essay on p v narasimha rao

• History & Society
• Science & Tech
• Biographies
• Animals & Nature
• Geography & Travel
• Arts & Culture
• Games & Quizzes
• On This Day
• One Good Fact
• New Articles
• Lifestyles & Social Issues
• Philosophy & Religion
• Politics, Law & Government
• World History
• Health & Medicine
• Browse Biographies
• Birds, Reptiles & Other Vertebrates
• Bugs, Mollusks & Other Invertebrates
• Environment
• Fossils & Geologic Time
• Entertainment & Pop Culture
• Sports & Recreation
• Visual Arts
• Demystified
• Image Galleries
• Infographics
• Top Questions
• Britannica Kids
• Saving Earth
• Space Next 50
• Student Center

• What role did the Indian National Congress play in the Indian independence movement?
• What policies have historically been supported by the Indian National Congress?
• Is the Indian National Congress’s Gandhi family related to Mahatma Gandhi?
• Where is Andhra Pradesh located?
• What are the oldest known civilizations of India?

P.V. Narasimha Rao

Our editors will review what you’ve submitted and determine whether to revise the article.

• IndiaNetzone - P.V. Narasimha Rao
• PMIndia - P. V. Narasimha Rao
• P.V. Narasimha Rao - Student Encyclopedia (Ages 11 and up)

P.V. Narasimha Rao (born June 28, 1921, near Karimnagar, India—died December 23, 2004, New Delhi) was a leader of the Congress (I) Party faction of the Indian National Congress (Congress Party) and prime minister of India from 1991 to 1996. Widely recognized for his efforts to liberalize the Indian economy in the early 1990’s, Rao was conferred the Bharat Ratna, India’s highest civilian award, posthumously in 2024.

Rao was born in a small village near Karimnagar (now in Telangana , India). He studied at Fergusson College in Pune and at the Universities of Bombay (now Mumbai) and Nagpur, eventually receiving a law degree from the latter institution. He entered politics as a Congress Party activist working for independence from Britain . He served in the Andhra Pradesh state legislative assembly from 1957 to 1977, supporting Indira Gandhi in her split from the Congress Party organization in 1969; initially called the New Congress Party, the splinter group took the name Congress (I) Party in 1978. He held various ministerial positions in the Andhra Pradesh government from 1962 to 1973, including that of chief minister (head of government) from 1971. In that latter post he implemented a revolutionary land-reform policy and secured political participation for the lower castes. He was elected to represent Andhra Pradesh districts in the Lok Sabha (lower chamber of the Indian parliament) in 1972 and, under Gandhi and her son and successor, Rajiv Gandhi , served in various ministries, notably as foreign minister (1980–84, 1988–89). Besides his political career, Rao was known as a distinguished scholar-intellectual who once was chairman of the Telugu Academy in Andhra Pradesh (1968–74). He was fluent in six languages, translated Hindi verses and books, and wrote fiction in Hindi, Marathi, and Telugu .

After Rajiv Gandhi’s assassination in May 1991, the Congress (I) Party chose Rao as its leader, and he became India’s 9th prime minister after the general elections in June. Rao almost immediately began efforts to restructure India’s economy by converting the inefficient quasi-socialist structure left by Jawaharlal Nehru and the Gandhis into a free-market system. His program involved cutting government regulations and red tape, abandoning subsidies and fixed prices, and privatizing state-run industries. Those efforts to liberalize the economy spurred industrial growth and foreign investment, but they also resulted in rising budget and trade deficits and heightened inflation. During Rao’s tenure , Hindu fundamentalism became a significant force in national politics for the first time, as manifested in the growing electoral strength of the Bharatiya Janata Party and other right-wing political groupings. In 1992 Hindu nationalists demolished the Babri Masjid , leading to sectarian violence between Hindus and Muslims that persisted throughout Rao’s term as prime minister. Corruption scandals rocked the Congress (I) Party, which continued its long decline in popularity and lost control of several major state governments to opposition parties in 1995.

Rao stepped down as prime minister in May 1996 after the Congress Party—the “(I)” designation had been dropped by then—was soundly defeated in parliamentary elections in which it garnered an all-time low share of the popular vote. Rao resigned as party chief that September, and the following year he was charged with corruption and bribery in an alleged vote-buying scheme dating from 1993. Rao, the first Indian prime minister (in or out of office) to face trial on criminal charges, was found guilty in 2000, but his conviction was later overturned.

On February 9, 2024, President Droupadi Murmu and Prime Minister Narendra Modi announced that Rao will be awarded the Bharat Ratna , India’s highest civilian honor, posthumously. The award comes almost a decade after Rao’s death following cardiac arrest at the All India Institute of Medical Science (AIIMS), Delhi , on December 23, 2004. In his announcement, Prime Minister Modi praised Rao for his visionary leadership, which “was instrumental in making India economically advanced, laying a solid foundation for the country’s prosperity and growth.”

• News Updates
• Media Coverage
• Mann Ki Baat
• Message from the Prime Minister
• Quest for Transparency
• Right to Information (RTI)
• List of Officers (PMO)
• PM’s Interviews
• PM National Relief Fund
• National Defence Fund
• PM CARES Fund
• International Visits
• Domestic Visits

Know the PM

• Former Prime Ministers
• Three Years
• Photo Gallery
• Watch Live/Videos
• PM’s Speeches
• PM’s Speeches (Videos)
• Infographics & Quotes
• Social Media Updates
• Interact with PM
• Portfolios of the Union Council of Ministers
• Download PMO Mobile App

Shri P. V. Narasimha Rao

Son of Shri P. Ranga Rao, Shri P.V. Narasimha Rao was born on June 28, 1921 at Karimnagar. He studied in Osmania University, Hyderabad, Bombay University and the Nagpur University. A widower, Shri P.V. Narasimha Rao is the father of three sons and five daughters.

Being an agriculturist and an advocate, he joined politics and held some important portfolios. He was the Minister of Law and Information, 1962-64; Law and Endowments, 1964-67; Health and Medicine, 1967 and Education, 1968-71, Government of Andhra Pradesh. He was the Chief Minister, Andhra Pradesh, 1971-73; General Secretary, All India Congress Committee, 1975-76; Chairman, Telugu Academy, Andhra Pradesh, 1968-74; Vice-President, Dakshin Bharat Hindi Prachar Sabha, Madras, from 1972. He was also Member, Andhra Pradesh Legislative Assembly, 1957-77; Member, Lok Sabha 1977-84 and was elected to Eighth Lok Sabha from Ramtek in December, 1984. As Chairman, Public Accounts Committee, 1978-79 he participated in a Conference on South Asia convened by the School of Asian and African Studies, London University. Shri Rao also Chaired Bhartiya Vidya Bhavan’s Andhra Centre; he was Minister for External Affairs from January 14, 1980 to July 18, 1984; Minister of Home Affairs from July 19, 1984 to December 31, 1984 and the Minister of Defence from December 31, 1984 to September 25, 1985. He then assumed charge as Minister of Human Resource Development on September 25, 1985 .

A man of many interests, he likes music, cinema and theatre. His special interest lies in Indian philosophy and culture, writing fiction and political commentary, learning languages, writing poems in Telugu and Hindi and keeping abreast of literature in general. He has successfully published ‘SahasraPhan’, a Hindi translation of late Shri Viswanatha Satyanarayana’s famous Telegu Novel ‘Veyi Padagalu’ published by Jnanpith; ‘Abala Jeevitam’, Telugu translation of late Shri Hari Narayan Apte’s famous Marathi Novel, “Pan Lakshat Kon gheto”, published by Central Sahitya Academy. He translated other famous works from Marathi to Telugu and from Telugu to Hindi, and published many articles in different magazines mostly under a pen name. He lectured at Universities in the U.S.A. and West Germany on political matters and allied subjects. As Minister of External Affairs he travelled extensively to U.K., West Germany, Switzerland, Italy and Egypt in 1974.

During the period when he was Minister of External Affairs, Shri Rao successfully brought to bear his scholarly background and rich political and administrative experience on the field of international diplomacy. He chaired the III Conference of UNIDO at New Delhi in January 1980, within a few days of assuming charge. He also chaired a meeting of the Group of 77 at New York in March 1980. More recently, his role at the Conference of Foreign Ministers of Non-aligned Countries in February 1981 earned him wide appreciation. Shri Rao has shown keen personal interest in international economic issues and personally led the Indian delegation to the Conference of the Group of 77 on ECDC at Caracas, in May 1981.

1982 and 1983 were eventful years for India and its foreign policy. In the shadow of the Gulf war the Non-aligned Movement asked India to host the Seventh Summit. This also meant India assuming the Chair of the Movement and Smt. Indira Gandhi becoming its Chairperson. Shri P.V. Narasimha Rao presided over meetings of Foreign Ministers of Non-aligned Nations on the eve of the New Delhi Summit and also at the United Nations both in 1982, when India was asked to host the Summit and the following year when, at the initiative of the Movement, informal consultations amongst Heads of State and Government from diverse nations across the world were held at New York.

