Trinamool Congress’ Lok Sabha MPs complete three years in the 16th Lok Sabha

June 5 was the third anniversary of the All India Trinamool Congress’ Members of Parliament (MP) taking oath for the 16th Lok Sabha. It has been three eventful years (since June 5, 2014) for the party in Parliament. Speeches by the party’s MPs have had a major impact on national politics. The strategies adopted, and debates participated in, in Parliament, by the MPs have left a lasting impression on parliamentary politics in this largest democracy in the world.

Now Trinamool Congress is the fourth largest party in both the Lok Sabha and the Rajya Sabha.

Here are a few of the important speeches that Trinamool Congress MPs have given over the last three years:

LOK SABHA

 

August 14, 2014: Sugata Bose on the need for a mechanism to tackle the rising incidents of communal violence in the country

May 5, 2015: Kalyan Banerjee on the GST Bill

May 12, 2015: Sudip Bandyopadhyay on The Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation & Resettlement (Amendment) Bill, 2015 (Land Bill)

February 24, 2016: Sugata Bose on the prevalent situation in universities in the country

March 8, 2016: Satabdi Roy on International Women’s Day

February 7, 2017: Saugata Roy speaks on The Specified Bank Notes (Cessation of Liabilities) Bill, 2017

March 9, 2017: Kakoli Ghosh Dastidar on The Maternity Benefit (Amendment) Bill, 2016

April 11, 2017: Ratna De Nag on The HIV and AIDS (Prevention and Control) Bill, 2017

RAJYA SABHA

 

November 25, 2014: Debabrata Bandyopadhyay on The Labour Laws (Amendment) Bill, 2014

August 13, 2014: Derek O’Brien on the working of the Ministry of Women and Child Development

May 6, 2015: Sukhendu Sekhar Roy on The Constitution (One Hundred and Nineteenth Amendment) Bill, 2013 (Land Boundary Agreement)

November 24, 2016: Derek O’Brien on demonetisation

April 5, 2017: Derek O’Brien on the GST Bill

 

Mamata Banerjee announces Trinamool candidates for forthcoming Rajya Sabha election

Trinamool Congress Chairperson Mamata Banerjee today, through a Facebook post, announced the names of the party’s candidates for the forthcoming Rajya Sabha election.

The elections are due on 8 June.

 

Mamata Banerjee’s Facebook post:

The following are All India Trinamool Congress candidates for forthcoming Rajya Sabha election:

1. Derek O’Brien
2. Sukhendu Sekhar Roy
3. Dola Sen
4. Dr Manas Bhunia
5. Smt Shanta Chhetri (Kurseong, Darjeeling)

My best wishes to all of them. Salute to Ma, Mati, Manush.

 

রাজ্যসভা নির্বাচনের জন্য তৃণমূল প্রার্থীদের নাম ঘোষণা করলেন মমতা বন্দ্যোপাধ্যায়

আজ ফেসবুকের মাধ্যমে রাজ্যসভা নির্বাচনের জন্য তৃণমূল প্রার্থীদের নাম ঘোষণা করলেন মমতা বন্দ্যোপাধ্যায়।

তিনি লেখেন:

আসন্ন রাজ্যসভা নির্বাচনের জন্য সর্বভারতীয় তৃণমূল কংগ্রেসের প্রার্থীরা হলেন:

১. ডেরেক ও’ব্রায়েন
২. সুখেন্দু শেখর রায়
৩. দোলা সেন
৪. ডঃ মানস ভুঁইয়া
৫. শান্তা ছেত্রী (কার্শীয়াং, দার্জিলিং)

ওঁদের জানাই আমার শুভেচ্ছা। মা, মাটি, মানুষকে আমার অভিবাদন জানাই।

 

 

Sukhendu Sekhar Roy asks a Supplementary on the promotion of e-vehicles

FULL TRANSCRIPT

The Hon. Minister has replied that the benefits available to mild hybrid technology under the FME scheme stands excluded with effect from April 1, 2017. My question is what could be the reasons for the exclusion of such vehicles?

