'We Do Not Want Any Confrontation'

Somnath Chatterjee : In a democracy, it is natural that therewould be differences among political parties on many issues, and these arereflected in the parliament also. At times, parties get excited over someparticular issues which appear important to them. It is true that theparliament does not always function normally, but we are making efforts, and I amhopeful that by talking to all, in the coming days, we would be able to see thehouse conducting business smoothly.

BBC listener : Sir, the judiciary of the country does not takeorders from political bosses, however the recent controversy over Jharkhand hasproved that there is a lack of accountability. How can there be accountabilityin decisions which affect public of the country?

Somnath Chatterjee : The issue is dignity of both Legislatureand Judiciary. The Constitution clearly states that all its major pillarsshould work independently, showing respect to each other, which means the Legislature,Judiciary and Executive should be working harmoniously, but if any of thepillars tries to cross its Lakshman Rekha and interferes in the working ofthe  other,it is bound to create problems for all.

BBC listener from Jodhpur : Sir, articles 122 and 212 of theConstitution clearly state that role of Legislature is supreme. The interventionof Supreme Court in Jharkhand was a matter of shock, but don’t you think thatit is act of some in the legislature who are responsible for this confusion andmess today?

Somnath Chatterjee :  The MPs and the MLAs would have tobehave responsibly and uphold the constitutional values, so thatjudiciary or any other arm does not get a chance to interfere in the internallegislative working. The entire issue started with the decision of Jharkhandgovernor -- there is no doubt that his decision was wrong, but could another wrongon top of it have rectified the things? Two wrongs do not make a right.

So many cases are pending in courts, there is a sense of fear inordinary people regarding delay in cases and rising costs. Criminal cases arenot decided in time, they linger on for years, more than 10 years in some cases,how law has to be implemented, what is to be done for speedy disposal – allthese things require reforms, but these reforms have to done internally by thejudiciary. Can the legislature rectify this by interfering in it from outside?It cannot.

What I am saying is there can be no violation of the constitutionalprovisions. Absolutely, there was a mistake on the part of the governor, but howcould the second mistake have rectified this?

Nagendar Sharma : Sir, after the Supreme Court’s interim order on Jharkhand"preponing" the date of vote of confidence by Shibu Soren government, you convened anall party meeting, which was boycotted by the major opposition party. The central government did not go ahead with the resolution of all party meetingseeking presidential reference and today (Sunday’s) the Speakers' meet saw some ofthe speakers not attending. Isn’t it a cause of disappointment for you ?

Somnath Chatterjee : I am not disappointed at all. Speakers offour-five assemblies decided not to participate, a couple of others could notcome due to genuine reasons, there was no politics in it. So far as the decisionof these four-five speakers is concerned, it is a sad thing. In fact there was astatement that they are not attending the meeting as their party and alliancehad asked them to stay away. I know one thing, that if for example tomorrow Isay that I am doing a particular thing as my party CPI(M) has asked me to do so,then I should also be ready for public criticism. My view is parties should leave speakers alone to decide forthemselves and work to safeguard the constitutional provisions.

The meeting of presiding officers was not on Jharkhand issue, letme make it clear -- it was to ensure the smooth and independent functioning oflegislature, without any confrontation with any other arm of the state. I am thespeaker of the Lok Sabha, the House of people’s representatives of theworld’s largest democracy, I cannot silently see any interference in thefunctioning of legislature, if I remain silent, then I would be failing in myduty.

Nagendar Sharma : What is your view on the Supreme Court’s interim decisionon Jharkhand?

Somnath Chatterjee : It was a wrong decision. With due respect forthe judiciary, which I fully respect, I say the Supreme Court should not havegiven this decision.  It was not judiciary’s work.  Whateverhappened in Jharkhand assembly on the day decided by Supreme Court for vote ofconfidence was there for all to see. What would have the Court done after that?Could it have jailed the pro-tem speaker and the MLAs? Could it have sentpolice inside the assembly?

Finally, see the solution to this complex problem did not come fromthe Supreme Court order of 9^th March. It was solved when the Centredecided to ask Shibu Soren for his resignation, following which a new governmentwas formed, which proved its majority in the assembly. So the solution did notcome from Supreme Court.

I have myself been a lawyer for more than fifty years, and I haveimmense respect for the judiciary, I have nothing to say against the judiciary,what I am stressing upon is that any wrong committed weakens the spirit of theConstitution. My submission is when I have been entrusted the duty ofsafeguarding the Constitution, then judiciary should not worry on this count.

BBC listener from Gujarat : Sir, don’t you feel you are confusedat the ideological level. On one hand you are talking of separation of powersand you hold judicial interference in legislative work wrong, on the other hand,when the legislature is failing in its duty and the judiciary is trying torectify it, you are talking of reforms in judiciary?

Somnath Chatterjee: I have never said that I would reform thejudiciary. All I am doing is fulfilling the constitutional duty entrusted to me.Let me make it clear that no-one else would be able to do my work, similarly asI would not be able to do the work which judiciary is supposed to be doing.

Remember, mistakes can be committed by anyone. Are you trying tosay that no mistakes are made in courts? See, there have been many cases wherethe Supreme Court has revised High Court decisions, and there have been caseswhere judgements delivered by full benches of High Courts have been revised bythe Supreme Court. Similarly many appeal courts have turned down the verdicts oftrial courts. So we have to learn from mistakes and move forward.

It is not a question of reforms from outside and other relatedcomments. I have never said that judiciary should not do its work, I never saidthat the Supreme Court order on Jharkhand should not be implemented. What I amsaying is that is a disturbing situation, and such situations should be handledcarefully.

