Training Programme

Training Programme

Venue:

PARI Training Institute

504, 5^th Floor, Bhikaji Cama Bhawan, Bhikaji Cama Place, New Delhi – 110066

Minutes-to-Minutes Programme

End of Day 2

Participants List

Two Days Online Course on Preventive Vigilance
(As per CVC Module)
(6-7 November 2024)
For Middle Management from OIL India Limited

Training Programme

29 September 2021(https://www.dailypioneer.com/2021/columnists/maintaining-the-ecological-balance.html)

By Devender Singh Aswal
(EX-Additional Secretary, Lok Sabha)

The objective of environmental laws is to conserve, sustain and manage the environment without which the ‘right to life’ remains inconceivable

You must show it is a ministry for environment and not just of environment”, chastised the Supreme Court as recently as in June, 2021, when the Ministry of Environment, challenged the order of the National Green Tribunal (NGT) finding faults with a government notification of 2017, diluting effluent discharge norms for the sewage treatment plants. The Court bemoaned the constant dilution of environmental standards and refused to stay the NGT order.

In a landmark judgement passed on August 31, 2021, the Court refused to interfere with the judgment of the Allahabad High Court directing the demolition of the 40-storey twin towers constructed by a real state major in Noida in contravention of the environmental and other building bye-laws.

The Court has through such judgments expanded the ambit and the scope of article 21 which declares that “no person shall be deprived of his life or personal liberty except according to procedure established by law…”. The Court overruled its judgment in AK Gopalan vs the State of Madras (1950) and in Maneka Gandhi vs the Union of India (1978) and held that “the procedure” under Article 21 has to be fair, just and reasonable and would also have to be tested with Article 14.  In their latest judgement in KS Puttaswamy vs Union of India, a nine-judge bench unanimously held the right to privacy as an integral part of fundamental rights. In the same judgment, it also upheld the minority view of Justice HR Khanna in the ADM Jabalpur case (1976) who had held that “right to life is inalienable” and that it existed before “the advent of the Constitution”.

The right to life is guaranteed and not granted. The enjoyment of the right to life is inconceivable without safe and sustainable environment. And the courts ensure this connection between the two. Article 142 empowers the Court to pass such decree or order as may be necessary to render complete justice. Under this Article, the Court can “fashion new tools, forge new methods, innovate new strategies and evolve a new jurisprudence” so as to render complete justice. It has done precisely that to respect the link between environment and right to life.

The objective of environmental laws is to conserve, sustain and manage the environment so that life remains sustainable. The Constitution casts an obligation on the State to protect and improve the environment and to safeguard the forests and wildlife, rivers and lakes and also to have compassion for living creatures. The 42nd Constitution Amendment removed forests and wildlife from the State List of the Constitution and included them in the Concurrent List.  Article 48A, a Directive Principle of State Policy, and Article 51A, both inserted by the 42nd Amendment, cast an obligation on the State as well as on the citizens to endeavour to protect and improve the natural environment, water bodies and to safeguard the forests and the wildlife. The Parliament has enacted laws for protection and conservation of environment, wildlife, and prevention of water and air pollution.  Despite a wide array of environmental laws and India’s declared commitment to sustainable development made as early as 1992 at Rio Conference, due to wide gaps, omissions, contraventions and inadequacies in environmental governance, there have been a large number of public agitations, movements and protracted litigations to conserve and preserve the environment. The apex Court through a catena of pathbreaking judgments intertwined the right to life with sustainable environment.

In MC Mehta vs Union of India (1984), the Court issued a series of directives, banning coal-based  and other industries in the immediate vicinity of the Taj. Directions were also issued for making suitable traffic arrangement and creation of a tree belt to insulate the Taj from pollution. In 1985, the Court directed that the polluting industries/tanneries set up sewage treatment plants at their own cost and discharge treated water in the river. The Court in another case ordered relocation of hazardous and noxious industries operating in Delhi and directed mandatory conversion of conventional fuel by compressed natural gas. In Subhash Kumar vs State of Bihar (1991), the Court held that the Right to get pollution free water and air is a right under Article 21. Public health and ecology were held to be priorities under Article 21. In TN Godavarman Thirumulkpad case (1995), the Court ruled that no forests, national park or wildlife sanctuary can be de-reserved without its explicit permission and that no on-forestry activity will be permitted in a national park or wildlife sanctuary, among others. The Court also imposed complete ban on cutting trees and moving timber from the north-eastern states and felling of trees in Uttarakhand, Himachal, J&K and the hilly areas of West Bengal. In MC Mehta vs Kamal Nath (1996), the Court held that leased forest land was situated on the bank of river Beas being fragile, cannot be converted into private ownership. The Court quashed the lease and passed order to pay the compensation for restitution of environment and ecology of the area.