Sukhendu Sekhar Roy speaks on speed limits of trains passing through elephant corridors in north Bengal

FULL TRANSCRIPT

I congratulate the Hon. Railway Minister for the introduction of Siliguri-New Cooch Behar demo in north Bengal.

I would like to know, through you, from the Hon. Minister whether the Railway Ministry has taken sufficient safeguards in implementing the Supreme Court’s directives for the maintenance of minimum speed limit prescribed for the natural corridors of elephants, which are being killed by speedy trains in the forest areas through which this train is supposed to ply.

 

Sukhendu Sekhar Roy speaks on GST Bill

FULL TRANSCRIPT

Sir, thank you so much. My party, All India Trinamool Congress is consistently maintaining the stand that we are in favour of GST. From 1999, we have always said in our election manifesto that we are in favour of GST. There is no deviation from that stand even today.

After looking into these Bills we have certain reservations, because there are certain in-built contradictions in the Bills as rightly pointed out by many members very eloquently, I do not want to repeat those.

Sir, in Mahabharat, when Krishna was giving sermons to Arjun, he said the body is mortal but the soul is not. It changes the body like we change clothings. Similarly, we are not abolishing the taxes. They are just being brought under the umbrella of GST.

Sir, I am concerned with the manner in which GST Council has been framed. Are we creating a monster? In Clause 65 of the Bill, which is about audits, says,

“Commissioner or any officer authorised by him, may undertake, audit of any registered person.”

According to this, the Commissioner will have the power of audit, even special audit as per Clause 66. What about the CAG, which is a constitutional body. I am confused. Sir, the Constitution has clearly stated the role of CAG and in 1971 in consonance with the Government’s provision of Article 149 of the Constitution amendment was passed which was called Auditor General’s Duty, Powers, Conditions of Service Act 1971, and I quote:

“Audit of reports of Union or of States. It shall be the duty of the Comptroller and Auditor General to audit all the receipts which are payable into the consolidated fund of India and of each State and of each Union Territory having a Legislative Assembly and to satisfy himself that the rules and procedures in that behalf as designed to secure an effective check on the assessment, collection and proper allocation of the revenue.”

Therefore, the entire duty has been assigned to the Controller and Auditor General under Chapter 5 of the Constitution. The entire chapter has been devoted to Controller and Auditor General and here, in this Bill, the audit and special audit has been given to a tax officer to be appointed by the government.

So, I have little bit of confusion. I know that Mr Jaitley is a successful and eminent lawyer of this country; he has replied to every issue. When he speaks, he speaks like  Antony of Julius Caesar. And those who are sitting in the Opposition, at least some of them are Brutus, Cassius and Casca. So, I want a clarification from the Hon. Finance Minister on this particular issue .

Thank You, Sir.

 

Sukhendu Sekhar Roy asks a Supplementary Question on the nuclear reactors located in Kovvada

FULL TRANSCRIPT

 

I would like to as a pointed question. How many years are required to be taken for the commissioning of all the six nuclear reactors at Kovvada?

Sukhendu Sekhar Roy makes a Point of Order on the Finance Minister’s reply on Finance Bill

FULL TRANSCRIPT

First of all, the “reasons to believe” cannot be unreasonable. If the Court has the power to hear an aggrieved person on this point, why should the Appellate Tribunals not hear?

Therefore, it appears from the statement of the Hon. Finance Minister that the Government will not consider the demand made the Opposition parties. So, we are staging a walkout.

 

Sukhendu Sekhar Roy speaks on The Finance Bill

FULL TRANSCRIPT

Sir, I am confused as to whether we are discussing The Finance Bill – within the meaning of Article 117 of the Constitution of India – or a Presidential proclamation of Financial Emergency under Article 360 of the Constitution.

After going through this Finance Bill it appears that through this Bill at least 75 amendments have been proposed to existing sections and 22 new sections have been inserted in the Income Tax Act, 1961, some of which have given the retrospective effect from the year 1962 (when The Income Tax Act was commenced).