Shri Rao was also the Leader of the Special Non-aligned Mission that visited countries in West Asia in November 1983, in an effort to resolve the Palestian Liberation Organisation. Shri Rao was associated actively with the Commonwealth Heads of Government in New Delhi and with the Action Group set up by the meeting on the question of Cyprus.

In his capacity as Minister of External Affairs, Shri Narasimha Rao has chaired on behalf of India a number of Joint Commissions including those with the U.S.A., U.S.S.R., Pakistan, Bangladesh, Iran, Vietnam, Tanzania and Guyana.

Shri Narasimha Rao took over as Home Minister on July 19, 1984. He was re-appointed to this post, with the additional charge of the Ministry of Planning, on November 5, 1984. Appointed Minister of Defence from December 31, 1984 to September 25, 1985. On September 25,1985 he took over as Minister of Human Resource Development.

Dynamic, dedicated and determined, Narendra Modi arrives as a ray of hope in the lives of a billion Indians.

PV Narasimha Rao: The unlikely architect of contemporary India

A new book sketches a silhouette of the former Indian prime minister's life, through his personal writings and records

If great men are defined by their presence, straightforwardness, or ability to dominate a room, PV Narasimha Rao was no great man. If, however, men are judged by their ability to create positive reform, Rao was India’s political Indiana Jones. He was a veritable puppet-master, a pundit who remained behind the curtains as he wrought the greatest changes to the Indian government before being buried into relative obscurity. India chooses only to remember that twenty-five years ago a budget passed by a fledgling government changed the course of the Indian economy; Rao’s facilitation of this budget and his own policy of de-licensing are largely forgotten by a public that still buys into the judgment of the Nehru-Gandhi clan. Accordingly, when one asks a common taxicab driver about the PV, all he can muster is a convoluted story about a fallen mosque and a resulting massacre. In an effort to correct his tarnished legacy, Vinay Sitapati has written a book that both defends Rao and gives him his due as “the architect of contemporary India.” Half - Lion: How P.V Narasimha Rao Transformed India is the first book to use Rao’s personal writings and records to sketch a silhouette of his life, and consequently, the history of India’s economic revolution. According to Sitapati, the amount of academic literature on Indian history after Independence is scarce. He quotes Indian historian Ramachandra Guha who famously wrote that “when the clock struck midnight and India became independent, history ended.” Like Guha, Sitapati has set out to fill in the gaps by telling the story of   Rao since “in many ways, Rao’s story is the story of the modern Indian Congress party and of the modern Indian nationalists.” Even more importantly, it is the story of Indian economic growth and the development of an Indian welfare state. Sitapati delivers the history and the politics like doses of bitter medicine couched in the honey of intimate anecdotes ranging from those about Rao’s cook to those about his mistress. Over one hundred interviews form the source material for these anecdotes, and contemporary narrative of the book. Half-Lion claims a place on the popular bookshelf as well as in academia; it is also the first book to be written by an author who was given access to Rao’s personal papers. A quality perhaps even more acutely gauged than his leadership was Rao’s meticulousness. Close advisors attest to the sight of Rao without a notebook at hand as an anomaly. Rao’s family allowed Sitapati access to some forty-five odd cartons full of these journals, papers, and diaries, where he seems to have painstakingly cataloged his every interaction. Sitapati talks at length about how useful this access was in piecing together a history that reveals a more natural understanding of Rao’s objectives, interactions, and decisions. It is not Sitapati’s purpose to make Rao look good; the book is rife with voices that criticize the former prime minister for his infidelity to his wife, his intentional lack of action during the Sikh revolt after Indira Gandhi’s assassination, and his abuse of the political system. Despite highlighting these faults, Sitapati uses Rao’s personal papers to make the argument that Rao’s involvement in the major reforms for the country overshadows these major shortcomings. As Sitapati says repeatedly, it is quite difficult to find Rao’s fingerprints in the very policies that he micro-managed. He scrupulously chose to distance himself from his administration’s reforms, often enabling them to squeak by, carefully tailored but virtually unopposed. The reason why a common cab driver doesn’t remember Rao as the man who saved India from an economic decline and engendered the welfare state is because Rao never associated himself with the very changes that he doctored. Instead he shielded himself behind people like Finance Minister Manmohan Singh who is largely credited with the reforms that would forever shape the nation’s history. Sitapati has unearthed papers like a 1995 telecom policy, heavily annotated by Rao, that shows exactly how much of a role he had in facilitating privatization of mobile services and increasing access to the mobile market. Other articles like this show exactly how involved Rao was in each policy that passed during his time in office. Yet, none of these policies have become associated with the former prime minister who took painstaking care to appear as though he had no role in the reforms. Rao was perhaps the least politically powerful prime minister to be elected- he had a minority in Parliament and he had, as Jairam Ramesh so eloquently describes it, “the charisma of a dead fish,” a quality that prevented him from gaining popular appeal. It was, thus, through his sheer ability to pretend that the status-quo was being maintained that allowed the Indian private sector to take off. Hiding behind the guise of socialism and appealing to the Nehru sympathies, Rao pretended to be a man of few actions- letting his political understudies become the face of change, a characteristic that reveals true political acumen. Bold but substantiated, his personal documents and newly found papers reveal that Rao was the unlikely puppeteer of nearly every policy that reformed the country into the India that it is today. When Rao entered office, the country was facing an economic crisis that would have forced any prime minister to liberalize trade and temporarily devalue the rupee. So Rao liberalized and he devalued. But he went farther; he proceeded to destroy the license-raj and allow private, domestic, and international companies to enter into the market. It was Rao whose ambitious vision produced an iconic budget document that so liberalized trade. In an anecdote which reveals to what extent Rao encouraged Manmohan Singh to create the ground-breaking budget that he did, Sitapati writes:   In mid-July, Manmohan Singh visited the prime minister’s office with the top-secret draft budget. A senior bureaucrat and visiting Indian diplomat say they were both present in the room when Manmohan Singh gave the prime minister a one-page summary of the draft. They remember Rao sitting in his chair and reading through the page, while Manmohan stood with them waiting. Then, Rao looked up at Manmohan and said, ‘If this is what I wanted, why would I have selected you?’ Rao did not simply rescue the economy sending income levels to an all-time high, but he also created India’s welfare state. Although Rao had taken the Indian economy in the direction of global capitalism, he very much believed in a socialist democracy. He worked with Singh to fix the loopholes in the tax policy so as to increase government revenue from a burgeoning economy. This excess money was filtered into education, health, farming, and social protections schemes. Where Indira’s “garibi hatao” initiative backfired, increasing the poverty in the country, Rao’s encouragement of a free market and better welfare policies helped the less fortunate in the country. Rao managed even the smallest facets of these reforms to make ensure their implementation. For example, he specifically oversaw the fixing of the food subsidy program- Sitapati even writes: “Rao’s private papers are full of his notes on the subject.” Accordingly, Sitapati insists that it is the economic reforms that should form the memory of this man whose “legacy manifests in the everyday life of most Indians.” It is impossible to understand the politics of India today without giving Rao his due as a key orchestrator in his nation’s economic revolution. India now has the opportunity to see a long neglected yet enigmatic hero and decide for itself whether to remember Narasimha Rao as a simple man, a great leader, or as the Narasimha (avatar of Lord Vishnu), “Half-Lion.” Half - Lion: How P.V Narasimha Rao Transformed India Author: Vinay Sitapati Publisher: Penguin Books Limited Price: Rs 450 Pages: 392

• " class="general-icons icon-sq-googleplus popup">
• " class="general-icons icon-sq-youtube">

Photo of the day: Consequences

Climate change fuelled deadly Kerala landslides, say scientists

From Parth Jindal's Olympics efforts to a new chapter of IndiGo vs Air India, our top stories of the week

Students want more environmental health taught in medical schools

DBS Bank India launches 'India-Singapore Connect' In 30th year in India,in association With CNBC-TV18

L&T Semiconductor has a pipeline of 20 automotive clients so far: CEO Sandeep Kumar

AI may reproduce gender, ethnicity biases in mental health tools

Photo of the day: Speak now

Extreme heat exposure on the rise for millions of kids: UN

L&T and the growth of a self-dependent India after 1947

How teaming supercharges collaboration

Photo of the Day: Independence Day 2024

Parth Jindal and JSW Sports: Building India's Olympics ecosystem

'AI will provide an upside to enterprise software adoption'

'Weak leaders tend to jump the gun, strong ones pause to think'

List of top, biggest achievements of PV Narasimha Rao as India’s Prime Minister

P.V. Narasimha Rao is the man that changed the face of the Indian economy in post-Independence India. Pamulaparti Venkata Narasimha Rao was an Indian lawyer and politician, and served as India’s 9th Prime Minister for a full term of five years, between 1991 and 1996.

