Opposition uproar in the Indian Parliament. Photo- ANI, August 5, 2021.
By Meetu Jain
New Delhi, August 8, 2021: The government has found yet another way of skirting the contentious Pegasus spyware issue in Parliament which has seen continuous uproars ever since the spying scandal broke out globally and was first reported in India on July 18, a day ahead of the monsoon session of Parliament. The Centre has disallowed a Parliament question on the military-grade spyware and the Israeli company exporting it on the ground that the matter is sub judice.
CPI MP Binoy Viswam was the parliamentarian whose questions caused such consternation in the Ministry of External Affairs. Mr. Viswam said, “I had asked three questions to the Ministry of External Affairs — the number of MoUs government has entered into with foreign companies, the details sector-wise; (b) whether any of these MoU’s with foreign companies has been in order to curb terror activities through cybersecurity, the details of the same; and (c) whether Government has entered into an MoU with NSO Group in order to curb terror activities through cybersecurity across the nation, if so, provide details thereof.”
The questions, he said were filed about two weeks back and were listed for August 12. But he was later informally told that the question will not be admitted since the matter is already in the Supreme Court. “I haven’t received any formal communication on this,” he said. It is ironic, Mr. Viswam said, that when the Opposition holds protests demanding a discussion on Pegasus, the government preaches about the importance of a Question Hour and how it is the hour meant for opposition members. “These lessons are great, but they themselves should also abide by it,” he added.
“A govt. spying on its people now pleading innocence! The PM urged his MPs to expose the opposition. what is our crime? Demanding discussion on Pegasus? Who is safe in this country, from snooping? We stand for truth. we will continue doing it,” Mr. Viswam said on Twitter.
The government quoted Rule 47, Sub Rule 2(XIX) to deny Mr. Viswam an answer. The rule lays down that matters which are subjudice are not admitted. On admitting a question, Rule 47(2) (xix) states, “It shall not ask for information on a matter which is under adjudication by a court of law having jurisdiction in any part of India.”
Interestingly, experts point out that in the past too, discussions have been held on varied subjects ranging from the Babri Masjid to more recently electoral bonds.
In the Lok Sabha Secretariat’s very own publication, Practice and Procedure of Parliament, authored by M.N. Kaul and S.L. Shakdhar, in the chapter on ‘Questions’, the publication states “…[Q]uestions asking for mere statistics or factual information in a particular case and not about the merits of the case, even though relating to a matter sub judice, have been admitted as disclosure of such information does not affect the trial of the case”.
Accordingly, questions seeking factual answers on sub judice matters were permitted in the Lok Sabha in 1983, 1984, 1986, 1987, and 2002. The above publication also states that questions seeking factual information on matters sub judice or under investigation by statutory tribunals or other investigating agencies are normally transferred to the ‘written answers’ list instead of the ‘oral answers’ one.
