहत कुछ न कुछ आक्रमण हो रहे हैं। इसलिए मैं चाहता हूँ कि इस प्रिविलेज मोशन को आप एक्सेप्ट कर लीजिए, प्रिविलेज कमेटी को भेज दीजिए, जिससे सब चीज सही-सही सामने आ जाए।
श्रीमती विप्लव ठाकुर:सर, मुझे भी एक मिनट बोलने दीजिए। ...(व्यवधान)..
SHRI D. RAJA: The LOP and other senior colleagues have effectively presented the issue and it is before the Chair. I urge upon the Chair to accept this and decide.
(Followed by KR/2D)
THE MINISTER OF PARLIAMENTARY AFFAIRS (SHRI M. VENKAIAHNAIDU): Mr. Deputy Chairman, Sir, I have heard the Leader of the Opposition, but I must tell the House that the full facts of the case are not before the House. This is number one.
Number two, when we refer a matter to the Privileges Committee, we must be convinced that there is a privilege involved in this.
Number three, before we admit the motion, we have to be sure of how it is going to affect the image of the House also, per se. If there is something written against the House or against a particular individual or a Member of the House, or, if any motives are attributed to the Member of the Hose or the institutions themselves, then, that is a serious matter. If some comment is made about the utility of the channel, it is a fair criticism. Nobody can have objection to that. I may feel it as very important; others may feel it as not important. Why are you wasting public money? That can be matter of another opinion. That much freedom is there to the people, particularly in the media. So, what I suggest is before you take a decision about the admission of this motion, let us go through the full facts of the case, and then admit it. Otherwise we will be seen as if we are encroaching upon the rights of the media. That is another angle that has to be kept in mind. To be frank, except hearing the Leader of the Opposition, I am not well versed with the full facts. I do not know what is the notice, who are the Members who have given notice and what is the total content of the notice also because that is not circulated to the other Members of the House. Keep all these things in mind before taking a decision. That is my humble suggestion to you.
THE LEADER OF THE OPPOSITION (SHRI GHULAM NABI AZAD):Before taking a decision, you check up the figures. The facts are there.
MR. DEPUTY CHAIRMAN: We will see all aspects of it. Anyhow, I have got information from the Secretariat that a notice has already been received signed by many Members. Therefore, that notice will be examined and dealt with according to the law.
श्री शरद यादव : माननीय उपसभापति जी, मैं श्री एम. वेंकैया नायडु जी की बात को ठीक मानते हुए, यह निवेदन करना चाहता हूं कि इस चैनल को सभापति जी हैड करते हैं और इस सदन में हम में से ऐसा कोई नहीं है, जो उनकी मर्यादा को कभी इस सदन में पार करता हो। मैं मानता हूं कि आलोचना हो सकती है, सब कुछ हो सकता है, सारा अधिकार है, लेकिन यह भी ध्यान रखना चाहिए कि लोक सभा के चैनल को वहां स्पीकर देखते हैं और राज्य सभा के टी.वी. चैनल को कोई अकेले सी.ई.ओ. या कोई और नहीं देखता है, बल्कि यह तो केवल सभापति जी के जिम्मे है।
महोदय, इसी सदन ने, यूनेनिमसली हम सब ने मिलकर यह तय किया है कि इसके हैड सभापति होंगे। इसलिए इसमें सारे तथ्य हैं। इसमें जो एक-दूसरे को जो लिखा गया है, उससे सब विपरीत है। इसलिए मैं यह मानता हूं कि आपको इसे मानना चाहिए और आपको होल हार्टेडली इसका समर्थन करके इसे आगे बढ़ाना चाहिए।
श्री उपसभापति: शरद जी, रूल के अनुसार देखूंगा। We will examine it in accordance with the rules.
SHRI ANAND SHARMA: Sir, I am also one of the signatories. We were listening to the Minister of Parliamentary Affairs. There are no two opinions on what he is saying. There is one issue here. There I have slight divergence. The question is utility. Now, this House in its collective wisdom has decided on its utility. How can we expect a fair criticism? Considering the privileges of this House we have our own channel. The other House is having its own channel and that channel is also disseminating information. So, this channel is also doing exactly the same. So, that is where the question of the privilege of this House is involved, when the authority, right and decision of the House to have a dedicated channel is being questioned. That is why we have all signed this petition.
