Elders approve TRAI Bill, express some dissent

Elders approve TRAI Bill, express some dissent
EXPRESS NEWS SERVICE

NEW DELHI, MARCH 15: The Rajya Sabha, on Wednesday, passed with voice vote a statutory resolution seeking approval of the presidential ordinance issued on January 24 as well as the Telecom Regulatory Authority of India (Amendment) Bill, which would replace the ordinance.

But Opposition members criticised the Government's decision to issue the ordinance to amend the Telecom Regulatory Authority and said it would destroy its independence and primacy and make it subservient to the Government.

B S Ramoowalia (Independent) said the Government had acted in haste. What was the necessity for issuing the ordinance on January 24 when Parliament was to meet just a few days later, he asked.

According to him, the original TRAI, which had been working independently as a referee between telecom users and the Government, had been removed because it had not accepted governmental interference.

Ramoowalia said, under the amended ordinance, TRAI had been removed from the scrutiny of the Comptroller and Auditor General (CAG) and, therefore, the ordinance must be rejected.

Moving a resolution, Communications Minister Ram Vilas Paswan justified the ordinance, saying it had become necessary to bring about a quicker expansion of the telecom services in the country for faster economic development. The minister, however, did not agree with Ramoowalia that the ordinance had been issued bypassing the Standing Committee of Parliament. He said there was no question of lowering the dignity of Parliament.

While agreeing with the minister that development of the telecom sector was a must for overall economic development of the country, Congress MP Kapil Sibal said by removing the original TRAI through a presidential ordinance, the Government had converted TRAI from an independent to a dependent body.

Its judicial authority had been taken away. Its members would now be treated as government servants and could be removed at the whims of the Government compared to the earlier provisions which permitted their removal through a judicial review, he noted.