He was the first non-Hindi speaking Prime Minister, hailing from the Warangal district in Telangana , which was formerly a part of Hyderabad State; and the first Indian Prime Minister to be of a South Indian origin. He was also the first person outside the Nehru-Gandhi family to hold the post of Prime Minister for a full five-year term.

Narasimha Rao obtained his Bachelor of Arts Degree from Osmania University , and later obtained a Master’s Degree in law from Hislop College , now under Nagpur University . He took part in the Vande Mataram movement in the late 1930s, in the Hyderabad State.

Narasimha Rao was an freedom activist during the Indian Independence movement. Post-Independence; he entered politics full-time, and joined the Indian National Congress . He served as Chief Minister of Andhra Pradesh , and successfully introduced Land Reforms in the Telangana region.

His prominence in Indian politics at the national level was marked by handling diverse portfolios in the Cabinets of Indira Gandhi and Rajiv Gandhi ; when he served as Home Minister, Defence Minister and Foreign Affairs Minister.

After the assassination of Rajiv Gandhi, leading to the systematic breakdown of the political-economy of India and the resignation of Prime Minister Chandra Shekhar ; upon the Congress winning the largest number of seats in the 1991 General Elections, Narasimha Rao became Prime Minister as part of the minority government.

P.V. Narasimha Rao, along with his Finance Minister Manmohan Singh , is responsible for leading India through a turbulent period and pulling the country out of economic darkness.

Here are the biggest achievements of P.V. Narasimha Rao, as India’s 9th Prime Minister.

I. Economic Reforms – New Economic Policy 1991

The economic landscape of India before Narasimha Rao’s Premiership was in shambles. The economic crisis prevailing at the time was caused by currency devaluation as a result of low reserves in balance of payments, which left the country in a twin-deficit state.

During the 1980s, India’s balance of payments was at a deficit. This was further aggravated by the 1991 Gulf War ; in which India’s oil imports increased dramatically, exports failed miserably, the country’s credit dried up and investors withdrew their money. There was a build up of large fiscal-deficits, coupled with spill-overs from trade-deficits. The end of the 1980s saw India in a state of financial bankruptcy.

The country’s foreign exchange reserves in January 1991 were at $1.2 billion, and depleted by half in June. India had barely enough reserves to last three weeks of essential imports, and the country was one week away from defaulting on its external balance of payment obligations. The immediate response of the government, under Prime Minister Chandra Shekhar was to secure an emergency loan of $2.2 billion from the International Monetary Fund , by pledging 67 tons of India’s gold reserves.

The Reserve Bank of India had to ship forty-seven tons of gold to the Bank of England , and twenty tons to the Union Bank of Switzerland , to raise $600 million. The cargo was ferried to London on a chartered plane between 21st and 31st May 1991, which pulled the country out of economic slumber. The result ensued the collapse of the Chandra Shekhar government.

Upon taking on the Prime Ministerial post of India, Narasimha Rao roped in Manmohan Singh as his Cabinet’s Finance Minister. They initiated the New Economic Policy of 1991 , under which reforms were introduced; for the reduction in import tariffs, and markets being deregulated leading to a reduction in taxes. The License Raj was abolished ending public monopolies, and the market expanded to include more foreign investments.

At the turn of the 21st Century, India progressed towards a free-market economy, with a substantial reduction in state control of the economy and increased financial liberalisation.

II. Foreign Policy

Prime Minister Narasimha Rao facilitated India’s foreign policy by extending its arms to South-East Asian countries, the United States of America , Middle Eastern countries of Iran and Israel .

a. Look East

The Look East Policy is an effort to cultivate extensive economic and strategic relations with the nations of South-East Asia, in a bid to foster India’s standing as a regional power and a counterweight to the strategic influence of the People’s Republic of China .

The policy was developed and enacted by Prime Minister Narasimha Rao’s government, but was followed up and rigorously pursued by the successive governments of  Atal Bihari Vajpayee and Manmohan Singh.

Under this policy, India’s strategy was focused on forging close economic and commercial ties, along with economic liberalisation and deference from Cold War -era policies. The policy also sought to foster strategic and security cooperation, and emphasise historic, cultural and idealogical links. The expansion of regional markets for trade, investments and industrial development; was observed under this policy.

b. Cultivate Iran

India’s relationship with Iran can be traced back to the friendship pact signed between Delhi and Tehran on 15th March 1950, which called for ‘perpetual peace and friendship’ between both the states. In reality, however, the relationship between India and Iran was viewed as rocky; with Iran’s close ties to USA and Pakistan  under the leadership of Muhammed Reza Shah , through the Baghdad Pact or the Central Treaty Organisation (CENTO) .

Iran had also provided military assistance to Pakistan, during the 1965 and 1971 Indo-Pakistan Wars. Though having aversions to super-power alliances through the Non-Alignment notion, India forged ties with USSR which became its primary defence supplier.

The ensuing decades of 1970s and 1980s saw tensions between both nations, but there were notable periods of positive engagement; both countries sustained economic ties during the period with special emphasis on energy issues.

However, the end of the Cold War marked significant improvements in the relationship between India and Iran. A turning point in the bilateral relations between both the nations was the visit of Prime Minister Narasimha Rao to Tehran in 1993, with him being the first Indian Prime Minister to visit the country after the revolution. Iran’s then president Ali Akbar Hashemi Rafsanjani made a reciprocal visit to India in 1995. High-level visits continued after 1995, and did much to boost mutual economic interests in key technological sectors.

As Prime Minister, Narasimha Rao pushed the ‘ Cultivate Iran ‘ policy, which paid rich dividends for India in the 1990s.

c. Exercise Malabar

In the tenure of Prime Minister Narasimha Rao, trilateral ties were established between India, USA and Japan in 1992; through Exercise Malabar , a trilateral navy exercise.

The annual naval program started in 1992 includes a diverse set of activities, ranging from  combat operations of aircraft-carriers through Maritime Interdiction Operations (MIO) exercises.

d. Indo-Israel ties

Before Prime Minister Narendra Modi ‘s historic visit to Israel in 2017, Narasimha Rao first tried to foster ties between India and Israel during his tenure as Prime Minister; where many people perceived this as a bold move on Rao’s part at the time as it was a strong departure from the Nehruvian trajectory India had been following with regards to Israel.

Prime Minister Narasimha Rao took the gigantic step of establishing full-fledged ties with Israel on 29th January 1992, with India opening its first embassy in Tel Aviv .

III. Facilitating India’s Nuclear Programme

Under the Narasimha Rao government, India facilitated its nuclear program which was to be- India’s second nuclear test since 1974, in Pokhran , Rajasthan .

Though, it was the late Prime Minister Atal Bihari Vajpayee’s government that successfully conducted the test; Vajpayee paid tribute to Rao when the latter died in 2004, describing him as the ‘true father’ of India’s nuclear programme. Vajpayee said that Rao had assured the Prime Minister of the nuclear bomb’s readiness in terms of testing, which prompted the Vajpayee government to continue with the nuclear test; Pokhran-II .

The test was first supposed to be conducted in 1995 but Narasimha Rao postponed the arrangement since USA was paying close attention to India’s nuclear activities.

IV. Ending Insurgencies in Punjab

Post-independence, Punjab emerged as one of India’s most prosperous states, particularly in the 1960s, where it bailed the country out of a food crisis by spearheading the Green Revolution .

However, the state witnessed unprecedented violence for one and a half decades between the late 1970s and early 1990s. Thousands of lives were lost, and large scale suffering ensued. The creation of a separate state of Punjab in 1966; meant to satisfy the demands of the Sikhs for the Sikh -majority, Punjabi-speaking state within India, did not prevent the subsequent violent struggle for a Sikh state on ‘ Khalistan ‘ in the 1980s.

Operation Blue Star ; propelled by former Prime Minister, Indira Gandhi, and the ensuing Anti-Sikh riots as a result of her assassination led to manifold increases in the violence in the Punjab. Militant activities significantly increased between 1987 and 1992; including blasts, robberies, extortions, smuggling and kidnappings. The violence in the state became prominent as a result the complete absence of protests, particularly in rural areas.

When Narasimha Rao became Prime Minister in 1991, he appointed K.P.S. Gill , the then chief of the Central Reserve Police Force , as the State Police Chief (SPC) in December 1991.

The Prime Minister was determined to bring back an elected government in Punjab, which was under President’s Rule at the time; no matter how narrow the electoral base. He believed that only this could isolate the militants from the rest of the Sikh population, an insight by Rao which proved to be prophetic. The polls brought the Congress to power under Jatt Sikh Chief Minister, Beant Singh . With the help of K.P.S. Gill, Beant Singh was able to mobilise mainly the Jatt Sikh villagers in the border areas to resist the infiltrators. This move resulted in the militancy being caught between the villagers and the Police, which saw its collapse within a year.

