Kalyan Banerjee speaks on The Supreme Court (Number of Judges) Amendment Bill, 2019


Thank you Madam, for the chance to speak on this. First of all, I am supporting this Bill which has been brought regarding increasing the strength of judges. As on July 1, 2019, in the Supreme Court, 38,982 admission matters were pending, 25,419 complete miscellaneous matters were pending, 13,563 incomplete miscellaneous matters were pending and 20,730 regular hearing matters were pending. Before the five-judge Constitution bench, 43 main matters were pending, and a total of 407 matters, including 364 connected matters, were pending; before the seven-judge Constitution bench, five main matters and eight connected matters were pending; and before the nine-judge Constitution bench, six main matters, and a total of 137 matters, including 131 connected matters, were pending.

Madam, through you, I want to inform that, as on June 28, 2018, the national judicial data grid said that 3.3 crore litigations are pending in the entire country, 2.84 crore matters in the subordinate courts, 43 lakh cases in the high courts, and 57,987 cases in the Supreme Court. The highest number of pending cases are in Uttar Pradesh, the number being 61.58 lakh. Next is Maharashtra, with 33.22 lakh cases, then West Bengal, with 17.59 lakh cases, Bihar, with 16.58 lakh cases, and Gujarat, with 16.45 lakh cases. Two lakh cases are pending in courts, and the ages of these 2 lakh cases range range back to 50 years, with 1,010 cases in the later category.

This is the situation we are faced with. Cases will always go on increasing, and considering the 3.3 crore cases pending, the Central Government should come up with a proposal to increase the strength of the subordinate judiciary and the high courts. A Bill for that should also be brought.

If this is the figure for the number of pending cases for Supreme Court judges, then how many how many judges are required? Now I come to the quality of judges. I am not trying to speak against anything, I am trying to give suggestions. When I came to the profession in 1981 in Calcutta High Court in the month of November, judges took hardly two to three minutes to decide whether a matter should be admitted or not, so vastly knowledgeable were they. Now the judges take 45 minutes, even up to 1 hour 15 minutes to decide. This has to come down. Hence my suggestion on looking at the quality of the lawyers who are elevated as judges.

As a member of the Personnel, Public Grievances, Law and Justice Committee, headed by the Chairman Bhupen Yadav, Member of Parliament in the Rajya Sabha, we went to visit three high courts – Chennai, Mumbai and lastly, Calcutta. At all the three high courts, the best lawyers are often not accepting the post of judge, the next best ones are accepting. Why is this? There is no rule for this to happen, but a rule has been made for the Supreme Court that, unless you are at least 45 years old, you will not be offered with the post of a judge.

There is an issue that happens in the case of this age limit. As an example, we learnt that a person’s name was recommended one year back; his age was 44 years 6 months. Just because he was short by six months, the SC Collegium did not recommend his name. Now, this year, he has been called again as his case has been recommended since he has crossed 45 years and I know personally, he is a brilliant boy. Why this one year has unnecessarily gone? Is there any law? Is there any rule? Whether he is the MVP? Therefore, if you want to pick up brilliant lawyers, then do not wait upto 45 years – 40/41/42/43 years. Since I wanted to come into politics, I inform you, I got the offer at the age of 37 years 6 months. At that time it was not there, it was 1994. Now why are you bringing this down? You can appreciate, had I been accepted then what I would have been now. I am 62 plus. Naturally, why you are not picking up, you are missing the first category of lawyers, that is one of my points.

Second is the behaviour of the judges. I am not blaming everyone. Behaviour of some judges is really shocking. They do not treat the lawyers as a lawyer. Their behaviour has become so rude that sometimes it is painful for the lawyer. When a lawyer goes to court, he is not going for begging in front of the judges; he is doing the case for his client. The client may commit crime, may not commit crime, but very few, I’m not blaming the entire lot. I will request the Honorable Law Minister to bring a law so that their behaviour, their mixing with the people, everything should be covered by the law. Even if a judge commits contempt of his own, it has happened in Calcutta High Court long back when I was there. He felt that since he had uttered so many words, he had committed contempt; therefore he resigned from the judge’s seat. Nowadays, situations have changed.

