Govt moves to disallow MP’S question in House
The Centre sought to low in the Rajya Sabha, a tion seeking details on her the government entered a contract with Israeli r-security firm NSO Group, e centre of a global controy over the misuse of its Pegapyware to hack phones of nalists, activists and politis, stating that “the ongoing e of Pegasus” is subjudice “several PILS have been in the Supreme Court,” rding to officials aware of evelopment and documents wed by HT. he Centre wrote to the Rajya
a secretariat earlier this k seeking that a “Provisionadmitted Question”(paq) d by CPI MP Binoy Viswam duled to be answered on ust 12 in the upper house, be allowed. “I have been rmed informally that my tion was disallowed but I yet to get a formal onse...the Government is sing Rajya Sabha rules and ng an alien stand on truth. must face questions on the of the Pegasus,” he said his “Provisionally Admitted stion”(paq), reviewed by with the subject ‘Governt of India MOU with Foreign panies,’ Viswam asked: l the Minister of External rs be pleased to state (a) the number of Mous Government has entered into with foreign companies, the details sectorwise; (b) whether any of these Mou’s with foreign companies has been in order to curb terror activities through cyber security, the details of the same; and (c) whether Government has entered into a MOU with NSO Group in order to curb terror activities through cyber security across the nation, if so, provide details thereof?”
In the letter sent to the Rajya Sabha secretariat requesting that the question not be allowed, the Centre said:” It would be noted that Part (a) to (c) of PAQ seeks to know about the ongoing issue of Pegasus owned by NSO Group. On this issue, several PILS have been filed in the Supreme Court, making this issue subjudice.”
It added: “According to Rule 47 (xix) of the Rules of Procedure and Conduct of Council of States (Rajya Sabha), dealing with admissibility of questions, an admitted question “shall not ask for information on matter which is under adjudication by a court of law having jurisdiction in any part of India”.
According to the Rajya Sabha website, the admissibility of notice given by Members in respect of questions in Rajya Sabha is governed by Rules 47-50 of Rules and Procedure and Conduct of Council of States (Rajya Sabha). As per Rule 47 sub section ( xix) the following are the conditions of admissibility of a question: “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.”
“It is mentioned in rule 47, sub rule 2 that matters that are subjudice are not admitted in the house,” said Rajya Sabha secretariat media advisor to the chairman, AA Rao.
The Pegasus row erupted on July 18 after an international investigative consortium including The Wire in India, reported that the phones of Indian ministers, politicians, activists, businessmen and journalists were among the 50,000 numbers from around the world that were potentially targeted by the Israeli company NSO Group’s phone hacking software. NSO says its software is sold only to government customers. The Indian government has neither confirmed nor denied that it used Pegasus and has ruled out any illegal surveillance.
A bench, headed by Chief Justice of India NV Ramana, on Thursday considered a clutch of petitions that have demanded a court-monitored investigation into the alleged snooping of Indian citizens using Pegasus and to identify the entities responsible for this. The court agreed to seek responses from the government on the petitions, but posed multiple questions to the petitioners, including why they did not move court when reports first emerged of such targeting years ago and if they have filed police cases.
PDT Acharya, a former Lok Sabha general secretary said: “There have been occasions when the speaker decided that if the matter is of great public interest, even if it is subjudice, the House can discuss it... there is no external pressure on the house. The house has imposed the restriction on itself and this position has changed over a period of time... ‘subjudice’ as such has lost much of its rigour. The house has been as such liberal and they look at the importance and public interest.”
“You cannot mechanically apply the rule to all subjudice matter. If public interest demands there should be discussion in the house,” he added.
“Questions submitted by MPS go through two levels of scrutiny to check that they comply with the rules of Parliament. First, the parliament secretariat makes sure that the questions that MPS are raising conform with the parliamentary guidelines. The ministry answering the question also checks the adherence to rules for the questions they have received for answering,” said Chakshu Roy, head of Outreach, PRS Legislative Research. “In the budget session, out of the 330,00 questions that MPS submitted, approximately 2,000, that is about 6%, were disallowed.”