In Indian Council for Enviro-legal Action Etc. case (1996), the Court held that the industries producing chemicals like Oleum and Sludge Phosphate which caused damage to nearby villages were responsible for the damages on the principle of “polluter pays”.  In Vellore Citizens Welfare Forum case (1996), observing that the river Palar was the main source for drinking and bathing for the people nearby, the Court granted the relief sought by the petitioners.

The Court directed to maintain ecological balance in Narmada Bachao Andolan vs Union of India (2000). In KM Chinnappan and T. N. Godavarman Thirmalpad vs Union of India (2002), the Court ruled that the “the State and the citizens are under obligation to protect and improve the environment, including forests, lakes, rivers, wildlife and to have compassion for living creatures”. In the Research Foundation for Science Technology National Resource Policy vs Union of India and Another (2005), the Court read procedural guarantees into Article 21, that is, the right to information and community participation for protection of environment and human health.  Almitra H. Patel & Ors. vs Union of India & Ors. is a case that comprises of a series of a petitions made before the Supreme Court in 1996.  In compliance of the directions of the Court, rules were evolved for the management and handling of hazardous wastes. In yet another case — MC Mehta vs Union of India — the Court passed an order in December 2015 for diversion of commercial vehicles coming from the adjoining States so as to bring down pollution level in Delhi and also directed that all manner of commercial taxies run on CNG.

The judgements of the apex Court have fostered sound environmental jurisprudence, reminding us of the deep veneration and gratitude of the Vedic seers to Mother Earth for sustaining life.  The Prithvi Sukta of the Atharva Veda, exhorts for keeping the Earth free from human pressure so that it is able to nourish us. The Court has broadened the horizon of the right to life and conjoined it with environment by enunciating sound principles like, the polluter pays, the precautionary principle, inter-generational equity, the public trust principle, etc.

(The writer is former Additional Secretary Lok Sabha, an author and  writes on constitutional and parliamentary matters.)

Schedule

Participants List

SI. No.	Participants Details	Photographs
01	Shri J. P. Pandey, Director, School Education, Ministry of Education, New Delhi
02	Shri Jay Prakash Narayan Singh, Under Secretary, Department of Drinking Water & Sanitation, New Delhi
03	Ms. Kavita Anandani, CS, Biotechnology Industry Research Assistance Council (BIRAC), New Delhi
04	Dr. Prachi Kaushik, Manager – Investment, BIRAC, New Delhi
05	Shri Devatma Nand Verma, Senior Manager Finance & Accounts, BIRAC, New Delhi
06	Ms. Rashmika Singh, Officer – Tech. Transfer & Commercialization, BIRAC, New Delhi
07	Dr. Yogesh M., Officer – Technical, BIRAC, New Delhi
08	Ms. Divya Wahi, Officer – Devices & Diagnostics, BIRAC, New Delhi
09	Shri Nakul Dewan, Program Officer-Training, BIRAC, New Delhi
10	Ms. V. Sangeetha, Technical Officer, BIRAC, New Delhi
11	Ms. Arshi Mehboob, Manager – Programmes, BIRAC, New Delhi
12	Dr. Richa Vashishtha, Sr. Program Officer, BIRAC, New Delhi
13	Ms. Deepa P. G. Asst. Finance Officer, Indian Institute of Foreign Trade, New Delhi
14	Shri Narender Sharma, Assistant, National Institute of Food Technology, Entrepreneurship and Management, Sonepat, Haryana

18 July 2020 (https://www.dailypioneer.com/2020/columnists/games-politicos-play.html)

By Devender Singh Aswal (EX-Additional Secretary, Lok Sabha)

The high political theatre in Rajasthan and earlier in Madhya Pradesh has yet again brought to the fore the efficacy or otherwise of the anti-defection law enshrined in the Constitution by the 52nd Amendment, which was later further amended by the 91st Constitution (Amendment) Act, in 2003. The sum and substance of these constitutional amendments is that a member of the legislature, whether of the Union or the State Legislature, shall be disqualified, if s/he is disqualified under the Tenth Schedule. The precise grounds for disqualification of a legislator, as per the Tenth Schedule are, if s/he has voluntarily given up his/her membership of such political party, or if s/he votes or abstains from voting in the House contrary to the direction or the whip issued by the political party s/he is a member of.

