HT This Day: May 8, 1981 — Lok Sabha revokes PM’s expulsion

The Lok Sabha today rescinded the December 19. 1978 resolution moved the then Prime Minister, Mr Morarji Desai, under which Mrs Indira Gandhi had been expelled from the House and sent to prison.

With empty Opposition benches and almost full strength of the Congress-I members who were present till late evening when the debate concluded, the House adopted Congress-U member B. R. Bhagat’s motion setting aside the findings of the 1978 Privileges Committee and the resolution of the House.

Except the DMK and the Muslim League, the entire Opposition had walked out earlier against the ruling of the Speaker, Mr Balram Jakhar, who had overruled all the objections of the Opposition members that the motion could not be taken up under the Rules of the House.

There being no one to say “no”, when the Speaker asked for the opinion of the House, he declared that the motion had been passed “unanimously.”

The common theme of all those who participated in the four and a half hour debate was that the action taken against Mrs Gandhi was illegal, unconstitutional , undemocratic, immoral, politically vindictive and against all norms of parliamentary practice. By rescinding the 1978 resolution, the Lok Sabha was today atoning for a sin which had been committed. By returning Mrs Gandhi back to power with thundering majority, the supreme masters, the people, had given a mandate against the unlawful act which had been committed on December 19, 1978.

The motion adopted today exonerates Mrs Gandhi and two officers Mr R. K. Dhawan and Mr D. Sen declaring them “innocent of the charges levelled against them.”

Mr Dhawan, Additional Private Secretary to the Prime Minister and Mr D. Sen, Director of the Central Bureau of Investigation had been convicted along with Mrs Gandhi for harassment of the officials of the Industries Ministry who were collecting information for Parliament on alleged violation of of the terms of licence issued to the late Mr Sanjay Gandhi for manufacturing the Maruti car.

Besides the mover of the motion, Mr B. R. Bhagat and seconder Mr C. T. Dhandapani (DMK), those participating in the debate included Mr Brahmananda Reddi, Mr Mohan Lal Sukhadia, Mr Ashok Sen, Mr Jagannath Kaushal, Mr Vithal Gadgil (all Congress-I), Mr K. Mayathevar (DMK), Mr G. M. Banatwala (Muslim League) and Mr Frank Anthony (Nom).

Besides Law Minister P. Shiv Shanker who summed up the debate and rebutted point by point the charges of the 1978 Privileges Committee, Communications Minister C. M. Stephen spoke from the Treasury benches, recalling his earlier observation that the crucifixion of Mrs Gandhi would eventually emerge in the shape of “resurrection” which had happened in January 1980 when she returned to power.

Dealing with former Industries Minister in Mrs Gandhi’s Cabinet T. A. Pai’s evidence at length, the Law Minister said he had prevaricated and had been a party to “fabricated evidence”, presumably to avenge for the raid on his brother-in-law’s house.

More than impressed by the arguments advanced by Mr Shiv Shanker, the Congress benches applauded him even before he had concluded. The Minister recognised that the members were getting late for their dinner.

The Speaker gave precedence to Mr Bharat’s motion over a no-confidence motion moved this morning against the Indira Gandhi Government.

He did not accept the contention that he was bound by a 1974 ruling that no other business could be transacted when a no-confidence motion was pending against the Government. The rules of the House gave him ten days to schedule the debate on the no-confidence motion. He promised he would consult the parties concerned and the Prime Minister (away on a foreign tour) would be provided an opportunity to reply to the debate.

Mr Jakhar defended his action saying there was nothing irregular in exercising his discretionary powers. He said in deciding that the motion related to a “recent occurrence”, he had taken into amount its nature and the substance. There had been precedents in his support.

As regards the objection about its being related to the question of privilege, which could be taken un only under Rule 315 and not under Rule 184, the Speaker said no fresh privilege issue was involved. The present motion only sought to rescind an earlier resolution.

Giving expression to their joy the members said it was a “red letter day” today. It was a historic occasion. It was the finest hour in India’s parliamentary history which the posterity would remember. It had undone the “black day” of December 19, 19’78, when Parliament had been used as an “instrument of tyranny.”

There was thunderous applause when the Speaker declared the motion passed unanimously.

Replying to the debate, Mr Bhagat described today’s decision as the “collective wisdom” of the House against the Janata’s partisan stand of 1978. The “majesty” of the Lok Sabha had been restored.

Moving his motion, Mr Bhagat said he was doing so in a spirit of utmost humility, adds UNI. According to him, the dissolution of the House meant its death. The House coming into being subsequently was another House. Even though the dissolution of the Lok Sabha did not mean discontinuation of the institution of Parliament, the committee of privileges had no jurisdiction over the question of Mrs Gandhi which pertained to the earlier Lok Sabha.

Mr Bhagat said there was miscarriage of justice and the House had committed an error. As a result, Mrs Gandhi had suffered grievously. It would be a small remedy if the House declared that Mm Gandhi and two offices had not committed any breach of privilege.

Mr Brahmananda Reddy described the privilege committee’s action against Mrs Gandhi as “illegitimate.”

He charged the earlier Janata regime with trying to denigrate Mrs Gandhi. She was continuously harassed, persecuted and prosecuted’.

The Deputy Speaker then called the names of Mr Somnath Chatteries (CPM) and Mr Ram Vilas Paswan (LD). Both of them war not present in the House.

Mr Dandapani said the Janata party’s action was not only a Punishment to Mrs Gandhi alone but also to the entire electorate of Chikmagalur as well.

He said the Nehru family had a great tradition of promoting democratic institutions in the country. To arrest a person from that family amounted to humiliating and insulting democracy and parliamentary traditions.

Mr Mohanial Sukhadia said in a democracy it was necessary to have healthy traditions and the present motion sought to re-establish just that.

Mr Frank Anthony said the me, tion was not only good, but also long overdue. What was done during the Janata period was a “fraud ‘ on Parliamentary procedures and practices” that had to be traversed. Even the principles of natural justice were ignored at that time.

Communications Minister C. M. Stephen said the question was whether Parliament or the Privileges Committee had erred or not. Parliament, he noted, was a continuing entity. If it had erred, it was for this House to consider whether or not that action should be corrected.

Mr Stephen said there was a precedent in British Parliament when in 1732 it annulled through a resolution the decision to expel a member elected 18 years ago. That member was expelled and re-elected three or four times.

Mr Banetwalla said the House was correcting the aberrations to parliamentary democracy inflicted by the sixth Lok Sabha.

It was performing a “sacred duty” of reversing an act of “political vendetta”. The power of privilege must be used only as a shield and not as a sword in parliamentary democracy.

Mr A. K. Sen said the House was now honouring the mandate given by the people to correct a wrong done to Mrs Gandhi.

Mr Mayathevar said the motion tried to restore parliamentary sovereignty.

Dr Jagannath Kaushal said the arrest and expulsion of Mrs Gandhi was an “atrocious act”. He said the sixth Lok Sabha resolution should be “obliterated” from the records of Parliament.

Mr Kaushal said by Mrs Gandhi’s expulsion and punishment the Janata Government “stretched the law to un-stretchable limits.”

He cited a Punjab and Haryana High Court judgment that the power of expulsion of a member did not vest with the legislature unless the law of punishment was used sparingly.

Mr V. N. Gadgil said the expulsion was constitutionally bad, politically vindictive and morally wrong. The Janata Government collapsed because of its “sins.”