V. Facilitating releases of Doraiswamy and Liviu Radu

On two separate occasions, Prime Minister Narasimha Rao had to negotiate the release of two high profile individuals; Doraiswamy, a prominent India Oil executive who was kidnapped by Kashmiri militants, and Liviu Radu , a chargé d’affaires from Romania in New Delhi by Khalistan Sikh militants.

Liviu Radu, a Romanian diplomat to India was kidnapped by the Khalistan Commando Force in October 1991. They demanded the release of some of their captured members in exchange for the foreign diplomat’s life. The central government under Narasimha Rao refused. With the criticisms of the kidnappings by Sikh politicians, Radu was released by the militant group, unharmed.

K. Doraiswamy, an executive in the state run Indian Oil Company, was kidnapped by Islamic militants in the Northern Kashmir valley. The militants demanded the release and exchange of eight captured Kashmiri rebels. Doraiswamy was held for 54 days in captivity, before the government released the eight men in exchange for Doraiswamy’s life.

Conclusions

Prime Minister Narasimha’s tenure can be looked at as one of the most important Premierships in India, as the country was undergoing pivotal economical and social turbulences at the start of his tenure. He managed to pull the country out of debt, and set it on a path towards economic liberalisation resulting in India being one of the ‘fastest growing economies in the world’.

He inherited the responsibility of running the country at the height of insurgencies and communal divide in the country. In spite of all these problems, he managed to lead India through its own turbulence into economic and social modernity.

He is referred to as Chanakya by his peers, for his ability to steer through tough economic and political legislation through a time when he headed a minority government. Rao was a computer technician along with being a statesman and an economist, with the ability to speak seventeen languages; having fluency in Telugu, Marathi, Hindi, English, Tamil, Urdu, Kannada, Oriya, Sanskrit, French and Spanish.

P.V. Narasimha Rao was awarded with the Pratibha Murthy Life time Achievement Award in 2002.

Related Post

Climate change escalates tensions in conflict-prone areas, india votes in elections 2024. is there a consideration for environment, 134th ambedkar jayanti: celebrating architect of equality & justice, leave a reply cancel reply.

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

7 Must-Watch David Dhawan Films That Define Bollywood Comedy

Duleep trophy 2024 updates: teams, schedule, and venue, adnan sami special: ultimate playlist for heartfelt melodies & energetic beats, oyo records first-ever profitable year with rs 229 crore in fy24.

• Fundamentals NEW

• Biographies
• Compare Countries
• World Atlas

P.V. Narasimha Rao

Related resources for this article.

• Primary Sources & E-Books

(1921–2004). Indian public official P.V. Narasimha Rao served as prime minister of India from 1991 to 1996. He was leader of the Congress (I) Party faction of the Indian National Congress (Congress Party). As prime minister, Rao introduced major economic reforms, including ones that allowed greater private ownership of industries. The reforms led to the dramatic growth of the country’s economy.

Pamulaparti Venkata Narasimha Rao was born on June 28, 1921, in Karimnagar (now in Telangana), India. He studied at Fergusson College in Pune and at the Universities of Bombay (now Mumbai) and Nagpur, ultimately earning a law degree.

Rao was a member of the Congress Party for many years. At first he helped work for India’s independence from Britain. In 1955 Rao became a member of the state legislative assembly of Andhra Pradesh . He supported Indira Gandhi when she split from the Congress Party organization in 1969. Her new group eventually was named the Congress (I) Party. Rao served as chief minister (governor) of Andhra Pradesh in 1971–73. In that post, he started a revolutionary land-reform policy. He also ensured that members of the lower castes could participate in politics.

In 1972 Rao was elected to the Lok Sabha, the lower chamber of India’s national parliament. Under Gandhi and her son and successor, Rajiv Gandhi , Rao served in various ministries. Rao was India’s foreign affairs minister in 1980–84 and again in 1988–89. His other posts included minister of home affairs, minister of defense, and minister of human resource development.

Besides his political career, Rao was known as a distinguished scholar. He had served as chairman of the Telugu Academy in Andhra Pradesh in 1968–74. Rao was fluent in six languages, translated Hindi verses and books, and wrote fiction in Hindi, Marathi, and Telegu.

After Rajiv Gandhi was assassinated in May 1991, Rao was appointed Congress (I) Party leader. Rao became India’s 10th prime minster after elections in June 1991. He was the country’s first prime minister to come from a southern state. Once in office, Rao began to restructure the country’s economy by changing it to a free-market system . His program involved cutting government regulations and red tape, abandoning subsidies and fixed prices, and privatizing state-run industries. Those efforts to liberalize the economy spurred industrial growth and foreign investment. However, they also resulted in rising budget and trade deficits and increased inflation.

During Rao’s years as prime minister, Hindu fundamentalism became a significant force in Indian national politics for the first time. Right-wing political parties such as the Bharatiya Janata Party grew more powerful. In 1992 Hindu nationalists destroyed a mosque at Ayodhya (Uttar Pradesh state), leading to communal riots. This violence between Hindus and Muslims persisted throughout Rao’s term as prime minister.

Meanwhile, the Congress (I) Party was rocked by corruption scandals. Its popularity continued to decline. After the party suffered a large defeat in parliamentary elections in May 1996, Rao stepped down as prime minister. He resigned as party leader that September. The following year Rao was arrested for corruption and bribery. He was found guilty in 2000, but the conviction was later overturned. Rao died on December 23, 2004, in New Delhi, India.

It’s here: the NEW Britannica Kids website!

We’ve been busy, working hard to bring you new features and an updated design. We hope you and your family enjoy the NEW Britannica Kids. Take a minute to check out all the enhancements!

• The same safe and trusted content for explorers of all ages.
• Accessible across all of today's devices: phones, tablets, and desktops.
• Improved homework resources designed to support a variety of curriculum subjects and standards.
• A new, third level of content, designed specially to meet the advanced needs of the sophisticated scholar.
• And so much more!

Want to see it in action?

Start a free trial

To share with more than one person, separate addresses with a comma

Choose a language from the menu above to view a computer-translated version of this page. Please note: Text within images is not translated, some features may not work properly after translation, and the translation may not accurately convey the intended meaning. Britannica does not review the converted text.

After translating an article, all tools except font up/font down will be disabled. To re-enable the tools or to convert back to English, click "view original" on the Google Translate toolbar.

• Privacy Notice
• Terms of Use

PV Narasimha Rao: The Outsider Who Dared

PV Narasimha Rao needed somebody who would be adept at tackling the immediate problems, come up with out-of-the-box solutions, and take courageous decisions to pull the country back from the precipice. He plumped for Manmohan Singh

“I didn’t know it was this bad.” That was Pamulaparti Venkata Narasimha Rao reacting to his Cabinet Secretary Naresh Chandra’s briefing on the state of the economy. It was 20 June 1991, and the next day he would be sworn in as India’s first Congress Prime Minister who was not from the Nehru-Gandhi dynasty. In retrospect, from those words began the narrative of India’s most radical economic transformation.

It was indeed very bad. The coffers were almost empty; bankruptcy and insolvency looked inevitable. The would-be Prime Minister had his work cut out. And Rao would live up to the challenge: his first 100 days in office set the tone for a historic shift in an economy steeped in socialist shibboleths.

It was as if history had intervened to change Rao’s retirement plans for India’s sake. A month before the swearing in, the scholar politician was packing his formidable library in anticipation of a life away from the hurly-burly of realpolitik. Everything changed on 21 May 1991, when Rajiv Gandhi was assassinated in a suicide-bomb attack in Sriperumbudur, Tamil Nadu. For India and the 70-year-old Rao, a long-time retainer of the dynasty, the tragedy marked a new beginning.

In the early 90s, political India was in a whirl. Separatist flames had engulfed Punjab and Kashmir. India’s integrity and the Nehruvian socialist economy appeared under threat. The USSR, on which India had relied for global guardianship as well as defence supplies, was unravelling. With almost no foreign exchange left to pay for essential imports, India was on the verge of an economic breakdown.

Within the Congress, regional satraps such as Arjun Singh, Sharad Pawar and ND Tiwari had a hidden agenda when they reached a consensus on Rao as Prime Minister after the party won the Lok Sabha elections of 1991, on a sympathy wave. They saw the first Prime Minister from south India as an interim leader, and wanted to dethrone him at the earliest opportunity to capture power for themselves.

The crisis in the country’s economy, however, was far more acute than Rao’s own innermost fears. What shekels were left, as Chandra told Rao, were barely enough to keep the country running for the next 15 days. Urgent measures were called for. In the third week of June, an unassuming PV, as he came to be known, placed a call to economist IG Patel, his first choice for the Finance Minister’s job. He needed a man who would boldly tackle the immense problems of a nation gone bust. Patel politely turned down the offer. Rao needed somebody who would be adept at tackling the immediate problems, come up with out-of-the-box solutions, and take courageous decisions to pull the country back from the precipice. Finally, Rao plumped for Manmohan Singh.