MR. DEPUTY CHAIRMAN: It will be examined according to the rules. We have the Rule Book.
(Followed by 2E/KS)
SHRI M. VENKAIAH NAIDU: We are having an enlightened debate. There is nothing wrong. I am not joining issue with either Sharadji or Anand Sharmaji. My only worry is that after all, everything will come up for public scrutiny tomorrow, including comments. Keeping that in mind, one should understand, criticism or a comment on the channel is not a comment on the Chairman. Let that be very clear. Criticism about the contents of the channel's telecast is not a criticism of the House, which has decided, in its collective wisdom, to have a channel of its own. There is nothing wrong with that. We unanimously passed a legislation such as the Judicial Appointments Commission. We hear criticism about that too. So, there is criticism even at that level! So that being the case, we are in a democracy and the Parliament has got its importance and the media also has its importance. So, while taking a decision, keep all these things in mind, particularly the contents, the facts that have been mentioned, or twisted and misrepresented, and then take a considered view. That is what I have said.
MR. DEPUTY CHAIRMAN: That is all. All aspects would be looked into and we would deal with it according to the rules in the Rule Book.
SHRI K.T.S. TULSI (NOMINATED): Sir, more than 16 Members have protested, but that is not the question, and they are from all parties. It is not a bipartisan issue. This is not a question of criticism. This House is in the forefront for criticizing the freedom of expression. But this is malicious. Contrary to record, nobody was contacted. This is an attempt to malign the entire House. If malicious attempts are submitted...(Interruptions)...
MR. DEPUTY CHAIRMAN: We will examine that. Now, let us take up a Bill for introduction – The Commercial Courts, Commercial Division and Commercial Appellate Division of High Courts Bill, 2015. Shri D. V. Sadananda Gowda to move.
THE COMMERCIAL COURTS, COMMERCIAL DIVISION AND COMMERCIAL APPELLATE DIVISION OF HIGH COURTS BILL, 2015 THE MINISTER OF LAW AND JUSTICE (SHRI D. V. SADANANDA GOWDA): Sir, I beg to move for leave to introduce a Bill to provide for the constitution of Commercial Courts, Commercial Division and Commercial Appellate Division in the High Courts for adjudicating commercial disputes and for matters connected therewith or incidental thereto.
The question was put and the motion was adopted. SHRI D. V. SADANANDA GOWDA: Sir, I introduce the Bill.
Sir, I have a small submission to make. On the last occasion, another Bill, the Delhi High Courts (Amendment) Bill, was introduced by me. In the meanwhile, some objections had been raised in this House and they said that The Commercial Courts, Commercial Division and Commercial Appellate Division of High Courts Bill, 2015 and that Bill should be taken together. Now, it is my request that since the Delhi District Bar Associations are going on strike, that Bill needs to be passed at the earliest. My earnest request is, both the Bills may be taken together at the earliest, because this Bill already, right from 2003, has passed through various stages. It has gone to the Standing Committee; it has gone back to the law Commission; it was also passed by the Lok Sabha and then, withdrawn. All these things have happened. So, both these Bills may be taken up together.
MR. DEPUTY CHAIRMAN: Okay. But now you have introduced only this Bill.
SHRI D. V. SADANANDA GOWDA): Yes, Sir. The other Bill has been kept on hold by this House.
MR. DEPUTY CHAIRMAN: Okay. Then, the Government can include in the List of Business both the Bills, one after the other, and then we can discuss them together, if the House has no objection to that.
SHRI K.T.S. TULSI: Sir, the two Bills have nothing to do with one another. The Government is trying to, on the one hand, increase the jurisdiction of the subordinate courts, of the district Judges, up to Rs. two crores, and, on the other, they are bringing the other Bill by which they are saying that the corporate benches will have the jurisdiction of Rs. one crore. So, they want to give with one hand and take away with the other. I wish to submit, let this Bill that has been introduced now be sent to the Standing Committee. The other Bill has already been examined by the Standing Committee. Sir, the clubbing of the two is unnecessary. It would only cause delay. It will perpetuate the woes of the litigants in the whole of Delhi. All the Bar Associations of all District Courts are on an indefinite strike. And the hon. Minister should think about the plight of the litigants.