Third point that I am saying is, some judges coming for two years or three years from the higher judiciary, elevated to High Court for three years, they are just passing time, nothing more than that. Nothing more than that. What is the remedy of that?

The next point is that there are recommendations of Collegiums for appointment of the judges. Madam, through you I will request the Honorable Law Minister that kindly do not keep it pending. I know your answer – I have read from the newspaper “the office of the Law Ministry is not a post-office”. Now, it may not be so, you apply your mind but kindly clear it. Either you reject it immediately or you clear it. In a case of Calcutta High Court, one of the lawyers came, he was recommended two years back, but still it is pending with the central government. I do not want to take names, I do not want to influence anyone or any person but it is still pending. Why is this? And I will request through you Honorable Chairperson, to the Law Minister, please stop giving appointments to the retired judges and rehabilitate them. If you want to bring transparency, if you want that yes our judiciary should be independent judiciary, please stop giving appointments to the retired judges. Not only them, but retired IAS officers, retired IPS officers after their terms. Please take steps to stop it and if it is stopped, I think Indian judiciary will be more independent.

Madam, at the inception, in 1950 when the Supreme Court was established, what was the judges’ strength? Judges strength was eight. Now what I will speak, I think all the Members of Parliament will like, although not directly, but indirectly connected. I will request all the Honorable Members just to hear this. Everywhere, vacancies are being increased. Tendency of the judges, tendency of the work, judges strength have increased, IPS cadres strength has increased. My question is, have you ever thought about this because of the increase of voters, now how many Members of Parliament are required? There is no increase in MPs, if the strength of Members of Parliament is increased, then there will be a hue and cry. I want to tell you, in the 1st Lok Sabha in 1951, total voters in the country were 17.321 crores and at that time the total seats of Members of Parliament were 489. It was increased to 520 in the 4th Lok Sabha that time it was 25.227 crores. Now in 17th Lok Sabha, registered voters are 90 crores! Just see, in the 1st Lok Sabha in 1951, total voters in the country were 17.321 crores, and now we are having 90 crores and 544 other vacancies.

Now in 1950, when the Supreme Court was established, the Judges’ strength was eight. Today, when the Bill would be passed, it would be 34, that is more than 400 percent. But in the case of Members of Parliament, when it was 17.321 crore voters, it was 489. Now we have 90 crore registered voters, and we have only 544 MPs. But the workload is also there. That means there has been a five-time increase. But our strength has not been increased to that extent. But in the case of the Supreme Court Judge, only eight judges were there and now there are 34. That means an increase of 400 percent. Either increase our strength or you give us helping hands. It is impossible for us to handle this 20 lakhs voters, that means another 40 lakh citizens. You give us an additional secretary from the Government. We are being blamed that we are not in a position to meet people, workload has been increased but if one paisa is increased of the MPs, there will be a hue and cry among the public. But in the case of MPs, so much injustices are there, media doesn’t see what is actually happening.

Kalyan Banerjee intervenes during Minister’s reply on The Inter-State River Water Disputes (Amendement) Bill, 2019


At the commencement of your speech you have confused us, you have confused me. You have said one chairman, one vice-chairman, three judicial members and three experts.So it comes to eight. In your Bill, in Clause 4E(1)(b), it is stated that ‘the Chairperson may constitute a Bench consisting of the Chairperson or Vice-Chairperson as the presiding officer, with one Judicial Member and one Expert Member.’ That means one bench will consist of three persons.

Now, two benches can be constituted. If one has three members, two benches would have six members. But you are saying here that there would be eight members. Then what about the other two members? It is your debate, you started with those numbers.

You have confused me. In your debate you yourself have talked about eight members – one chairman, one vice chairman, three judicial members and three experts. And then again, your Bill is talking about two benches, with three members on each. So what would the two members do? Is there any necessity to appoint eight members, or six members? This is my number one issue.