However, in the case of merger of not less than two-thirds of the members of the legislative party with another party, the anti-defection law will not apply. The competent authority to decide the question of disqualification is the presiding officer, the Chairman/Speaker, which, after the judgment of the Supreme Court in the Kihoto Hollohan vs. Zachilhu and others, case in 1992, can be a subject of judicial review.

The burning question is whether Sachin Pilot, Congress MLA in the Rajasthan Vidhan Sabha, has incurred disqualification under the Tenth Schedule.  He has been removed from the post of Deputy Chief Minister of Rajasthan and the post of Pradesh Congress Committee president, for breaching party discipline. There were reports of the Rajasthan Congress legislative party having issued showcause notices to Pilot and his loyalist legislators  to explain why disciplinary action should not be initiated against them for defying the party. Pilot surprised everyone by moving court and the Division Bench of the Rajasthan High Court has taken up the petition  filed by him and 18 MLAs against the disqualification notices issued to them by Assembly Speaker CP Joshi. The court has not allowed any action against the leader and the MLAs till Tuesday.

The fact remains that every party is empowered under its constitution to enforce discipline within its ranks for the larger objective of attaining its political goal. No doubt, without discipline, political parties would be reduced to a mere horde of power-hungry people without any sound political moorings and identity. The moot point is whether the Congress Party can get Pilot and his loyalist legislators disqualified under the anti-defection law. Apparently, Pilot and his fellow MLAs have neither defected, nor voted or abstained from voting against the party whip in the Vidhan Sabha. The law of defection, in a way, can be likened to the three principles of criminal jurisprudence which require twin tests of mens rea and actus reus in order to constitute a criminal offence. Mere probability of defection cannot be a ground for disqualification, except that a political party can expel such members from the legislature party. Such members can be declared as “unattached” by the Speaker but cannot be disqualified in view of the clear legal provision.

How political parties govern themselves — whether they promote democratic, collegial or high command-centric leadership — is their internal matter on which they flourish or perish in course of time. In an all-India political party, inherently, there will be internal struggle among the leaders for higher positions. Eventually, it is the survival of the fittest, i.e. the leader who garners maximum support within the party. Yet, such a leader cannot last long if he is autocratic, exceedingly self-centred and undermines the dignity of his colleagues and party functionaries who gave their sweat and blood to build the matrix.

In Rajasthan, there is a political limbo for the moment and the ball is now in the court of Pilot. It is up to him whether he resigns along with his fellow MLAs from the Congress Party and the legislature and contests another election by forming a new party or joins the mainstream rival party, which of course he has openly ruled out.

To acquire power “is a general inclination of mankind, a perpetual, restless desire that ceases only in death.”  To nurture ambition is not prohibited by the anti-defection law which only seeks to curb the evil of unprincipled defection.

Interestingly, politics, being a river, is not always the same. In Madhya Pradesh, Congress Chief Minister Kamal Nath had to resign when he saw the writing on the wall, which made it clear that he had lost majority support in the Vidhan Sabha. What happened was inconceivable but its roots lay in the autocratic, exclusionary and factional politics of the Chief Minister.

Jyotiraditya Scindia, disgruntled with the Congress Party, accused it of “rampant corruption” and resigned from the Vidhan Sabha  along with 22  MLAs loyal to him. This brought about the fall of Kamal Nath and the reinstatement of Shivraj Singh Chouhan of the BJP as the Chief Minister.

Scindia later joined the BJP with his supporters on March 11. But in a brazen mockery of the Constitution, 14 MLAs of the 22 Scindia loyalists, who had resigned from the Vidhan Sabha, were inducted into the Council of Ministers in the second Cabinet expansion. Of the 34 Ministers, including the Chief Minister, 14 are Scindia loyalists, creating acrimony within the BJP. What is most intriguing is that these 14 Scindia loyalist Ministers are not members of the Vidhan Sabha. Articles 75(5) and 164(4), couched in almost identical words, provide that “a Minister who for any period of six consecutive  months is not a member of the Legislature of the State, shall at the expiration of that period, cease to be a Minister.” Now these 14 Ministers will have to get elected before the expiry of six months from the date they were sworn in.