(FOLLOWED BY KS /2F)
MR. DEPUTY CHAIRMAN: Okay
SHRI D. V. SADANANDA GOWDA: Sir…
MR. DEPUTY CHAIRMAN: Anyhow, you have now introduced it. Let the time come and we will decide.
SHRI D. V. SADANANDA GOWDA: Yes, at the time of discussion.
MR. DEPUTY CHAIRMAN: No, Mr. Minister. Let the time come and we will decide. In any case, now it is not there in the List of Business. The Government can propose this to be listed in the List of Business. When it comes into the List of Business, the House will decide how to go about it. There is no problem. We need not take a decision now about it, about something which is yet to come.
SHRI D. V. SADANANDA GOWDA: Sir, Delhi Bar Association people are going on strike. That is why I made this request for taking up the two together.
MR. DEPUTY CHAIRMAN: For that, you have to enlist it first.
THE LEADER OF THE HOUSE (SHRI ARUN JAITLEY): Sir, since Mr. Tulsi has raised it, we may go into this question. As far as the Delhi High Court Bill is concerned, you have the Standing Committee Report already. The last paragraph of the Report very clearly says that these two have to be integrated together. It refers to the Commercial Courts Bill and, therefore, it refers to the integration of the two. As far as Commercial Courts Bill is concerned, under the UPA Government, it has already gone through the Standing Committee once.
AN HON. MEMBER: The Select Committee.
SHRI ARUN JAITLEY: It has already gone through the Select Committee once. Therefore, this whole effort of Mr. Tulsi is to delay these Bills so that strikes take place; we are not going to fall a prey to this game of yours.
SHRI K.T.S. TULSI: No. How am I delaying it? ...(Interruptions)...
SHRI ARUN JAITLEY: Of course, you want to delay. You go there and instigate a strike and you come here and try and delay it. That is what you are doing. ...(Interruptions)...
MR. DEPUTY CHAIRMAN: You know, I was the Chairman of the Select Committee.
SHRI JESUDASU SEELAM: This is very wrong, Sir. ...(Interruptions)...
श्रीमती विप्लव ठाकुर: यह कोई तरीका नहीं है बोलने का..(व्यवधान)..
MR. DEPUTY CHAIRMAN: Okay. That's okay. ...(Interruptions)...
श्रीमती विप्लव ठाकुर: यह उनका राइट है।..(व्यवधान).. ये कैसे बोल रहे हैं? ये ऐसे ही बोलते हैं..(व्यवधान).. यह कोई तरीका नहीं है..(व्यवधान)..उनका राइट है बोलने का..(व्यवधान)..
MR. DEPUTY CHAIRMAN: Sit down. Why do you worry? ...(Interruptions)... What are you saying?
श्रीमती विप्लव ठाकुर :मैं यह कह रही हूं कि यह तरीका नहीं है बोलने का। उनका राइट है बोलने का..(व्यवधान)..
MR. DEPUTY CHAIRMAN: Okay. We will take care of that. ...(Interruptions)... We will take care of that. ...(Interruptions)...
नेता सदन (श्री अरुण जेटली) :स्टेंडिंग कमेटी भी हो चुकी है, सेलेक्ट कमेटी भी हो चुकी है, फिर दोनों बिल क्यों न पास हों?..(व्यवधान)..
SHRI K.T.S. TULSI: Sir, the hon. Leader of the House has accused me of having instigated a strike. I want to know, when did I instigate, how did I instigate, whom did I meet, what did I say. This is very improper. This is not justified. I have done nothing of the sort. This should be removed from the record. ...(Interruptions)...
MR. DEPUTY CHAIRMAN: No, no. You reply to it. That is enough. ...(Interruptions)... He said and you replied. Both are on record. Now, please… ...(Interruptions)...
DR. K. KESHAVA RAO: No, no. The question is not that. ...(Interruptions)...