Number two is regarding the sitting of this tribunal in Delhi. If you remember, in front of the Law Minister I had said that – here I am taking the privilege of the presence of the Law Minister, and this is with regard to not only this Bill – why should every tribunal’s head office be in Delhi? I am not restricted here. I am taking the privilege of the presence of the Law Minister. Aap toh zyada padhe hain, aap bahut intelligent hain, hum utna intelligent nahi. Toh aap yeh six aur eight samjha dijiye.


Kalyan Banerjee speaks on The Inter-State River Water Disputes (Amendment) Bill, 2019


Chairman Sir, to a certain extent I agree with the Honourable Minister’s speech that not only for years together but for decades together the tribunals were functioning. Sometimes I was astonished as to how long a tribunal can take for adjudicating a dispute.

I know about one such case, involving a judge who retired from Patna in either 1990 or 1991. He was elevated as a judge for only one year. I know that upto 2017 he was a member of a water disputes tribunal. After retirement, from 1992 to 2017, that is, for almost 25 years, he continued as a judge of a water disputes tribunal; and this tribunal was functioning, the members being like the part-time members of any tribunal, doing other jobs, arbitration, etc. When they got the time, they looked into the matters before the tribunal. Therefore, there is no doubt that this is a very good proposal that has been brought by this Bill – to constitute a permanent tribunal, and the constitution of the tribunal has also been given here.

According to the speech of the Honourable Minister, the Inter-State River Water Disputes Tribunal will constitute of a chairman, vice-chairman, three members from the judiciary and three other experts, therefore a total of eight members. Now since power has been given to the tribunal to assign any matter to the benches, two questions arise: one, how many benches can be created, and two, how many members would constitute a bench.

If three members are there, then at least two judicial members should be there, because expert members’ views cannot supercede the views of the judicial members. That is the law of this country and that should be followed. A view coming from an administrative member without knowledge of the law will not be appreciated, and as you know, Sir, in various judgements, the Supreme Court has said that a judicial member’s view needs to be given due weightage. Therefore these are two important questions that I have: how many benches will be and how many members would constitute a bench?

I will speak on only two or three points. Clause 4B(2)(b) says, ‘the Chief Justice of India or a Judge of the Supreme Court nominated by him’. I will request you to keep only ‘Chief Justice of India’ and not ‘a Judge of the Supreme Court nominated by him’. I will make this request. Let the Chief Justice remain in the consultation process although this committee consists of the Honourable Prime Minister, the Chief Justice of India or a judge nominated by him, the minister-in-charge, other ministers, etc.

But I have a  little request. The views of the Chief Justice should be given the primacy since there is no scope to appoint any Member of Parliament, be it the Leader of the Opposition or from the largest party; there is no scope in this Bill. It is also about having deep respect for the judiciary. Ultimately in our country, democracy has been strengthened because of a number of interventions by the Supreme Court. We must accept that.

Sir, the continuation of the proceeding before the tribunals was not only because of fault on the part of the members of the benches. If we say so then we will not be doing justice to the members. It is a fact that even for minor issues, the parties to a dispute would come to the Supreme Court and fight for its intervention, and matters would remain pending before the Supreme Court for years together. Therefore, the Supreme Court too should take initiatives to decide disputes that are going on for decades together, like that between Tamil Nadu and Karnataka, quickly and not entertain interventions at every stage. I find that in cases of water disputes, almost every order passed by the tribunal is taken to the Supreme Court by one of the parties, and the process of resolution of the dispute become staled. This is another important factor to consider.

Sir, so far as the benches of the tribunal are concerned, 4E(2) says, ‘The Benches of the Tribunal shall ordinarily sit at New Delhi or at such other places as the Chairperson may decide.’ Incidentally the Honourable Law Minister is also present here. I seek the intervention both of the Honourable Minister and the Honourable Law Minister. Why should the main offices of all tribunals, the main branches, be in Delhi? Why? Every tribunal’s main office is in Delhi. What is the attraction of Delhi? And that’s the reason fees of lawyers in Delhi are tremendously high. I will request the Law Minister, who is  also present here, to reduce the burden of the litigants by making more circuit benches and setting up the head offices of different tribunals in different States. Then you will find that the lawyers’ fees would also come down from unreasonable amounts. And because of the Supreme Court, Delhi lawyers are enjoying. They will do their court-related work upto 4 o’clock and then do their arbitration-related work. Nothing of this sort should be allowed. Arbitration should be a full-time job, not a part-time one. I am taking advantage of the presence of the Law Minister. Please look into this.