That would prove to be a smart choice. Singh was put in charge of a high-level panel to restructure the Indian economy. The Prime Minister made it a point to protect the panel from criticism and intrusions by other Congress stalwarts, and waited for its recommendations to be spelt out on how India was best launched onto a dramatic new economic path.

Nehru’s socialistic vision for India was one of protectionism, marked not only by import substitution and public sector dominance, but by bureaucratic red tapism that spawned the notorious ‘Licence Quota Raj’ and all the corruption associated with it in almost all sectors of the economy. The battle to break free from this entrapment, liberalise the economy and unleash market forces in a country of such poverty called for more than just an ordinary leap of faith. To undo the Nehruvian inheritance called for determination and—to a large extent— even ruthlessness. Rao, behind that unassuming façade, proved to have both in good measure.

Just hours after becoming Prime Minister, Rao’s first address to the nation on 22 June offered a glimpse of his plans: “We are committed to removing the cobwebs that come in the way of rapid industrialisation.”

On 1 July, before his opponents within the Congress could anticipate his next move, Rao devalued the rupee. Two days later, he devalued it once again. On 24 July, Rao’s first Budget was presented.

The new Prime Minister, in a televised address on Doordarshan , decided to tell it like it was. “Desperate maladies call for drastic remedies,” he said, outlining the austerity programme on the anvil, “This is only the beginning. A further set of far-reaching changes and reforms is on the way… We believe the nation, as well as the Government, must learn to live within its means… There is much fat in government expenditure. This can, and will, be cut.” Rao followed that address up with plans to deregulate industry, delicense the private sector, open up several sectors to foreign investment, extend tax sops to private corporations, drastically cut farm subsidies and clamp down on labour protests.

That, however, proved to be the easier part. The reforms represented a decisive break from the Nehruvian economic paradigm, and the fight for support within his own party for them was to prove significantly tougher, even for a seasoned politician like Rao. It called for deft machinations to push through changes as radical as the ones he launched.

Rao had kept the Industry portfolio to himself, and as the head of this Ministry, he had put together a liberalised Industrial Policy. The trouble was that it still had no official seal of approval from his Congress party. He had to come up with a plan, a stealthy one if need be, to push it through. Arjun Singh, ML Fotedar, Madhasinh Solanki and B Shankaranand were among the senior Congressmen who Rao thought were determined to stymie his blueprint for industrial freedom and growth.

The Prime Minister quietly summoned Jairam Ramesh (who, incidentally, has recently published a book on the first 100 days of the Rao Government) and directed him to meet Arjun Singh and Fotedar separately. The two were putting up the stiffest resistance and were of the view that this was primarily a political matter rather than an economic one and some sort of ‘continuity’ would have to be established if Rao’s Industrial Policy were to be adopted. To placate them, Rao decided to set up a sub-committee that included the naysayers. But next to them, he also seated some selected yea-sayers, such as P Chidambaram, AN Verma, Manmohan Singh, Naresh Chandra and Jairam Ramesh. The idea was to skew the views in favour of the new Industrial Policy.

The panel met in Parliament House. HRD Minister Arjun Singh was the first to cast a stone, arguing that Rao’s Industrial Policy was a “very clear departure from the past” and “politically unacceptable”. Fotedar was harsher still in his comments, dubbing it “anti-Nehruvian and anti-Indira Gandhi”. These views were quickly countered by Manmohan Singh and Chidambaram, both playing to a script. Singh insisted that the policy flowed from the “self reliance” of Nehru’s broader vision. It meant trade and not aid, Chidambaram argued, contending that the original policy had little do with nationalisation, which only involved the LIC of India. Indira Gandhi’s position that the state must play an interventionist role, he maintained, was inspired by the philosophy of Mohan Kumaramangalam, C Subramaniam, IK Gujral and Mohan Dharia. “You cannot attribute it to Nehru,” he asserted. But the Industrial Policy still seemed in trouble and needed stronger backing, especially in its key argument for privatisation.

A new strategy had to be devised quickly, a kind of last- ditch effort. Rao came up with a fresh plan that would sneak his policy into action right under the noses of its hardiest opponents. At the behest of the Prime Minister, Commerce Minister Chidambaram asked Verma, Suresh Mathur (the then Industry secretary) and Ramesh to find one suitable paragraph each from Nehru, Indira Gandhi and Rajiv Gandhi that could show how the party’s avowed ‘self reliance’ position gelled with Rao’s proposal.

It was a clincher. The new draft, airbrushed by Jairam Ramesh, was hailed even by those most stoutly opposed to the proposed policy changes. The speed with which it brought around the so-called Nehruvian stalwarts within the Congress was amazing. After the policy won approval all around at the inner-party meeting, Fotedar’s face now wore an expression of glee. “ Aapne toh kamaal kar diya ,” he exulted to the Prime Minister. A liberalised Industrial Policy crafted by Prime Minister Narasimha Rao and his Finance Minister Manmohan Singh was through.

As a result of the reforms, investment from overseas—both Foreign Direct Investment and capital from abroad in search of Indian assets—shot up to $5.3 billion in 1995-96 from $132 million in 1991-92. Most significantly, Rao is credited with removing production limits and industrial licences in most fields of business (leaving just 18 sectors that needed licences). Industrial regulations that had been bugbears for the private sector were loosened if not entirely stripped away. And foreign companies were allowed in, fostering market competition that would raise efficiency levels all around and help turn even homebred players globally competitive.

A quarter of a century after those momentous moves, several political commentators dismiss Manmohan Singh’s copyright to all that was done to turn India’s economy around. In 2014, political writer Kapil Kommireddi held that ‘if Jawaharlal Nehru ‘discovered’ India, it can reasonably be said that PV Narasimha Rao reinvented it’.

Despite his future-shaping stint as Prime Minister of an India liberated of its economic shackles, the Congress party has been shamefully petty in refusing Rao his place in history. Out of power, he was treated as a non-entity by the Nehru-Gandhi family.

He was kept out of the all-powerful Congress Working Committee although he was an ex-AICC president and a former Prime Minister. In 1998, when Sonia Gandhi formally took charge of the Congress party, the multilingual scholar was humiliated further by those who were now busy currying favour with Rajiv Gandhi’s widow when they refused to designate him even one of innumerable special invitees to the CWC.

The Congress of Sonia Gandhi was determined not to let Rao have even a footnote in the history of the Congress party, casting him instead in the role of an ‘outsider’ and an ‘upstart’. Shortly before his death in late 2004, Rao referred to his time after Prime Ministership as his “ugly past few years”. By some accounts, the ugliness included an outrageous plan in the Congress to pin the blame for Rajiv Gandhi’s assassination on him. The lack of grace displayed by the top leaders of his party at his cremation only added to the impression of its wanting nothing to do with him.

It took a whole decade after his death, in 2014, for a memorial to be allotted to the author of India’s economic liberalisation— and this was done by the NDA. What 21st century India, soon to be the youngest nation on earth, takes for granted, from the cars it drive to the phones it uses, are the living symbols of the man’s vision. India is indebted.

About The Auth o r

Current issue.

Waqf Act: Land Inc.

More st o ries.

Love After Death

The Longest Night

Leaving Kashmir

M o st popular, lessons from wayanad, how india civilised britain.

Minhaz Merchant

Hard Choices for Hasina

Syed Badrul Ahsan

Breakout Land

Rami Niranjan Desai

The Tragedy of Thanjavur

Sandeep Balakrishna

More C o lumns

Love After Death Madhulika Liddle

The Longest Night Sanjay Sipahimalani

Leaving Kashmir Nandini Bhatia

REC O MMENDED STORIES

The Economics of Floods

Siddharth Singh The damage to public utilities and infrastructure has been on the rise

Anatomy of a Scandal

Open An Apology

The Money Trap

Siddharth Singh Narendra Modi has declared war on black money. And how

© 2024 Open Media Network Pvt. Ltd.