The Constitution provides an enabling mechanism to induct talent in the Council of Ministers if it is not available within the duly-elected legislature. There have been many instances in the past, especially at the Union level, when non-members were made Ministers and later they were elected to the Lok Sabha or the Rajya Sabha. For instance, PV Narasimha Rao was not a Member of Parliament (MP) when he was sworn in as the Prime Minister of the country. He later contested from Nandyal in Kurnool district of Andhra Pradesh and got elected to the Lok Sabha.

Similarly, Deve Gowda was not an MP when he was sworn in as the Prime Minister  in 1996. He was elected to the Rajya Sabha. In February 1995, Pranab Mukherjee, not an MP then, was sworn in as Minister and he briefly held the External Affairs portfolio but could not be elected to Parliament due to a certain tussle with the then redoubtable TN Seshan, the Chief Election Commissioner of India. Mukherjee had to resign and he was later made the Deputy Chairman of the Planning Commission by Narasimha Rao. In the same way, Subrahmanyam Jaishankar, a career Indian Foreign Service officer, was inducted into the Narendra Modi Cabinet and later elected to the Rajya Sabha.

But in Madhya Pradesh, this enabling mechanism was used wholesale to promote a political rift,  create a split and engender the downfall of an elected Government.  Obviously, no disqualification was incurred, so to speak, on the ground of defection. But the question is much larger, as it involves the spirit of the anti-defection law. The Constitution (52nd Amendment) was enacted to curb the evil of defection, considering it a serious threat undermining the very foundations of democracy and the lofty principles which sustain it.

The manner in which the intent of the anti-defection law has been brazenly thwarted calls for its review, including the need to debar anyone from becoming a Minister without first getting elected to the legislature and debarring such members from contesting elections for at least three years.

(The writer is former Additional Secretary Lok Sabha, an author and  writes on constitutional and parliamentary matters.)

16 Jul 2020 ( Please visit this link to read Hindi version of this article https://www.jagran.com/editorial/apnibaat-new-parliament-house-better-to-have-new-building-equipped-with-facilities-than-old-and-weak-building-of-parliament-20516701.html )

By Dr. Yogendra Narain (Ex-Secretary General, Rajya Sabha)

The present Parliament Building planned, designed and constructed under the supervision of Lutyens and Herbert Baker was inaugurated on 18^th January 1927 by the then Governor General of India Lord Irwin.

It was meant primarily to house the Central Legislative Council. The Central Hall was designed to be the reading room of the Library of the Central Legislature. It was remodeled in 1946 when seating arrangements had to be  made for the meetings of the Constituent Assembly by providing 396 seats on cushioned benches with folding flaps attached to the desks in front.

The Central legislature set up under the Government of India Act 1919, consisted of two Chambers , namely the Council of States with a membership of 60 and the Legislative Assembly with a membership of 145. The Chamber of the Legislative Assembly was again remodeled in 1947 to accommodate a much larger number of members when the Constituent Assembly took over the functions of the Central Legislature. The seating capacity was further increased  to meet the requirements of the Provisional Parliament and of the new House which came into being after the first General Elections of 1952. In 1955, the total number of seats, which had by then gone upto 461 was further raised to 499. Subsequently the seats went up to 522, then to 530 and now presentlyupto 550 seats within the same building. Some of these extra seats, which were added, are,because of lack of space,located behind the standing pillars of the Lok Sabha and present an unseemly sight!

Though the number of members of the Lok Sabha has been frozen bya  constitutional amendment, to the strength which existed based on the 1971 census and will not be increased till the first census after 2026, the strength is bound to increase after 2026.If the same ratio between the population of a constituency and the elected legislator is maintained, the strength of the Lok Sabha members will increase to almost 900 if not more. Where will they sit? How will they vote and how will they be heard? A new Parliament building with modern state of the art infrastructure is a must, and the planning must start now.

The present Parliament building has been tinkered with, from time to time , to meet adhoc requirements of the two Houses. A Canteen for members of Parliament, as well as the staff and guests, as well as journalists run by the Railways was set up  out of the existing structure without considered planning. Its waste flows through old broken pipes to the sewerage system underneath.