Clause 4A(5) says that ‘Any water dispute which cannot be settled by negotiations shall be referred by the Central Government, by notification, to the Tribunal for its adjudication within a period of three months from the date of receipt of the report under sub-section (3).’ Almost on all issues of water dispute, matters come to loggerheads and therefore remain unresolved. If it can help in the resolution, I have a humble suggestion: before making a reference appoint at least one neutral arbitrator to settle the dispute, and this appointment can be made by the Central Government. If the matter is still not resolved, the Central Government can refer it to the tribunal.

<Minister’s intervention>

Dispute redressal committees never settle any dispute. As an example, in matrimonial matters, if you go to a redressal committee, it will ask for money to settle the dispute. This cannot be the approach. The Delhi High Court rules are there in the Constitution. If you to the councils which have been appointed, the first thing they will say to the wife is how much money does she want to settle the dispute. Should this be the approach in a constitutional proceeding? This should not never be the approach. Regarding mediators, only the Lok Adalats are functioning properly, settling disputes regarding the dues with banks.

I invite your attention to West Bengal. During the rainy season, when there is heavy rainfall, the Damodar Valley Corporation (DVC) releases water without consulting the State Government, because of which the entire Hooghly, Howrah and East Midnapore districts are flooded. People are affected. I think those who are coming from West Bengal, any Member, irrespective of party, know how the DVC releases water.

I will request the Honourable Minister, since I got this opportunity, to also take care of this issue. Everything should be done in consultation with the State Government. After all ours is a quasi-federal set-up. Before releasing water during the rainy season, why should there be no consultation with the State Government? When you are bringing any Bill, any issue in it that needs the cooperation of both the Centre and the State, the wording in the Bill should be in such a way as to ensure that. My experience is this: in the 17th Lok Sabha, and in fact from the last part of the 16th Lok Sabha, for any subject in the Concurrent List, there has been no consultation with the States. Why is it that the State should not be consulted at every stage? The Central Government does not suffer after all, it is the people of the States who suffer. Therefore the Central Government should consult, an institution like the DVC should consult the State Governments. I am talking about States like West Bengal and other lower riparian States.  Why should there be no consultation? Unless you get the money from the income tax from the States you can’t run your ministry. You may take all the credits but all the revenue is coming from the income taxes of the States, that is the reason you are showing your power. Otherwise you are powerless and toothless.


Kalyan Banerjee speaks on setting up a Central school in Serampore parliamentary constituency 


Honourable Speaker Sir, I am raising an important issue, regarding the setting up of Central school in Serampore parliamentary constituency. It is about an hour’s distance from Kolkata but unfortunately there is not a single Central school in my constituency and some of the most educated people stay in Serampore and Uttarpara. Initially the Dutch landed in Serampore for the purpose of commerce and trade. After the Dutch, the  French came to Chandannagar, and long after that, the East India Company landed in Kolkata. Therefore Serampore is the oldest town, not only in the state of West Bengal but in the entire country itself.

Therefore, through you, Sir, I make a request that we really need a Central school, otherwise we have to send our kids either to Barrackpore or Tarakeswar or Santragachi, which are at long distances from my constituency. That is a request I’m making. Thank you, Sir.


Kalyan Banerjee speaks on the problems faced by the jute industry in Bengal


Sir, by the press release dated November 22, 2018, the Cabinet Committee of Economic Affairs has taken a decision to procure 100 percent jute bags for the purpose of the all safety sectors and 20 percent for sugar. This procurement has not been done. This is a Central Government decision. 

The jute industries are really suffering and all jute industries, specially in West Bengal. In both the two districts of Hooghly and North 24 Parganas, at least 25 jute mills are there; they are suffering.

Through you, I have a request that the Ministry of Textile must implement this Cabinet decision, which has been taken for the purpose of procurement of jute bags from all the jute mills. Since no procurement is being made, 60 percent of the jute industries are closed down; lakhs and lakhs of jute workers have become unemployed. Therefore, this is my request that this step should be taken.