Design & Developed by PixelVJ

• Internship Opportunity at Amamri Lawyers LLP a Full-Service Law Firm, Delhi [Paid; 3 Positions; Sep-Dec]: Apply Now!
• Call for Research Proposals FY 2025: Indian Council of Social Science Research & Japan Society for the Promotion of Science: Submit by Sept 3
• Public Policy Competition by Vinayaka Mission’s Law School, Chennai and Surana and Surana International Attorneys [September 21; Cash Prizes Worth Rs. 45k]: Register by August 20!
• कॉलेज को सशर्त मान्यता देने पर एनसीटीई पर 10 लाख का जुर्माना, जिम्मेदारी अधिकारी से होगी वसूली
• Quiz on Bharatiya Sakshya Adhiniyam 2023 by Bureau of Police Research and Development (BPR&D) under Ministry of Home Affairs in collaboration with MyGov [Aug 13- Sep 13]: Register Now!
• Samvidhaan Pe Charcha and National Moot Court Competition by Parul University [September 12 – 16; Cash Prizes Upto Rs. 2.5L]: Register by August 30!
• Supreme Court stays Allahabad HC directives for legal opinion of Govt before registering FIR for cheating, forgery in UP
• Prof. V.S. Mallar Legal Aid Competition 2024 at NLSIU, Bangalore [Aug 22; Cash Prizes Upto Rs. 80k]: Register by Aug 18
• One-Day Consultation on Promoting Private Sector Participation and Capitalization in Municipal Solid Waste (MSW) Management in India by Bridge Policy Think Tank [Delhi; August 30; Hybrid; Limited Seats]: Register Now!
• Meghalaya High Court bans single-use Plastic
• 'भारतीय कुश्ती महासंघ के लिए गठित एडहॉक कमेटी को बहाल किया जाए', हाईकोर्ट का आदेश
• सिंगल यूज प्लास्टिक के इस्तेमाल पर भारी जुर्माने का प्रस्ताव, हाईकोर्ट ने लगाया बैन
• Solomon and Co. joins Pragma International Network
• Shardul Amarchand Mangaldas advises Barentz in its acquisition of Anshul Life Sciences
• Juris Corp advises Infopark Properties Limited on INR 875 Crores Debt Raising through Listed NCDs

• Central Acts
• Latest News
• Corporate Law News
• Human Rights News
• Intellectual Property News
• Did you Know?
• International News
• हिंदी न्यूज़
• Law Firm News
• Marriage and Divorce News
• Tourism News
• World of Petroleum & Natural Gas
• Case Analysis Supreme Court High Courts Tribunal Courts
• Cheque Bounce News
• Legal Services News
• Petroleum News

Supreme Court Judgments

• Supreme Court

High Court Judgments

• Delhi High Court
• Allahabad High Court
• Bombay High Court
• Calcutta High Court
• Madras High Court
• Punjab & Haryana High Court
• Andhra High Court
• Chattisgarh High Court
• Gauhati High Court
• Gujarat High Court
• Himachal Pradesh High Court
• Jammu & Kashmir High Court
• Jharkhand High Court
• Karnataka High Court
• Kerala High Court
• Madhya Pradesh High Court
• Meghalaya High Court
• Manipur High Court
• Orissa High Court
• Patna High Court
• Rajasthan High Court
• Sikkim High Court
• Tripura High Court
• Telangana High Court
• Uttarakhand High Court
• Arbitration
• Conciliation

Campus Buzz

• Call for Papers
• Conferences & Seminars
• Courses & Workshops
• Debate Competitions
• Essay Competitions
• Fellowships
• Fests, MUNs and Other Competitions
• International Opportunities
• Internships
• Moot Court Competitions
• Scholarships
• Legal Documents
• Legal Forms for Advocates
• Legal Dictionary
• SC Collegium Resolutions
• Law Commission of India Reports
• NCRB Reports
• Justice Verma Committee Report, 2013
• Justice BN Srikrishna Report on Institutionalisation of Arbitration
• Legal Maxims
• Web Links Directory

Legal Education

• Law School Entrance Exams
• Law Schools and Colleges in India
• Overseas Law Schools
• Careers in Law

Circulars & Notices

• RBI Circulars
• RBI Notices
• SEBI Circulars
• SEBI Notices
• MCA Circulars
• MCA Notices
• Supreme Court Calendar 2023
• Supreme Court Bar Association
• Supreme Court Advocate-On-Record
• All High Courts Calendar
• High Courts Portals
• Judicial Exam Notice Board
• Judicial Services Exam Question Papers
• Bar Councils
• Bar Associations

P.V. Narasimha Rao Vs. State(Cbi/Spe) [1998] INSC 229 (17 April 1998) 1998 Latest Caselaw 229 SC

Citation : 1998 Latest Caselaw 229 SC Judgement Date : Apr/1998

Indian Penal Code, 1860 (IPC) IPC Section 193. Punishment for false evidence

P.V. Narasimha Rao Vs. State (CBI/SPE) [1998] INSC 229 (17 April 1998)

S.P. Bharucha, S. Rajendra Babu Bharucha,J.

WITH Crl.A.No.1209/97,1210-1212/97, 1213/97, 1214/97, 1215/97, 1216/97, 1217-18/97, 1219/97, 1220/97, 1221/97, 1222/97,186/98 & 187/98

On 26th July, 1993, a motion of no-confidence was moved in the Lok Sabha against the minority government of P.V. Narasimha Rao. The support of 14 member was needed to have the no-confidence motion defeated. On 28th July, 1993, the no-confidence motion was lost, 251 members having voted in support and 265 against. Suraj Mandal, Shibu Soren, Simon Marandi and Shailender Mahto, members of the Lok Sabha owing allegiance to the Jharkhand Mukti Morcha (the JMM), and Ram Lakhan Singh Yadav, Roshan Lal, Anadicharan Das, Abhay Pratap Singh and Haji Gulam Mohammed, members of the Lok Sabha owing allegiance to the Janata Dal, Ajit Singh group(the J.D.,A.S.), voted against the no-confidence motion. Ajit Singh, a member of the Lok Sabha owing allegiance to the J.D,A.S., abstained from voting thereon.

It is the respondents case that the abovenamed members agreed to and did receive bribes, to the giving of which P.V. Narasimha Rao, M.P. and Prime Minister, Satish Sharma, M.P. and Minister, Buta Singh, M.P. V.Rajeswar Rao, M.P., N.M. Ravanna, Ram Linga Reddy, M.L.A., M.Veerappa Moily, M.L.A. and Chief Minister, State of Karnataka, D.K.Adikeshavulu, M. Thimmogowda and Bhajan Lal, M.L.A. And Chief Minister, State of Haryana, were parties, to vote against the no-confidence motion. A prosecution being launched against the aforesaid alleged bribe givers and bribe takers subsequent to the vote upon the no-confidence motion, cognizance was taken by the Special Judge, Delhi.

The Charge framed against P.V. Narasimha Rao reads thus:

"That you P.V. Narasimha Rao between July and August, 1993 at Delhi and Bangalore were party to a criminal conspiracy and agreed to or entered into an agreement with your co-accused Capt. Satish Sharma, Buta Singh, V.Rajeshwara rao, HM Revanna, Ramlinga Reddy, M. Veerappa Moiley, D.K. Audi Keshvalu, M. Thimmegowda, Bhajan Lal, JMM (Jharkhand Mukti Morcha) MPs Suraj Mandal, Shibu Soren, Simon Marandi, Shailendra Mahto (approver, since granted pardon on 8.4.97), Janta Dal (Ajit Group) MPs Ajit Singh Ram Lakhan Singh Yadav, Ram Sharan Yadav, Roshan Lal, Anadi Chran Das, Abhay Pratap Singh , Haji Ghulam Mohd, Khan and late G.C. Munda to defeat the no- confidence motion moved on 26.7.93 against the then Congress (I) Govt. headed by you by illegal means viz. To offer or cause to offer and pay gratification other than the legal remuneration to your co- accused persons namely J.M.M. and Janta Dal (A) MPs named above as a motive or reward for their helping in defeating the said no confidence motion moved by the opposition parties and in pursuance of the said agreement you paid or caused to pay several lacs of rupees to the above referred JMM and Janta Dal (A) MPs who obtained or attempted to obtain the same in the manner stated above and thereby you have committed an offence punishable u/S 120 B IPC r/w Sections 7,12 and 13(2) r/w 13 (2) r/w 13(i)(d) of the PC Act 1988 and within my cognizance.

Secondly you P.V. Narasimha Rao in pursuance of the aforesaid criminal conspiracy during the aforesaid period and at the aforesaid places abetted the commission of offence punishable u/S 7 of P.C. Act by above referred JMM and Janta Dal (A) MPs and thereby you have committed an offence punishable u/S 12 of the P.C. Act and within my cognizance." Similarly charges were framed against the alleged bribe givers.

The charge framed against Suraj Mandal of the J.M.M. reads thus:

"Firstly you between July and August, 1993 at Delhi and Bangalore were party to a criminal conspiracy and agreed to or enter into an agreement with your co-accused P.V. Narasimha Rao, Capt. Satish Sharma, Buta Singh, V.Rajeshwara Rao, H.M. Revanna, Ramlinga Reddy, M.Veerappa Moiley, D.K. Audi Keshvalu. M, Thimmegowda, Bhajan Lal, JMM (Jharkhand Mukti MOrcha) MPs Shibu Soren. Simon Marandi, Shailendra Mehto (Approver, since granted pardon on 8.4.97), Janta Dal (Ajit Group) MPs, Ajit Singh, Ram Lakhan Singh Yadav. Roshan Lal, Anadi Chran Dass, Abhey Partap Singh, Haji Ghulam Mohd. Khan and late G.C. Munda to defeat the no confidence motion moved against the then Congress (I) Government headed by accused Shri P.V.Narasimha Rao on 26.793 by illegal means viz. To obtain or agree to obtain gratification other than legal remunerations from your above named accused persons other than JMM and Janta Dal (A) MPs as a motive or reward for defeating the no confidence motion and in pursuance thereof above named accused persons other than JMM and Janta Dal (A) passed on several lacs of rupees to you or your other co-accused namely JMM and Janta Dal (A) MPs which amounts were persons and thereby you have committed an offence punishable u/s 120B r/w Sections 7,12,13(2) r/w section 134(i)(d) of the P.C. Act and within my cognizance.