The sewerage system, underneath the Chambers is in a dilapidated condition. I remember that one day,when I was Secretary General Rajya Sabha, a foul smell enveloped the entire Parliament building. The members refused to sit in the Halls as the smell was nauseating. The House had to be adjourned and the Engineers were directed to rectify the sewerage. They had a difficult time finding the maps of the building and locating the source of the smell! It is such an old building.

When we used to visit Parliaments abroad we found a world of  difference. All European Parliaments are equipped with state of art facilities. Face recognition systems are in place. Their meeting halls are fitted with state of the art acoustics and voting systems. Our voting systems with lighted boards often fail as they are outdated.

In India when foreign dignitaries address Joint Houses of Parliament in the Central Hall ,there are not enough seats for the members of both the Houses. Further the seating for members of foreign missions is cramped. The members of the Press do not get proper sitting space. It is an embarrassing sight seeing even Ambassadors and other invited dignitaries trying to find sitting space , even though they have been formally invited.

Keeping in view all these factors as well as the probable expansion of the Houses in future,it is essential to have a  Chamber to cater to the joint sitting of at least 1350 members. A new Chamber for the Lok Sabha of this capacity would be able to cater to the joint sitting of the two houses as well as the President’s address.

It has also to be kept in mind that the Parliament building should be able to cater to the working of the twenty four Parliamentary Committees. When the present Parliament was constructed there were no Standing Parliamentary CommitteesToday ,the position is that there is not enough space for holding of the meetings of the Parliamentary Committees and every time one has to do space location finding,whenever a sitting of the Committee is decided upon.

When Parliament is in session, it becomes necessary for the Ministers to be present in the Parliament House for the major part of the day. A number of rooms are placed at the disposal of the Leader of the House during session periods for allotment to Ministers. Office accommodation is also provided for Chairmen of Parliamentary Committees, which are now twenty four in number. As all these rooms have been carved out, literally from the existing structure, they present an awful sight. Ambassadors who call on the Ministers as well as members of the public go back with adverse impressions of the working of Parliament.

In sharp contrast are the rooms of the Senators and their staff  in the US Senate and the US House of Representatives. Their cleanliness, and the spacious rooms constructed for them, leave the impression of an efficient working democracy. All the rooms are connected underground and we even have golf carts to transport visitors and members of the Congress from one end to another.

The Secretariat staff of both the Lok Sabha and the Rajya Sabha has also increased substantially. There areabout 2000 employees and officers of the Lok Sabha and more than 1200 employees andofficers of the Rajya Sabha. They don’t have adequate space to sit and this affects their output. The new Secretariat Annexe has eased the accommodation to a certain extent for the Lok Sabha employees but not so for the Rajya Sabha employees.

Another reason why we should have a new Parliament building is for reasons of security. There is no nuclear and biological warfare shelter for the members of Parliament. If there is a nuclear or biological attack, there is no place to go. This was also the recommendation of a high level security team which inspected the Parliament building. The fire fighting arrangements are also primitive.

I am glad to note that the present government is thinking on the plans for a new Parliament building. It is a necessity. Instead of spending more than₹ 25 crores every year on maintaining this crumbling structure a new building with modern fittings and modern lighting  and  fire fighting systemsshould be constructed. Our Indian architects and our Indian construction workerswith utilization of local materials can construct a new Parliament which will have an Indian flavor. It should be a model and a showpiece for the democracies of the developing world.This will also improve the Central vista, along with the other reorganization plans on the anvil.

The existing Parliament building should become a Museum to showcase the early stages of Parliamentary democracy in India.

(The author has been the Secretary General of Rajya Sabha from September 2002 to September 2007.)

May 29, 2020 (http://garhwalpost.in/virtual-parliament-to-corona-combat/)
By Devender Singh Aswal (EX-Additional Secretary, Lok Sabha)

The corona pandemic has made the traditional parliamentary proceedings untenable. So, parliaments around the world are adapting to the unprecedented health challenge thrown by the novel coronavirus. Many Parliaments have become virtual or hybrid to facilitate remote participation by the members. Some Members of the Opposition in our parliament are demanding, and rightly, virtual committee sittings as they meet more frequently during the recess. The committees – hailed as ‘parliament at work’ – too need to have remote participation as they transact a great deal of business and exercise unremitting oversight over the government. The Monsoon Session of parliament is almost two months away. It’s therefore opportune to go virtual, or to begin with, have a hybrid parliament to enable the MPs carry out their constitutional duties during the Corona pandemic or till the threat persists.