Kalyan Banerjee asks a Supplementary Question on the poor performance of BSNL and MTNL


Thank you Hon’ble Speaker Sir for giving me a chance to ask this Supplementary Question. There are different data; I am not disputing the data at all. The point remains somewhere else. The point is, despite the Central Government’s intentions today, that in rural areas there would be netbanking, there would be internet connectivity, access to the internet; today not only in rural areas but in cities as well, 3G is not sufficient for netbanking or anything related to the internet.

My very specific question; intention of the Government is to make ‘Digital India’. This is very good, very appreciated but for making an effective ‘Digital India’ there needs to be an improvement in towers and enhancement upto 4G. Through you, Hon’ble Speaker Sir, I have a very specific question to the Hon’ble Minister. Are we in a position to make an enhancement upto 4G? Are we in a position to improve mobile towers? Everyone in the House will also agree that the MTNL telephone which has been given to us, we don’t get any connectivity.


Kalyan Banerjee speaks on The Constitution (One Hundred and Twenty-Third Amendment) Bill, 2017 


We were discussing the Constitution (One Hundred and Twenty-Third Amendment) Bill on January 3, 2018, but because of disturbances, the House was adjourned and the discussion could not continue. This matter was discussed in the Rajya Sabha and the Amendment which had been brought by Bhartruhari Mahtab was accepted by the Rajya Sabha and now the Amendment has come for our consideration. Sir, on that date I had categorically said that we welcome this Amendment. Some of the anxieties have now been taken care of by reason of the amendment which has been accepted in Rajya Sabha itself.

I will just point out one or two things. Firstly, I really appreciate the Amendment that the State Government is not bound. According to Clause B (ii), provided such consultation that is not mandatory for the State Government in respect of our policy matter, affecting socially and educationally backward classes which are included in the list of our Constitution. Basically, we wanted to say this.

And every consultation with the State Government is very meaningful consultation, not mere consultation. It should be a meaningful consultation. In that case, both the Centre and the State will help, both have obligations, either in the case of SC or ST or OBC. Those who are lagging behind, the support has to be given to them for the purpose of equality. Now, therefore, the Bill is the concern. It is a nice one. We must try to resolve their problems as quickly as possible.

The chairman of the commission is there, members are there. Since it is concerning OBCs, appropriate steps should be taken so that the vice-chairman is appointed from among the OBC categories. That would be very helpful. They are more concerned about their problems.

One thing I just want to tell the Hon. Minister is that the number of scholarships that were given to OBCs have decreased by a large number. It has to be restored. They should be given more scholarships and more benefits.

Our Hon. Chief Minister, through a letter on July 23, 2016, addressed to the Hon. Prime Minister, had pointed out the degree of decreasing scholarships – the amount and the numbers. I will be happy if the Hon. Minister kindly takes care about that.

I will be completing my speech by saying one more thing, since in the morning it was also there – regarding the judgement pronounced with respect to the Scheduled Caste matter, diluting the provision for making FIRs and not to grant anticipatory bail.

Today it has been informed by our Hon. Home Minister that the Cabinet has taken the decision to bring in the The Constitution (One Hundred and Twenty-Third Amendment) Bill, 2017. We welcome it, but I have one question. The presiding judge, who was delivering the judgement in that case, the day after he retired was appointed in the Green Tribunal. This is a matter of surprise. When vacancies for Supreme Court judges are not being filled up, when for months after months vacancies of the High Courts are not being filled up, year after year; against whom are you speaking? The judgements, not any individuals. That presiding judge was appointed overnight. If anyone does something in favour of Scheduled Castes, Schedule Tribes and OBCs, it is because they need help and assistance, and that is a constitutional goal also. Otherwise, Part IV of the Constitution of India would become meaningless.

By saying this, and other things, whatever the agonies were there on January 3, have been removed. I wish this commission should starts functioning immediately in the true spirit of the provisions of the Constitution for the betterment of the people, that is, OBCs, who deserve help and assistance either from the Central Government or from the State Governments.

With this, Sir, I conclude.

Kalyan Banerjee speaks on The Integrated Goods and Services Tax (Extension to Jammu and Kashmir) Bill, 2017

Honourable Deputy Speaker,

Sir, I am really obliged that you have given me a chance to speak. I will be very brief. Thank you.

We are in agreement with GST. We have said that if the GST Bill comes, we will agree to it in principle. We have also agreed to the GST Council. But a problem has occurred now. A very pertinent question has arisen. The GST Council is fixing the rate of taxes. But it is neither routed through the Parliament and the State Assemblies nor is it liable for judicial review.

Nobody can question that now. The fixation of rates by the GST Council has become arbitrary. I will give you some illustrations too. The tax rates under the GST are set at 0 per cent, 5 per cent, 12 per cent, 18 per cent and 28 per cent for various goods and services, and almost 40 per cent of goods and services come under the 18 per cent tax rate. So, around 60 per cent of goods and services are in the higher tax brackets. The GST has been introduced with effect from July 1. We have all agreed to that. But how are we passing our post-GST days? In every walk of life the rates have increased by reason of the application of GST. People planning to purchase white goods will have to shell out more money as most appliances and durable goods makers have increased their prices in the new regime under GST.

Services to higher education institutes, utility bills, personal care products, sugar, prepared meals, snacks and sweets, pan, tobacco and 382 intoxicants – where current inflation is already high, the tax incidences too will be higher under GST. These items have around 20 per cent weightage in the CPI basket and could see a one-time transitory inflation hump.

Durable makers would also go for another hike before the festive seasons. Prices of majority of essential drugs have increased by up to 2.29 per cent and in the majority of cases the drugs are not available in the stores. The Government has fixed a GST rate of 12 per cent on most of the essential drugs as against the current tax incidence of around 9 per cent. The prices of essential services have also increased. Overall tax after GST comes to around 18 per cent in comparison to the earlier rate of 12.5 to 15 per cent and even 4 per cent for some retail products. Things which have become more expensive after GST include residential rent, health care and school fees. The total expense ratio of a mutual fund, commonly called the expense ratio of a mutual fund company, has gone up by 3 per cent. Courier services and mobile bills will also cost more. Bank services, credit card services and the renewal of premium for life insurance policies are going to cost higher. The costs of banking and investment management services have also gone up. Basic needs of the common man, like Wi-Fi and DTH services have become costlier. Also, commuting by metro and the online booking of all tickets have become costlier. Footwear costing more than Rs 500 is now being charged GST at 18 per cent while the earlier rate was 14.41 per cent. Garments and clothes have become more expensive.

Movie tickets costing above Rs 100 are attracting a higher tax rate of 28 per cent. The GST on the ticket prices for amusement parks and theme parks has been increased to 28 per cent under GST from the earlier tax of 15 per cent. In media also, there will be an addition of 5 per cent GST while there was no tax earlier. Security, maintenance and legal services’ costs have also gone up. Multiple indirect taxes have also increased the administrative costs for manufacturers and distributors for whom the prices have become higher. It has also increased the costs of langar, the community kitchen and prasad. For consumer sector products like cream, shampoo, television, fridge etc., the net tax has gone up. Earlier, the tax rate was 25 to 27 per cent and now it has gone up to 28 per cent.

So, basically, cheaper items are for the higher society people, and thus, car and other motor making companies have slashed prices of most of its models by up to 3 per cent with immediate effect.

Experts say that CGST and SGST are nothing but new names for Central Excise, Service Tax, VAT and CST. Small and medium enterprises are still not completely aware of the effects of the new tax regime. Changing over to a completely new system of taxation requires an understanding of the new system.

The Honourable Minister for Finance is not here, but the Honourable Law Minister is here. Sir, kindly communicate through the MoS that whether I am in Kolkata or Delhi, all my friends from legal fraternity are asking me one question.


Kalyan Banerjee asks a Question on skill development in North Eastern region


Madam, my question is that the Centre is opening all the centres in semi urban areas; will they take steps for the rural areas?

Will they try to expand to any other arenas which will help the poor people of the rural areas?


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:



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



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