If the situation is such that so many amendments are required to be effected in the Income Tax Act or so many new sections are to be inserted then it was better to have a new Act replacing the one. That would have been the ideal situation. But I am sorry to say that the Government has not taken the normal route but has done a bypass surgery of the legislative system.

Sir, propriety demands that instead of 87 amendments or new sections, this Income Tax Act, 1962 ought to have been repealed and replaced by a new legislation.

In this Finance Bill there are many provisions made by the Government, which are against the spirit of the Constitution. First of all I would like to refer to Clause 50 whereby the Section 132 of the Income Tax Act has been sought to be amended which has already been mentioned by some of the honourables and distinguished members of this August House. In Clause 50 enormous power has been given to the Income Tax authority and powers of Affiliate Tribunals have been taken away, in a way which is against the judgment of the Supreme Court.

Firstly, “it is proposed to insert an Explanation after the fourth proviso to the sub-section (1) of s. 132 so as to provide that the reason to believe recorded by the income-tax authority specified therein under the said sub-section shall not be disclosed to any person or any authority or the Appellate Tribunal. Therefore whatever the income tax authority will decide that is sacrosanct and nobody can question on that.” So this is a draconian provision; this is a draconian amendment.

Secondly, again in another explanation for the removal of doubts, “it is hereby declared the reason to believe for making the requisition as recorded by the income-tax authority shall not be disclosed to any person or any authority or the Appellate Tribunal.”

So the decision of the Income Tax authority is final and it cannot be questioned. This is against the principles of natural justice. It can be questioned only before High Court or Supreme Court. So, one assessee will have to run to the High Court or Supreme Court under Article 226 or Article 32 to challenge if an Income Tax authority has taken a decision against him and no authority can challenge that. It cannot be questioned by any other authority, particularly the tribunal. How come? This is trend of authoritarianism that the existing practise is being done away with.

Sir, again, he says after sub-section 9A, another sub-section has been proposed to be inserted – that is 9B – that during the course of the search or seizure or within a period of sixty days from the date on which the last of the authorisation search was executed, the authorised officer for reasons to be recorded in writing is satisfied that for the purpose of protecting the interest of revenue, it is necessary so to do, he may with the previous approval of the Principal Director General, or Director General, or Principal Director, or Director by order in writing, attach provisionally any property belonging to the assessee. I need not elaborate because Mr Kapil Sibal has already elaborated this point.

Unflinching power has been given to these income tax authorities, they can raid any premises, search, seize and even attach. This is a shameful situation without any authority of law. So, this authority of law has been given to the Income Tax authority. For the seventy years since independence there was no scope for any harassment of this kind, which has been sought to be introduced by this legislation. I condemn this, I oppose this.

How the powers of the tribunals have been curtailed through the Finance Bill? What do the Articles 110 and 117 of the Constitution say? Article 117(1) says, “A Bill or amendment making provision for any of the matters specified in sub clauses (a) to (f) of clause ( 1 ) of article 110 shall not be introduced or moved except on the recommendation of the President and a Bill making such provision shall not be introduced in the Council of States: Provided that no recommendation shall be required under this clause for the moving of an amendment making provision for the reduction or abolition of any tax.”

So it relates to Money Bills.

Now, let’s come to Article 110(1):

For the purposes of this Chapter, a Bill shall be deemed to be a Money Bill if it contains only provisions dealing with all or any of the following matters, namely
(a) the imposition, abolition, remission, alteration or regulation of any tax;
(b) the regulation of the borrowing of money or the giving of any guarantee by the Government of India, or the amendment of the law with respect to any financial obligations undertaken or to be undertaken by the Government of India;
(c) the custody of the consolidated Fund or the Contingency Fund of India, the payment of moneys into or the withdrawal of moneys from any such Fund;
(d) the appropriation of moneys out of the consolidated Fund of India;
(e) the declaring of any expenditure to be expenditure charged on the Consolidated Fund of India or the increasing of the amount of any such expenditure;
(f) the receipt of money on account of the Consolidated Fund of India or the public account of India or the custody or issue of such money or the audit of the accounts of the Union or of a State; or
(g) any matter incidental to any of the matters specified in sub clause (a) to (f)