MR. DEPUTY CHAIRMAN: No. Why this discussion? ...(Interruptions)... What do you want?
SHRI JESUDASU SEELAM: Sir, you have to protect the Rajya Sabha Members. ...(Interruptions)...
DR. K. KESHAVA RAO: Sir, it was a technical thing which the Leader of the House knows. It is the pecuniary jurisdiction. You have brought in one Delhi court…
MR. DEPUTY CHAIRMAN: No, there is no issue before us now.
DR. K. KESHAVA RAO: What he said was in contradiction to clubbing them. ...(Interruptions)... The Standing Committee…
MR. DEPUTY CHAIRMAN: No. ...(Interruptions)... There is no issue before us now. Then, what are we discussing?
DR. K. KESHAVA RAO: Now, the question is… ...(Interruptions)...
MR. DEPUTY CHAIRMAN: There is no issue before us.
DR. K. KESHAVA RAO: The issue is, you have asked the Minister to take it up when it comes. What he brought to the notice is that the two Bills have a contradictory…
MR. DEPUTY CHAIRMAN: That the House will decide at that time; I said that. ...(Interruptions)... That is what I am saying. I have only said that the Government can list the two Bills in the List of Business and the House can decide whether the two should be taken up together or not. It is for the House. ...(Interruptions)... It is for the House to decide. ...(Interruptions)... No, sit down. It is for the House to decide. I only said that. It is for the House to decide whether they are to be taken up together or not. ...(Interruptions)... Sit down. ...(Interruptions)... What is your fight? Tell me, Mrs. Viplove. Your name itself is Viplove, which means revolution. And you are…
SHRI K. T. S. TULSI: I am requesting, let any inquiry be held by the…
MR. DEPUTY CHAIRMAN: No, no. ...(Interruptions)... No, please. One second. Tulsiji, the hon. Minister said something and you think it is an allegation. You replied to it. You replied to it suo motu.
SHRI K. T. S. TULSI (NOMINATED): So, if the Chair is allowing it to go on record, then…
SHRI ARUN JAITLEY: Let him not take it personally. I withdraw what I have said. ...(Interruptions)... The point is, let both the Bills be taken up together, because you know, if they are not taken up together, it is going to foment trouble. You know that very well.
MR. DEPUTY CHAIRMAN: Okay. You are now satisfied. Now, let me take up the Real Estate (Regulation) Bill, 2013.
श्री नरेश अग्रवाल :सर, इस पर मेरी आपत्ति है।
शहरी विकास मंत्री (श्री एम.वेंकैया नायडु) : नरेश जी, सुनने के बाद कहिए। मैं जो कहूंगा, पहले उसे सुन लीजिए।
MR. DEPUTY CHAIRMAN: Let me call you. Nareshji, sit down, please. Let the Minister say something about it and whether he moves or does not move it, even I want to know. Shri Venkaiah Naidu to move the motion.
(CONTD. BY VK/2G)
MR. DEPUTY CHAIRMAN (CONTD): I am calling you to move the Motion.
THE REAL ESTATE (REGULATON AND DEVELOPMENT) BILL, 2013
THE MINISTER OF URBAN DEVELOPMENT (SHRI M. VENKAIAH NAIDU): Mr. Deputy Chairman, Sir, the problem in this House is with too many advocates being in the House...(Interruptions)... I am not a practising advocate fortunately.
MR. DEPUTY CHAIRMAN: I have called you for moving the Motion.
SHRI BHUPINDER SINGH: Sir, there are many advocates here and they are in white dress, not black dress. We advocate for the countrymen.
SHRI M. VENKAIAH NAIDU: Sir, I would request the House to hear me out and then we will take a view. We will hear even Nareshji also. I have no problem about that. Sir, this Bill was introduced in Rajya Sabha in August, 2013. Subsequently, the Bill was referred to the Standing Committee on Urban Development in the month of September. Then the Standing Committee discussed the Bill and gave its Report on 13th February, 2014 to both the Houses. Official Amendments, that I am proposing to move, are based on the recommendations of the Standing Committee and also otherwise. Sir, there is a lot of criticism about the real estate sector among the public because certain fly-by-night operators are not following any rules and regulations; they are not following any standard practices, thereby taking the consumers for a ride. I am trying to be brief. I am not going into the details because I gave a word that I would first take the House into confidence and then go by the collective wisdom of the House. Keeping that in mind, today we have a noble objective of “Housing for All by 2022”. Mere Government’s efforts alone will not suffice. It is a fact. I must admit it. The Government alone cannot construct houses for all by 2022. So, you need private participation also, and public-private participation is the only way out. That being the case, while allowing private participation, which is already in vogue, after giving certain concessions in the Budget and also allowing FDI and then also giving certain income tax concessions for the housing sector, it has become all the more important to have some sort of regulations. That is the purpose of this Bill. The Bill was brought by the previous Government and it was referred to the Standing Committee. The Standing Committee made some recommendations. We have agreed to some of the major recommendations, and we could not agree to some of the recommendations. I held extensive consultations with various stakeholders, including the real estate people, CREDAI, NAREDCO, consumer associations from different walks of life, and certain well meaning advocates also came and made their presentations. I myself was present in two consultations. Then I had also asked the Secretary to give them a hearing about what problems they were facing because some stringent provisions were being made, vis-a-vis regulations. So, that opportunity was also given to them. I have also taken the States into confidence. There was a national level meeting of States. The States also have given their views. Keeping all those views in mind and also going by the views expressed by some of the Members earlier, this Bill has been brought in.
MR. DEPUTY CHAIRMAN: Are you moving it?
SHRI M. VENKAIAH NAIDU:Just a minute, Sir. This Bill is already there before the House. I am moving only for the consideration of the Bill because it is already a property of the House. My friend, Shri Naresh Agrawal, seems to have given a notice for referring it to a Select Committee. What I am suggesting is, I am very keen -- I had a word with the Leader of the Opposition also -- that this Bill should be passed at the earliest. Keeping that in mind, if the hon. Members have some apprehensions, I am ready to defer this Bill by two-three days; I will talk to others also and then again come back to the House when we meet on 5th May or so.
श्री नरेश अग्रवाल: उपसभापति महोदय ...(व्यवधान)...
MR. DEPUTY CHAIRMAN: Let him complete.
श्री एम. वेंकैया नायडु: मैं जल्दबाजी से कुछ करना नहीं चाहता हूं। त्यागी जी, थोड़ा हंसना।
श्री के.सी. त्यागी: मैं कुछ नहीं कह रहा हूं।
श्री एम. वेंकैया नायडु: आप कहते नहीं हैं, लेकिन मेरी ओर ऐसे देखते हैं। शरद जी, को देखिए कितने प्रसन्न हैं और कैसे बोलते हैं।
श्री के.सी. त्यागी: मैं आपसे प्रसन्न हूं।
श्री एम. वेंकैया नायडु: आप त्यागी हैं और हम लोग साधारण हैं।
(Contd. by 2H)
SHRI M. VENKAIAH NAIDU (contd.): Sir, keeping that in mind, what I am suggesting is that if there is further consultation needed informally, I am willing to consult the Members of various parties and take their meaningful suggestions, if any, or try to dispel the misunderstandings or reservations that they have and then we take this forward. There are two ways to this. One is, I move this Bill for consideration. But my Government does not have majority in this House. I am very clear about it. The other is that we refer it to the Select committee. But that will take some more time. The public is already impatient. The hon. Supreme Court of India has, recently said that we have to take a decision about this Bill within a particular time-frame. Keeping that observation in mind, keeping the public mood in mind and keeping the complaints that are coming against the real estate sector in the recent days, -- we have examples in Noida, Gurgaon, etc. where certain serious allegations have been made – instead of leaving the consumers to their fate and asking them to go to courts, it is better to address them through a regulator. Like, we have the Regulator for Telecom, Electricity, and other institutions, we are also proposing to have a regulator here. This is the backdrop of this case. I don’t want to take advantage and then give a lengthy speech. Keeping that in mind, I would like the House to take a view. My humble suggestion is, let me defer this for some more time and, in the meanwhile, if there are any meaningful suggestions, we will consider them.