Secondly, that you being a public servant while functioning in your capacity of Member of Parliament (10th Lok Sabha) during the aforesaid period and at the aforesaid places in pursuance of the aforesaid conspiracy demanded and accepted from your co-accused other than JMM & JD(A) MPs mentioned above a sum of Rs.280 lacs for yourself and other JMM MPs named above other than your legal remuneration as a motive or reward for defeating above referred no confidence motion moved against the then Govt. of Congress (I) headed by your co-accused Shri P.V. Narasimha Rao and thereby you have committed an offence punishable u/S 7 the P.C. Act and within my cognizance.

Thirdly, you during the aforesaid period and at the aforesaid places being a public servant while functioning in your aforesaid capacity of Member of Parliament by corrupt or illegal means and by abusing your position as a said public servant obtained for yourself or your other co- accused i.e. JMM MPs named above the pecuniary advantage to the extent of Rs.280 lacs and thereby committed an offence punishable u/S 13(2) read with Section 13(i)(d) of P.C. Act and within my cognizance.

Fourthly, that you during the pendency of investigation of present case while writ petition No.789/96 was pending disposal in Hon'ble High Court between February to April, 1996 at Delhi, Ranchi and other places intentionally caused to bring false evidence into existence by fabricating or causing to fabricate the documents or records i. e. books of accounts, proceeding books, etc. of JMM Central Office. Ranchi for the purpose of being used in any stage of judicial proceedings and thereby committed an offence u/S 193 IPC and within my cognizance.

Similar charges were framed against the other alleged bribe takers of the J.M.M Similar charges were also framed against the alleged bribe takers of the J.D., A.S., except that there was no charge against them under Section 193 of the Indian Penal Code. Shailender Mahto of the J.M.M., it may be mentioned, later turned approver and was pardoned.

The persons sought to be charged as aforesaid filed petitions in the High Court at Delhi Seeking to quash the charges. By the judgment and order which is under challenge, the High Court dismissed the petitions. Hence, these appeals. The appeals were heard by a bench of three learned judges and then referred to a Constitution Bench, broadly put, is that, by virtue of the provisions of Article 105, they are immune from the prosecution and that, in any event, they cannot be prosecuted under the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1998.

Article 105 of the Constitution reads thus:

"105. Powers, privileges, etc., of the House of Parliament and of the members and committees thereof. - (1) Subject to the provisions of this Constitution and to the rules and standing order regulating the procedure of Parliament, there shall be freedom of speech in Parliament.

(2) NO Member of Parliament shall be liable to any proceedings in any court in respect of anything said or any vote given by him in Parliament or any committee thereof, and no person shall be so liable in respect of the publication by or under the authority of either House of Parliament of any report, papers, votes or proceedings.

(3) In other respects, the powers, privileges and immunities of each House of Parliament, and of the members and the committees of each House. shall be such as may from time to time be defined by Parliament by law, and until so defined shall be those of that House and of its members and committees immediately before the coming into force of section 15 of the Constitution (Forty-fourth Amendment ) Act, 1978.

(4) The provisions of clauses (1), (2) and (3) shall apply in relation to persons who by virtue of this constitution to take part in the proceedings of, a House of Parliament or any committee thereof as they apply in relation to members of the Parliament." Mr. P.P.. Rao addressed us on behalf of P.V. Narasimha Rao, Mr. D.D. Thakur on behalf of Satish Sharma, Mr. Kapil Sibal on behalf of Bhajan Lal and Dr.Surat Singh on behalf of some of the J.D., A.S. M.Ps. All of them relied upon sub article (2) OF Article 105. Only Mr. P.P. Rao, learned counsel for P.V. Narasimha Rao, relied, in addition, upon sub article(3) thereof.

Article 105(2).

By reason of Sub-article (1) of Article 105, members of Parliament enjoy freedom of speech subject only to the provisions of the Constitution and the rules and standing orders regulating the procedure of Parliament. That express provision is made for freedom of speech in Parliament in sub-article (1) of article 105 suggests that this freedom is independent of the freedom of speech conferred by Article 19 and unrestricted by the exceptions contained therein.

This is recognition of the fact that members need to be free of all constraints in the matter of what they say in Parliament if they are effectively to represent their constituencies in its deliberations. Sub-article (2) of Article 105 puts negatively what sub-article (1) states affirmatively.

Both sub-articles must be read together to deter mine their content. By reason of the first part of sub-article (2) no member is answerable in a court of law or any similar tribunal for what he has said in Parliament. This again is recognition of the fact that a member needs the freedom to say what he thinks is right in Parliament undeterred by the fear of being proceeded against. A vote, whether cast by voice or gesture or the aid of a machine, is treated as an extension of speech or a substitute for speech and is given the protection that the spoken word has. Two comments need to be made in regard to the plain language of the first part of sub-article (2). First, what has protection is what has been said and a vote that has been cast, not something that might have been said but was not, or a vote that might have been cast but was not. Secondly, the protection is broad, being "in respect of". It is so given to secure the freedom of speech in Parliament that sub-article (1) provides for. It is necessary, given the role members of Parliament must perform . The protection is absolute against court proceedings that have a nexus with what has been said, or a vote that has been cast in Parliament. The second part of sub-article (2) provides that no person shall be liable to any proceedings in any court in respect of the publication of any report, papers, votes or proceedings if the publication is by or under the authority of either House of Parliament. A person who publishes a report or papers or votes or proceedings by or under the authority of Parliament is thereby given protection in the same broad terms against liability to proceedings in any court connected with such publication. The constitution having dealt with the all - important privilege of members of Parliament to speak and vote therein as they deem fir, freed of the fear of attracting legal proceedings concerning what they say or how they vote, provides for other powers, privileges and immunities is sub-article (3). Till defined by Parliament by enactment, they are such as were enjoyed before the Constitution came into force; that is to say, they are such as were enjoyed by the House of Commons just before 26th January, 1950. For it to be established that any power, privilege or immunity exists under sub-article (3), it must be shown that power, privilege or immunity had been recognised as inhering in the House of Commons at the commencement of the Constitution. So important was the freedom to speak and vote in Parliament thought to be that it was expressly provided for, not left to be gathered, as other powers, privileges and immunities were, from the House of Commons. In so far as the immunity that attaches to what is spoken in Parliament and to a vote given therein is concerned, provision is made in sub-article (2); it is only in other respects that sub-article (3) applies. For the sake of completeness, though we are not here concerned with it, we must add that sub-article (4) gives the protection of the Sub-articles that preceded it to all who have the right to address the House, for example, the Attorney General.

The provisions of Article 105 and of Article 194, which is in the same terms but deals with the privileges of Legislative Assemblies, have been examined by this Court in the past. In the case of Pandit M.S.M. Sharma v.Shri Sri Krishna Sinha And Others, [1959] Supp.1 S.C.R. 806, a portion of the speech made by a member of a Legislative Assembly had been expunged by the orders of the Speaker.

Nonetheless, the speech was published in its entirety in a newspaper of which the petitioner was the editor. He was called upon to show cause why action should not be taken against him for breach of privilege of the Legislative Assembly and he challenged the notice by a petition under Article 32. S.R. Das, C.J., speaking for the majority on the Constitution Bench which heard the writ petition, observed that Parliamentary privilege in England was defined in May's Parliamentary practice as "the sum of the peculiar rights enjoyed by each House collectively as a constituent part of the High Court of Parliament, and by members of each House individually, without which they could not discharge their functions, and which exceed those possessed by other bodies individuals". The privileges of the House of Commons, as distinct from those of the House of Lords, were defined as "the sum of the fundamental rights of the House and of its individual members as against the prerogatives of the Crown, the authority of the ordinary courts of law and the special rights of the House of Lords". The privileges of the House of Commons included the freedom of speech, which had been claimed in 1554. This comprised the right of the House to provide for the due composition of its own body, the right to regulate its own proceedings, the right to exclude stranger, the right to prohibit publication of its debates and the right to enforce observation of its privileges by fine, imprisonment and expulsion. For deliberative bodies like the House of Lords and Commons, this Court said, "freedom of speech is of the utmost importance. A full and free debate is of the essence of Parliamentary democracy." The argument that the whole of article 194 was subject to Article 19(1)(a) overlooked the provisions of article 194(2). The right conferred on a citizen under Article 19(1)(a) could be restricted by a law which fell within sub- article 2 of that Article and he could be made liable in a court of law for breach of such law, but Article 194(2) categorically laid down that no member of the legislature was to be made liable to any proceedings in any court in respect of anything said or any vote given by him in the Legislature or in committees thereof and that no person would be liable in respect of the publication by or under the authority of the House of such a Legislature of any report, paper or proceedings. The provisions of Article 194(2), therefore, indicated that the freedom of speech referred to in sub-article (1) thereof was different from the freedom of speech and expression guaranteed under Article 19(1)(a) and could not be cut down in any way by any law contemplated by article 19(2). A law made by Parliament in pursuance of the earlier part of Article 105(3) or by a State Legislature in pursuance of the earlier part of Article 194(3) was not law made in exercise of constituent power but law made in exercise of ordinary legislative power under Article 246 read with the relevant entries.

Consequently, if such a law took away or abridged any of the fundamental rights, it would contravene the peremptory provisions of Article 13(2) and would be void to the extent of such contravention. It might well be that that was reason why Parliament and the State Legislatures had not made laws defining their powers, privileges or immunities conferred by the latter part of Articles 105 and 194 were repugnant to the fundamental rights, they would be void to the extent of such repugnancy. It could not be overlooked that the provisions of Articles 105(3) and 194(3) were constitutional law and not ordinary law made by Parliament or the State Legislatures and therefore, they were as supreme as the provisions of part II of the Constitution. Further, quite conceivably, the Constitution makers, not knowing what powers, privileges and immunities Parliament or the State Legislatures might claim, though fir not to take any risk and made such laws subject to the provisions of Article 13; but that, knowing and being satisfied with the reasonableness of the powers, privileges and immunities of the House of Commons at the commencement of the Constitution, they did not, in their wisdom, think fit to make such powers, privileges and immunities subject to the fundamental right conferred by Article 19(1)(a).

The case of Dr. Satish Chandra Ghosh V.Hari Sadhan Mukherjee, [1961] 3 S.C.R. 486, dealt with an appellant who was a member of a Legislative Assembly. He had given notice of his intention to put certain questions in the Assembly.

The questions being disallowed by the Speaker, he had published them in a journal in his constituency. The first respondent, whose conduct was the subject-matter of the questions, filed a complaint under the Indian Penal Code against the appellant and the printer and publisher of the journal. The appellant pleaded privilege and immunity under Article 194 of the Constitution as a bar to criminal prosecution. The claim of absolute privilege was disallowed by this Court. It was said, with reference to the law in England in respect of the privileges and immunities of the House of Commons, that there was no absolute privilege attaching to the publication of extracts from proceedings in the House. So far as a member of the House of Commons was concerned, he had an absolute privilege in respect of what he had spoken within the four walls of the House, but there was only a qualified privilege in his favour even in respect of what he had himself said in the House if he caused the same to be published in the public press. The legal position, which was undisputed, was that unless the appellant could make out an absolute privilege in his favour in respect of the publication which was the subject-matter of the charge, the prosecution against him could not be quashed. He having no such absolute privilege, it was held that "he must take his trial and enter upon his defence, such as he may have." Special Reference No.1 of 1964,[1965] 1 S.C.R. 412 known more commonly as Keshav Singh's case or the Privileges case, deals extensively with the scope of the privileges of legislative bodies. The Presidential Reference was made in the following circumstances: The Legislative Assembly of the State of Uttar Pradesh committed one Keshav Singh, not one of its members, to prison for contempt. The warrant it issued was a general warrant, in that it did not set out the facts which had been found to be contumacious. Keshav Singh moved a petition under Article 226 challenging his committal and he prayed for bail. Two learned judges of the Lucknow Bench of the High Court ordered that Keshav Singh be released on bail pending the decision on the writ petition.

The Legislative Assembly passed a resolution requiring the production in custody before it of Keshav Singh, the advocate who had appeared for him and the two judges who has granted him bail. The judges and the advocate filed writ petitions before the High Court at Allahabad . A Full Bench of the High Court admitted their petitions and ordered the stay of the execution of the Assembly's resolution. The Legislative Assembly modified its earlier resolution so that the two judges were now asked to appear before the House and offer an explanation. The President thereupon made the Special Reference. Briefly put, the questions he asked were : whether the Lucknow Bench could have entertained Keshav Singh's writ petition and released him on bail; whether the judges who entertained the petition and granted bail and Keshav Singh and his advocate had committed contempt of the Assembly; whether the Assembly was competent to require the production of the judges and the advocate before it in custody or to call for their explanation; whether the Full Bench of the High Court have entertained the writ petitions of the two judges and the advocate and could have stayed the implementation of the resolution of the Assembly; and whether a judge who entered or dealt with a petition challenging any order of a Legislature imposing penalty or issuing process against the petitioner for its contempt or for infringement of its privileges and immunities committed contempt of the Legislature and whether the Legislature was competent to take proceedings against the judge in the exercise of its powers, privileges and immunities. The adjectival clause "regulating the procedure of the Legislature" in Article 194(1) governed, it was held, both the proceeding clauses relating to "the provisions of the Constitution" and "the rules and standing orders." Therefore, Article 194(1) conferred on legislators specifically the right of freedom of speech subject to the limitation prescribed by its first part. By making this sub- article subject only to the specified provisions of the Constitution, the Constitution-makers wanted to make it clear that they thought it necessary to confer on the legislators freedom of speech separately and, in a sense, independently of Article 19(1)(a). It was legitimate to conclude that Article 19(1)(a) was not one of the provisions of the Constitution which controlled the first part of Article 194(1). Having conferred freedom of speech on the legislators, Article 194(2) emphasized the fact that the freedom was intended to be absolute and unfettered.

Similar freedom was guaranteed to the legislators in respect of the votes they might give in the legislature or any committee thereof. "In other words". this Court said, "even if a legislator exercises his right of freedom of speech in violation, say, of Article , he would not be liable for any action in any court.

Similarly, if the legislator by his speech or vote is alleged to have violated any of the fundamental rights guaranteed by Part III of the Constitution in the Legislative Assembly, he would not be answerable for the said contravention in any court. If the impugned speech amounts o libel or becomes actionable or indictable under any other provision of the law, immunity has been conferred on him from any action in any court by this clause .... ....

.... It is plain that the Constitution-makers attached so much importance to the necessity of absolute freedom in debates within the legislative chambers that they thought it necessary to confer complete immunity on the legislators from any action in any court in respect of their speeches in the legislative chambers in the wide terms prescribed by clause (2). Thus, clause (1) confers freedom of speech on the legislators within the legislative chambers and clause (2) makes it plain that the freedom is literally absolute and unfettered." Referring to Article 194(3), this Court said that it was well-known that out of a large number of privileges and powers which the House of Commons claimed during the days of its bitter struggle for recognition, some were given up in course of time and some faded out by desuetude. Accordingly, in every case where a power was claimed, it was necessary to enquire whether it was an existing power at the relevant time. It had also to appear that the power was not only claimed by the House of Commons "but was recognised by the English courts. It would obviously be idle to contend that if a particular power which is claimed by the House was claimed by the House of Commons but was not recognised by the English courts, it would still be upheld under the latter part of clause (3) only on the ground that it was in fact claimed by the House of Commons." In India, this Court said, the dominant characteristic of the British Constitution could not be claimed. The supremacy of the Constitution was protected by an independent judicial body which was the interpreter of the scheme of distribution of powers. It was difficult for this Court to accept the argument that the result of the provisions contained in the latter part of Article 194(3) was intended to be to confer on the State Legislatures in India the status of a superior Court of Record. It was essential to bear in mind the fact that the status of a superior Court of Record which was accorded to the House of Commons was based on historical facts. It was a fact of English history that Parliament had been discharging judicial functions and the House of Lords still continued to be the highest court of law in the country. The Legislative Assemblies in India never discharged any judicial functions and their historical and constitutional background did not support the claim that they could be regarded as Courts of Record in any sense. The very basis on which English courts agreed to treat a general warrant issued by the House of Commons the footing that it was a warrant issued by a superior Court of Record was absent in the case of a general warrant issued by a State Legislature in India.

In the case of T.K.Jain v. N.S. Reddy [1971]1 S.C.R. 612, it was contended that the immunity granted by Article 105(2) was with reference to the business of Parliament and not in regard to something which was something utterly irrelevant. This Court said:

"The article means what it says in language which could not be plainer. The article confers immunity inter alia in respect of anything said ....... in Parliament. The word "anything is of the widest import and is equivalent to 'everything'. The only limitation arises from the words 'in Parliament' which means during the sitting of Parliament and in the course of the business of Parliament. We are concerned only with speeches in Lok Sabha. Once it was proved that Parliament was sitting and its business was being transacted, anything said during the course of that business was immune from proceedings in any court. This immunity is not only complete but is as it should be. It is of the essence of parliamentary system of Government that people's representatives should be free to express themselves without fear of legal consequences. What they say is only subject to the discipline of the rules of Parliament, the good sense of the members and the control of proceedings by the Speaker. The courts have no say in the matter and should really have none." The last of the cases to which reference need be made is State of Karnataka v. