Manish Gupta speaks on The Negotiable Instruments (Amendment) Bill, 2018

FULL TRANSCRIPT

Madam Chairman, I stand to support this Bill. I think in the middle of what is happening in the country today, we need to forge and understand new laws, so that, the future of our economic activity is not endangered by persons who have malafide intentions. In this respect, I think this particular Bill will serve the purpose to a certain extent. I don’t think that this Bill will have any great impact on the present situation, except as a step towards further improving the entirety of the problems.

Clause 2 of the Bill introduces Section 143 A, but it identifies two situations. One is the summary trial and other is the summons case. Now, Section 143 also gives power to the courts, to provide for 25 per cent to the complainer, while the case is in progress. A question has been raised, as to how the government arrived at this 25 per cent. It is a very arbitrary figure, and is a very cautious approach. What we need here is a bold approach and 25 per cent, I don’t think will have the desired effect. A much higher amount – like 30 or 40 per cent – would have given a decent incentive to people who issue cheques, which bounce in the banks.

It is very important to identify the causes of delay in the courts. We make laws, we bring up new legislations, but the general situation in delay in the courts has not been substantially solved. Today there are more than 30 lakh cases pending in the subordinate courts, and 35,000 cases are pending in the higher courts. Nobody has calculated when these decisions of the courts or convictions will be handed down, will be appealed again in the higher courts, so that means more time will elapse before justice is done.

However a silver lining is, that, recently in the Economic Survey, there is a chapter on justice delivery and courts. There is thinking in this regard that Our laws on dispute resolution can only be affected as the dispute resolution process themselves. Therefore, it is of utmost important that any legislation that the parties, who are involved in the dispute, must one way or the other be assured that their rights will be enforced in the court in the reasonable time.

The role of banks is important. RBI as the Central Bank has a very important role to play, although they are not involved in the court processes. The RBI’s recent track record indicates, as they have said, they don’t have adequate powers to deal with public sector banks. They have issued new guidelines for state’s assets in all the sectors – cement, power etc.

But the Central Bank cannot absolve itself of being more proactive. The people of India look up to the Reserve Bank. The Reserve Bank promulgates banking regulation. Banks charge Rs 300 for every representation of any bounced cheque. Reserve Bank needs to get more involved. New guidelines are unimaginative. The same guidelines have been recommended for many sectors. But each sector of economy has its own problem. This situation needs to be looked at more closely; even application of Section 421 of the CRPC. So all this will come into play when this Act is applied.

Therefore, although we support this legislation – it’s a step in the right direction – the government must keep on thinking as to what more they can do for the future.

Derek O’Brien speaks during a Calling Attention Motion on misuse of social media and fake news

FULL TRANSCRIPT

Sir, regarding this Calling Attention Motion, I have four specific questions to the minister and I hope he will answer that. Bur before that I have 3 sentences.

It is the party which came to power in 2014 which created the culture of digital mobs.

It is the party which came to power in 2014 which is trying to condition minds.

It is the party which came to power on 2014 which has made fake news into its master hobby.

I have four specific questions and all I ask for are the answers at the end of this debate. What did the minister not tell you in his so-called comprehensive review? He didn’t tell you which is the largest Facebook platform which was brought down by Facebook. And that page was called ‘Postcard News’. Look at the content of ‘Postcard News’. It is 100% right wing/RSS/BJP content.

(When did RSS become unparliamentary, Sir? I didn’t mean to hurt anyone. In my book it means Rumour Spreading Society.)

My first question: If Postcard News was brought down, why are BJP MLAs, MPs and ministers now demanding from Facebook that it should be brought back. Why?

My second question: One of India’s most vile, bilious, hatred-spreading Twitter handles is @IPPatel. Why was he called to the BJP President’s social media network meet last week?

My third question: Minister, if these big WhatsApp groups are creating all these problems – and you are right they are creating all these problems – please get WhatsApp to disclose to you at least 1,000 such groups and it will be very useful to you to find out who they are.

My fourth question: It is on Facebook. Facebook’s largest advertiser in India today, with 19 sponsored ads in the last six months, is ‘Nation with Namo’. My question is, who is paying for this?

Sir, I’m only concluding with one sentence. Sir, if I’m not making a relevant point I can sit down, if you want me to, but the four questions I’ve asked, I want the answers to those. Because, I believe and the Trinamool Congress believes, that digital India is really divisive India.

Thank you.

Pratima Mondal speaks on The Trafficking of Persons (Prevention, Protection and Rehabilitation) Bill, 2018

FULL TRANSCRIPT

Sir, I rise to speak on The Trafficking of Persons (Prevention, Protection and Rehabilitation) Bill 2018.