So if the conditions satisfy sub-clause (a) to (f) then it is okay. If it does not satisfy then it is contrary to the provisions of Article 110 of the Constitution and therefore the amendment which has been sought to be made here is absolutely unconstitutional and I will ask the government to withdraw this; otherwise it will be negation of our Constitution.

Sir, previously there was ‘Inspector Raj’ for some time; it was done away with. Now with this Bill, it has has become a ‘Raid, Seize and Attach Raj’.

Sir, this Bill also seeks for a series of amendments. Amendments have been proposed to provide for merger of at least 18 Tribunals and other authorities and conditions of services of chairpersons and members of those Tribunals. Is this a Finance Bill or a ‘repealing, amendment, insertion of clauses’ for all major Acts? This is unprecedented, has never happened in the history of legislation that so many major Acts have been changed by a Finance Bill and so many amendments have been proposed in the Income Tax Act.

Eight tribunals are to be merged. It is funny how the tribunals will be merged. I’m giving two examples. National Highways Tribunal shall merge with Airport Appellate Tribunal. How come? What is the relation between national highways and airports? Secondly, Airports Economic Regulatory Authority Appellate Tribunal shall merge with TDSAT dealing with telecom disputes. Are airport tax and telecom tariff equal, identical and same? There is no relation between telecom tariff and airport tax. What is this government doing? This is absolutely unimaginable and the powers of the tribunals have been not only curtailed, they are going to appoint their own lackeys. They are going to appoint their own people, their “Yes-Men” in all these tribunals.

The chairpersons and the members (of the tribunals) were appointed in a different manner as prescribed in their respective Acts but with these amendments now it is up to the government to appoint. The government will appoint the way they are appointing members in different committees of different ministries. In the same manner, the tribunals will be filled by the government with their own people.

In 2014, the Supreme Court, in the matter of Madras Bar Association vs Union Of India, while examining a case related to the National Tax Tribunal, said that affiliated tribunals have similar powers and functions as that of High Courts and hence the matters related to appointment and reappointment and tenure must be free from executive involvement. And here just the opposite is ought to be done.

Coming to political funding. The point has been raised about donation to political parties. First of all, there is no upper limit for a political party to receive donation (although there was a news claiming that the Election Commission has suggested that Rs 20 crore should be the upper limit). We will be happy if a upper limit is set.

Sir kindly come to Clause 135 and 137 of the Finance Bill. Clause 135 (3) says:

“ Notwithstanding anything contained in this section, the Central Government may authorise any scheduled bank to issue electoral bond. Explanation.–– For the purposes of this sub-section, ‘‘electroal bond” means a bond issued by any scheduled bank under the scheme as may be notified by the Central Government.”

In the ‘Explanation’ under Clause 137, it says:

“For the purposes of this sub-section, “electoral bond” means a bond referred to in the Explanation to sub-section (3) of section 31 of the Reserve Bank of India Act, 1934.”

Until and unless RBI Act, 1934 is amended with that explanation, which has been given here the second amendment can not have any meaning. So, before the Birth of Ram, Ramayana is being written here in this Finance Bill. This is laughable.

Sir, so many things have been said on Aadhaar, I will say only one point. Today Supreme Court has passed an order on Aadhaar. My leader, Ms Mamata Banerjee, from day one, has been making public statements – and my party was on the roads, on the streets – demanding that the Government must not make it mandatory so far the social beneficial schemes (like mid-day meal, 100 Days’ Work etc.) are concerned. Today Supreme Court has ordered the Government can not make Aadhaar mandatory in case of the social beneficial schemes. Therefore the notification issued by the Government should have been withdrawn immediately as it does not have any legal effect now.