Notably, the European Union Parliament switched over to online voting from 26 March. Britain’s House of Commons, a great stickler for its hoary customs and conventions, made history on 21 April, 2020, by approving a new measure allowing some business to be done remotely. Following the markings to stay six feet apart from one another in the chamber, some MPs will be allowed to physically attend the chamber, as part of a “hybrid” approach’ said the Speaker, Lindsay Hoyle, which is ‘a first step toward a completely virtual Parliament’. Tynwald, the parliament of The Isle of Man, a British protectorate- and considered to be the oldest continuous parliament, became virtual before the British House of Commons. The virtual sittings of the House of Commons, Canada have also started. Brazil, Spain, Norway and Finland have amended their laws to allow remote sittings. Maldives, a tiny island, has also started hosting remote plenary and committee sittings and New Zealand has set up a special parliamentary committee which, sitting remotely, conducts government scrutiny.

The Indian Constitution, unlike the Australian Constitution, does not mention the place of assembly of MPs in session yet the summons issued by the President under clause (1) of article 85 of the Constitution, mentions New Delhi as the place of assembly and also the appointed date and time. Clause (3) of article 100 provides that ‘Until Parliament by law otherwise provides, the quorum to constitute a meeting of either House of Parliament shall be one-tenth of the total number of members of the House’, making it unambiguously clear that the MPs have to be physically present. Clause (1) of article 118 empowers each House of Parliament to make rules for regulating, subject to the provisions of the Constitution, its procedure and the conduct of business. The validity of the proceedings in Parliament cannot be called in question in a law court on the ground of any alleged irregularity of procedure [art.122(1)]. In view of the explicit constitutional provision and the unbroken practice of holding the sittings of Parliament physically, it necessitates changes in the Rules of Procedure and Conduct of Business of both the Houses to hold sittings of the Houses in virtual or hybrid form so as to enable MPs to participate in the proceedings from their remote locations. In a hybrid Parliament, since there would be physical quorum satisfying the minimum constitutional requirement, the Constitution need not be amended except for a complete virtual Parliament. Requisite changes can be effected in the rules and suitable procedure devised by building consensus amongst leaders of political parties and groups but the initiative for the virtually enabled parliament has to come from the Government.

Since Parliament cannot assemble physically due to social distancing norm or lockdown, it must work differently, being the guardian of our democracy. Parliamentarians’ continued scrutiny and support is essential to maintaining public trust and confidence in the government’s pandemic strategy. The flaws and pitfalls can be revisited and course corrections made by the government when different – often discordant – voices from across the socio-political spectrum and geographical spread find resonance in parliament. So the rules ought to be amended to enable the parliamentarians to conduct their core constitutional duties of holding the government to account, passing legislation (which will entail online voting or decision by each member), and performing their representational functions. This also calls for identifying and prioritising essential business during the crisis, leaving certain matters like private members’ business for physical parliament. The Lok Sabha and the Rajya Sabha chambers are commodious enough to meet the requirement of quorum if members stay six feet apart from one another as per the distancing norm. Once the government and the benches opposite see eye to eye, technical and procedural changes, being matters of detail, can be thrashed out consensually. In fact, started by Somnath Chatterjee and pursued tenaciously by the successive speakers, considerable work has already been done for an e-parliament. Surely, our parliamentarians, an overwhelming majority of them, will welcome the virtual/hybrid Parliament, as a temporary measure enabling participation in the House/committee proceedings from remote locations. Hopefully, adversarial party politics will take a back seat in a time of national crisis and parliamentary scrutiny will help course correction where needed and inspire greater public confidence in the pandemic strategy of the government. Albeit public galleries would be deserted and the debates devoid of the usual sound and fury and disruptions, yet a virtual parliament is preferable to parliamentary lockdown. There will be technical glitches and bumps along the way, but parliament must modernise, innovate and go virtual to meet the new challenges. This will also further the goal of digital India and make our democracy more participatory, inclusive and accountable.

Devender Singh Aswal is ex-Additional Secretary, Lok Sabha, and author of many books on parliament.