Trafficking is not only a global concern but is also affecting a number of South Asian nations. It is commendable that India is taking pioneering action in formulating a comprehensive Bill. The new Bill proposes to prevent one of the most pervasive crimes affecting the most vulnerable persons. It ends at prevention, rescue and rehabilitation of the vulnerable target groups including women and children.

This Bill, however, does not propose much new things from what already exists. It however creates a new category of aggravated forms of trafficking, carrying a minimum punishment of 10 years, which may extend to life imprisonment. Some of the aggravated forms of trafficking included in the Bill are for the purposes of forced labour, begging, marriage and childbearing, which have already been included under the existing law. Similarly so-called ‘new offences’ such as administering hormones or committing trafficking by administering alcohol or drugs have already been included in the existing law.

The new Anti-Trafficking Bill appears to be flawed as there are provisions that are both problematic and make no sense. For instance, gradation of offences appears to be illogical. The Anti-Trafficking Bill categorises offences for certain purpose as aggravated forms of trafficking which carry a punishment of 10 years or life imprisonment. Logically, offences that are graded higher must be more serious or culpable than the Act that constituted trafficking under section 377 of the IPC, which attributes punishment from seven to 10 years of imprisonment and a fine. That is not the fact. Trafficking for the purpose of begging is considered aggravated whereas trafficking for sexual exploitation is simple trafficking.

Further, slavery and practices similar to slavery and servitude which form the most shocking forms of oppression and bondage as per domestic and international laws are also categorised as simple trafficking. Some of the provisions are also vague and impractical. The Bill criminalises a host of activities which lack culpabilities and criminal intent. As an example, this Bill authorises closure of premises which can be used as places for trafficking; therefore applied in the context of labour trafficking, this law would allow factories and farms to be closed down on complaints simply by police or any person.

The penal provision against promoting or facilitating the trafficking of persons are also vague. The aspects related to IT companies, travel goods and employment sites need more clarity. The provision for confiscation of properties has been addressed in a rather wide sense, therefore properties may be attached not only when they are used for an offence but also if they are likely to be used for commission of offence under the Act.

There is no guidance as to when and under what circumstances likelihood for the latter will arise, so as to warrant attachment of the properties. The Bill falls back on the outdated methods of rescuing and detaining victims in the name of rehabilitation.

Institutionalisation of victims in homes, apparently for protection and rehabilitation, is contradictory to their fundamental rights. The victims of trafficking, especially women who have been trafficked for sexual exploitation, need to be rehabilitated in homes or shelters which have the right environment for rehabilitation and integration into society rather than a hostile and unsafe environment resulting in trauma instead

Instead of streamlining enforcement, the anti-trafficking Bill encourages institutionalising by bureaucracy. Creating 10 different agencies including anti-trafficking officers, units, committees and the bureau at the district, State and national levels to counter the problem will result in chaos and policy indecision as well as passing the buck on questions of accountability.

Besides, none of the proposed authorities have any representation from the affected communities, whose participation and perspective are vital for addressing trafficking successfully. In fact, involvement of sex workers in the oversight committee and the anti-trafficking board was strongly recommended by the Supreme Court-appointed panel, in light of their effective role and contribution. This has been overlooked.

The problem of trafficking cannot be disassociated from poverty, livelihood, displacement and security. People have and will always move for work, whether out of distress or for better opportunities. Prisons cannot confine or capture the dreams and aspirations of people, specially the poor and the marginalised. Adopting an approach of imprisonment in jail to what is largely a socio-economic phenomenon is misplaced and unwise.

Before I conclude my speech I would like to refer to one incident which happened in an NGO-run home in the district of Jalpaiguri in Bengal. Child trafficking cases happened there and local and national level women leaders belonging to the ruling party were involved. If this is the present scenario then the slogan, ‘Beti Bachao’ is not only vague but is also just a showpiece.

Thank you, Sir

Prof Sugata Bose makes an intervention on The Trafficking of Persons (Prevention, Protection and Rehabilitation) Bill, 2018

FULL TRANSCRIPT

But I wanted to just correct an error in the listing of the business at number 15 because it’s such an important Bill, it says that this Bill is being moved to persecute offenders. I am sure this is probably a typographical error but it could also be a Freudian slip since so many vulnerable people are being persecuted in our country. I know that Shrimati Maneka Gandhi is a very kind-hearted person, she would not wish to persecute anyone, so before we proceed any further I think we should make a correction at number 15 of the List of Business, to say that this Bill will prosecute offenders. There is a big difference between persecution and prosecution.