Sir, finally, had these hundreds of amendments in Income Tax Act, and other Acts, not been proposed through this Finance Bill what would have been the procedure? All the respective Acts would have to be amended through the automatic route or the proper channel – that is, the Bill should have been placed before the Houses, it would have gone through the Standing Committee or to the Select Committee. There would have been deliberations, not only by the MPs but even by the different bodies outside the Parliament but by the people also. They could have sent their views,; after considering the views of the people and different bodies, those amendments would have been placed before this House and the House could have a structured discussion on that. Just to avoid the due process, hundreds of amendments of different Acts have been sought to be made here in this Finance Bill. This is – again I say – unprecedented, unwarranted and unconstitutional and it should be rejected by the Government forthwith.

Zindagi kya hai gham ka dariya hai
Na jeena yahan bas mein na marna yahan bas mein
Ajab duniya hai
Zindagi kya hai…

Thank You.

 

Sukhendu Sekhar Roy speaks in Rajya Sabha on The Enemy (Amendment & Validation) Bill, 2016

Full Transcript

Sir, so far I understand, this Bill has been introduced by the Government following the Supreme Court judgement in a particular case that the Hon’ble Leader of the House has mentioned. We must not consider this Bill in the ambit of one case; it has wider ramifications. The 1968 Act allowed for vesting of enemy properties with the custodian after the war with China and Pakistan, as rightly pointed out by the Hon’ble Leader of the House. After the 1965 war, there were the Defence of India Act provisions, which are all right.

This Bill amends the Act to clarify that even in the following cases, these properties will continue to be vested with the custodian:

 

  1. The enemy’s death, which is all right,

 

  1. If the legal heir is an Indian, on which we have certain objections, because legally as an Indian citizen, this Bill is depriving property to Indian citizens. If there is no title after 1965, then nothing is inherited by the Indian citizen; then there is no question of putting this clause in this definition.

 

On the one hand, the Government is saying that after 1965 there is no title to the property by the enemy and now the Bill seeks to amend that if the legal heir is an Indian, then also he is not entitled to the title of the property. If there is no title, then how does this come? So this is contradictory, in my point of view, and so this should be removed.

Also, Sir, if the enemy changes his nationality to that of another country. Now the Hon’ble Leader of the House has mentioned about going from Pakistan to London, which is all right in that particular case. The question is, Sir, here are so many things which are not in this Bill. When Punjab and Bengal were partitioned – it was not the partition of India, it was the partition of a few districts of Bengal and Punjab only – and when millions of evacuees came from other parts of Bengal and Punjab, that is, East Pakistan and West Punjab, how much compensation has been given by the Government of India to the evacuees? Nothing has been said in this Bill about that – because the enabling provision has been made, that after the selling of the property, the custodian can sell out the property, can dispose of the property, and after the disposal where would the proceeds from the sale go, how it will be utilized, nothing has been said in the Bill. Whether, out of the sale proceeds, the evacuees or their descendants can get compensation or not; nothing has been stated.   

After the emergence of Bangladesh in 1971, the evacuees of erstwhile East Pakistan got only ex gratia, not compensation, from the Government of India to the extent of 25 per cent of their total claims; therefore, 75 per cent of their total claims is still remaining.

This Bill has been brought on a piecemeal manner just to thwart the judgement delivered by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in a particular case. That is why I have objections on principle on this Bill, because if the Government is serious to take into consideration all aspects related to enemy properties then, in my view, those things should also be addressed in a proper manner, and for which a comprehensive Bill is required to be brought by the Government.

Lastly, the way the Bill has been introduced today – I cannot blame the Chair, because it is in the List of Business – I have already stated and Mr Jairam Ramesh and other Hon’ble Members have also stated the practical difficulties. This is a serious Bill which could not be discussed in a proper manner. We can understand the difficulties on the part of the Government because of the March 14 deadline. So on March 14 itself we could have discussed and passed this Bill after a threadbare discussion.

This is why, in protest against the indifferent attitude of the Government, to not to respond to the request made by the Opposition, I walk out, Sir.

 

 

India will muddle through another year of hopes belied and aspirations unfulfilled: Trinamool on Union Budget

During a discussion on the Union Budget, Kalyan Banerjee (Lok Sabha) and Sukhendu Sekhar Roy (Rajya Sabha) spoke on behalf of the party.

Both of them cornered the government on the declining economy, lack of jobs, black money, demonetisation and failed promises of the government.

 

Lok Sabha

Chief Whip of Trinamool in the Lok Sabha, Kalyan Banerjee said that India will muddle through another year of hopes belied and aspirations unfulfilled. He called the Budget controversial and said it does not provide any roadmap for the future.

He asked the government why the cost and ‘benefits’ of demonetisation were not being shared. He wanted to know from the Finance Minister how much black money has been receovered post demonetisation.

On the effect of demonetisation, Kalyan Banerjee said, “The supply chain of leather industry in Bengal is in shambles. So is jute, tea, textile, handloom and handicrafts. Fact remains that Moradabad, Ferozabad, Meerut known worldwide for their glass bangles and sports goods are in miserable shape with maximum units closed. The unorganised sector of India provides 80 percent of jobs and demonetisation has destroyed that.”

Accusing the govt of playing jugglery with words he stated that private sector investment has declined over the last three financial years. “Investors are ineligible or unwilling to borrow and banks are unable to lend. Therefore credit growth to all industries is at all time low and turned negative in October, 2016,” he added.

On government’s penchant for cashless society, he had to say: “This year there has been very good cultivation, but the farmers are not able to sell their crops due to non-availability of cash. You may speak about the cashless society, but you cannot change a 70 year old system with the stroke of a pen overnight. We support cashless, but not in one day or two days, it will take time. Our rural economy is based on cash flows, we cannot shut our eyes to the reality.”

He said demonetisation has destroyed the rural economy: “The Budget has given credit to farmers, which will never reach them because 92 percent villages have no bank in India. The government’s demonetisation policy have already destroyed the cooperative system by not providing them cash which is the mainstay of farmers for credit.”

Full transcript of his speech

 

Rajya Sabha

Chief Whip of the party in Rajya Sabha, Sukhendu Sekhar Roy said the Budget speech is full of rhetoric and the figures of increase in allocation are deceptive. He said, “ Export has lost momentum. Budget has no word on how the situation can be combated. Nothing has been said on the mounting NPAs over the years.”

He added that people are tired of hearing the growth story. He cited that India accounts for 1 in 3 people living below international poverty line. 800 million lndians live on 1.8$ per day and we talk of growth figures. More than 60% of the wealth is in the hands of only 1% people.”

Puncturing the government’s claims on FDI he said it is alarming that FIIs are constantly selling in equity and fixed income market since November 8, 2016 (when demonetisation was announced). He accused the ruling party of knowing in advance about demonetisation; that is why they bought hundreds of acres of land across States in cash, he added.

“People are suffering due to demonetisation. But government has no answer as to how much black money has been recovered and how much fake currency has been seized,” SS Roy said. “Workers in informal sector, plantation labourers, small traders, MSME – all have been destroyed,” he added.

Sukhendu Sekhar Roy wanted to know from the Finance Minister under which provisions of law were limits of cash withdrawal put in place. He said while ATMs still do not have cash, the Finance Minister claims there was no cash crunch for a single day in the last three months.

Reminding the BJP of their electoral promise of doubling the income of farmers, he wanted to know how much profit farmers have made in the last 2.5 years. He also said the BJP’s promise of bringing back black money from abroad was a jumla.

On electoral reforms, SS Roy said that Trinamool has always demanded state funding of polls through Election Commission. He said the measures introduced by the Finance Minister (capping of donations at Rs 2000 and introduction of electoral bonds) would not serve any purpose and were aimed at helping big parties at the cost of smaller parties.

Full transcript of his speech