Nadimul Haque speaks on the delay in appointment of the Chairperson and other Members of the Law Commission during Zero Hour

Sir, today, I would like to draw the attention of the House towards the delay in appointment of the Chairperson and other Members of the Law Commission. The Ministry of Law and Justice, vide its Notification dated 14^th September, 2015, had notified the constitution of the 21st Law Commission of India for a period of three years from September1, 2015, to August, 2018.

However, almost six months have passed, but the Government has not appointed the Chairman and other Members of the Law Commission till date.

Sir, the active and regular functioning of the Law Commission is of utmost importance, especially focusing on their role of providing suggestions and recommendations on legal reforms required in our country. Therefore, the aforesaid delay will have its adverse impact on the working of the Commission as they will have six months less to complete their assigned tasks.

Sir, I want to ask this Government: Why is there a delay in the appointment of the Members of the Law Commission, especially when they equate high importance to good governance in our country?

Hence, I would request the Government to appoint all the Members of the Law Commission expeditiously, so that the promise of good governance through legal and judicial reforms can become operative in nature.

Thank you.

Sir, you have given a ruling that the Hon’ble Speaker is the ultimate authority and the Hon’ble Leader of the House has also clarified that the decision of the Hon’ble Speaker cannot be challenged. I am not challenging your decision.

The Article 110 in the Constitution of India and Sub Article III says and I quote if any question arises whether a Bill is a Money Bill or not, the decision of the Speaker of the House of the people therein shall be final. If the question arises, now otherwise, there is a letdown procedure, how a Bill should be treated as a Money Bill or not, Article 110 (a), (b), (c), (d), (e), (f) and (g) have actually defined which Bills should be the Money Bills.

Therefore, even though, thereafter, the very question arises that whether this particular Bill comes under the purview of Article 110 (a), (b), (c), (d), (e), (f) and (g) or not, then the decision of the Speaker will be final.

My question is, whether, any question arose before the Speaker or not.

Tag: Member of Parliament

Nadimul Haque speaks on the delay in appointment of the Chairperson and other Members of the Law Commission during Zero Hour

Sukhendu Sekhar Roy intervenes during withdrawal of The National Identification Authority of India Bill, 2010