Derek O’Brien asks a Supplementary Question regarding Institutes of Eminence

FULL TRANSCRIPT

Sir, yeh joh 114 universities jinhone apply kiya hai, including 11 Central universities, 27 institutes of national importance, 27 State universities, 10 private universities, kuch mein education ka background hain, they have a background in education, they have a track record. My question to the Minister is very direct. What is the track record of a university which does not have a Facebook account or even a Twitter account, on what basis, can you just make it very clear to the House, has Jio Institute got a letter selecting it as an Institute of Eminence? Let us make it very clear because it is a very unconvincing argument, even he (HRD Minister) knows it.

My question is; has it (Jio Institute) become a university of eminence? Yes or no, because media reports are telling me something about this being linked to electoral bonds, I don’t want to go there.

Dola Sen asks Supplementary Questions on action plan for eradication of poverty

FULL TRANSCRIPT

Will the Minister of Planning be pleased to state:

a) whether the Government has any data on transgenders, homosexuals and other severely ostracised members of society below poverty line? If so, the details thereof;

and,

b) whether the Government would consider a thorough revision of its plan to specifically describe how it plans to undertake the eradication of poverty among all Indian citizens including from the categories mentioned above?

 

Ratna De Nag asks a Question on ODF villages/districts

FULL TRANSCRIPT

Thank you very much, Madam. It is pertinent to point out here that out of 23 districts in Bengal, 14 have been declared Open Defecation-Free districts and out of 38,000 villages, 33,525 villages have been declared Open Defecation-Free villages with the active initiative of our Chief Minister.

Through you, Madam, I would ask the Hon’ble Minister, has the Ministry tried to find out, since the programme came into being, the impact of the programme on the health of the people? Have the toilets been made disabled-friendly? If yes, the details thereof.

Derek O’Brien makes a Point of Order on Special Mentions being rejected

FULL TRANSCRIPT

Sir, My Point of Order is regarding Rule 180 (B). Special Mentions. Everybody must get a chance, specially our colleagues in the last row.

My point is, the MPs are representing a State. When they give a Special Mention, they want to bring out something important, which may be related to the State and the Centre. But many of these Special Mentions are being rejected at the level of the under-secretary.

This concerns everyone in the House. Special Mentions are being rejected under Rule 180 (B) (2). This is a serious issue.

Dola Sen speaks on the plight of tea garden workers in Bengal

FULL TRANSCRIPT

West Bengal Government has fully exempt tea gardens from agricultural income tax for the years 2018-19 and 2019-2020. There are 2.72 lakh workers in Bengal’s tea gardens and 8 lakh dependants living in tea gardens. The Bengal Government is committed to ensuring the welfare of tea garden workers and has allocated more than 1000 crore since 2011 for this. The West Bengal Government gives 35 kg rice at Rs 2 per kg, provides electricity and water supply to tea gardens, and raised their wages.

In the midst of politically motivated trade unions strikes, tea garden owners have gone to court to declare their tea garden as ‘abandoned’. As a result, workers are suffering. The West Bengal Government is proactively taking action against organisations who are not paying Provident Fund and gratuity. The lease of abandoned tea gardens which had been shut down are being cancelled and auctioned.

On the other hand, the Centre has failed to fulfil its promise of taking over 7 tea gardens. The promise was made by a Union Minister during 2016 Assembly election campaign. Tea estates in other parts of the country such as Assam need urgent attention of the Union Government. Other states and Centre must take inspiration from the Bengal model to uplift the conditions of tea farmers. Many tea workers still work at low wages and poor working conditions. The Centre must work towards ensuring better working conditions for tea workers to promote the industry.

Sudip Bandyopadhyay speaks on mob lynching

FULL TRANSCRIPT

Madam, I want to draw your attention to the issue of mob lynching. It is creating an alarming situation in different parts of the country. All sensible people are in a mood to condemn these incidents. It is a heinous crime, inhuman brutal crime. Few ugly motivated people are taking advantage of it and trying to create disturbance in the country.

We demand exemplary punishment for those who are creating mischief and creating a very uncertain situation. Parliamentary democratic system is under threat. Government should not keep mum and must not allow such things to happen. We are for united India. We are for ‘stop lynching’.

We want that Government of India should always give directions to the States. Because, as the Home Minister has always said, it is a State subject. It is a State subject; still, the government should take initiative. I would request hon Home Minister to take action regarding these incidents of lynching. We all wholeheartedly condemn such incidents.