In a democracy like ours, the work of all the arms has beenclearly defined. Does anyone want that Parliament be shut down? Would the judiciarybe able to run the country? would the judiciary make laws and pass the budgetand bring reforms? Is the judiciary capable of doing legislative business? Would it be able to do all this ?

We have highest respect for the judiciary, we have experienced andeminent jurists in the country, but the point I am making is that each arm has to dothe work as enshrined in the Constitution. No arm can work for the other likethe legislature cannot do the work of the executive.

Nagendar Sharma : But developments in recent days show there is no guaranteeof one arm of the Constitution not interfering in the work of another. What doyou think could guarantee mutual respect?

Somnath Chaterjee : There can be no guarantee. How can there bea guarantee? But what is important is that the spirit of the Constitution befollowed. It is the tallest and applies to all in this country. We do not wantany clash with any other arm of the state. What we are saying is that thereshould not be any curb on the legislature. If there is, then a voice would have tobe raised against this. What has happened at the meeting of presiding officers iswe have just said that we want what has been enshrined in the Constitution to befollowed. We do not want any confrontation with the judiciary, it is not in theinterest of anyone when two arms of the state could be at loggerheads with eachother.

BBC listener from Florida : Sir, you have made sincere effortsduring last nine months to restore the dignity of Lok Sabha. I would like todraw your attention to the fact that most of the MPs are not educationallyqualified to represent the people. Why is there no minimum qualification?

Somnath Chatterjee :  It is not that by being a graduateor similar qualifications, the behaviour of the MPs would change. At the moment you seemany educated MPs rushing to the well of the House and raising slogans. Merelythe educational qualification criterion would not help, What I say is that raisethe issue which you want to, participate in discussions, but listen to what theothers are saying -- you do not have to agree with what the other or opposing campis saying, but how would you react without listening? So it is not education, but the policy you follow, yourwish-list regarding what you want todo as a public representative -- it all depends on many factors.

BBC listener from Bihar : Sir, today the behaviour of members inthe Indian Parliament has made a joke out of our country in the world. Foreigners mock atus -- why is it that even an illustrious Speaker like youappears helpless rather than dealing strongly with this rowdyism?

Somnath Chatterjee  : At times I feel what you are saying isright. There are rules and regulations regarding suspension and removal fromthe House, but such rules can only be implemented if there is unanimity in theHouse. You cannot suspend and take similar harsh measures when around 140-150MPs start disrupting the proceedings. I do not want to take the help ofsuch rules, but MPs should think that when the House is in session, during thosedays, when they go home after 6 PM,  they should ask themselves what was theirprogress throughout the day --  what did they do to do justice with public faithand money being spent on them?

Nagendar Sharma : Sir, sorry to interrupt you.. But in your nine terms as MP,your almost entire time was an opposition MP, there were disruptions earlier,you have led protests yourself, how do you want all this to change now ?

Somnath Chatterjee : What you are saying is right. I personally never used to rush to the well of the House, but since I was the Parliamentary leaderof my party, I cannot say we did not do such things, at times my partycolleagues have rushed to the well. But what is disturbing is the trend thatyour voice would only be heard if you disrupt proceedings totally. Peoplelike Vajpayeeji, Malhotraji, who are in opposition today, were in power duringthe previous Lok Sabhas, and they used to severely criticise us for not allowingthe House to function. They repeatedly said the opposition was not allowing theQuestion Hour and other business. I want to say to them today that do not repeatthe mistake which we made during the previous Lok Sabhas. Leave behind what hashappened in the past, come let us join hands to strengthen parliamentarydemocracy, and start a new era of smooth functioning, which would encourage thepeople of the country to watch the proceedings with respect.     

Nagendar Sharma : Sir, you have said all pillars and organs of democracy andconstitution should work within their ‘Lakshman Rekha’, but if any of thesecrosses the limit in future, what happens?

Somnath Chatterjee : I appeal to all the arms to work withinthe Constitutional provisions, helping each other. If this is not followed andanyone tries to do the work of other, leaving its own work, the country wouldface a difficult situation and it would lead to a serious crisis.                                             

BBC listener from Oman : Sir, why is there no rule to dealpunitively with members obstructing Parliamentary proceedings and why hasthe Women’s Reservation Bill been put in cold storage?

Somnath Chatterjee : There are rules, but how can it beimplemented when one-thirds of the total members of the House start behaving inan inappropriate manner, and I do not want to use such rules. I believe indialogue with the members.

I think the government should immediately introduce the Women’sReservation Bill in the parliament. Major political parties had promised this tothe electorate during the elections, and they should honour their commitment. Iam in the chair, I cannot direct the government to bring the Bill, but I promiseto give time when the Bill is brought before the House.

Nagendar Sharma : Do you have a sense of satisfaction in your nine-monthtenure as a Speaker, are you being able to do what you wanted to?

Somnath Chatterjee : No I am not satisfied. I would not say I haveachieved success in what I wanted to do. However, the things are moving and I amconcentrating on things one after the other. The confrontational politics inthis country is directly reflected in the parliamentary proceedings. Politicalparties think that by disrupting the House, they have achieved what they wantedto and that they have been heard -- this is a wrong notion. I say, lead as many movements andagitations outside the House, why bring them inside? And concentrate on yourspeaking skills in the Parliament, speak loudly, angrily, criticise each other,but allow the House to run.

The situation which we are faced with today, presents aserious threat to the parliamentary democracy. If the elected representatives donot understand their responsibility of behaving in the House, eventually publictrust would be destroyed.  I have met numerous youth and student delegations, who haveexpressed their unhappiness over the scenes in Parliament and statelegislatures. Remember, failure of parliamentary democracy means militarydictatorship as the only other option. I appeal to youth to come forward to strengthen the parliamentarydemocracy by active participation in it.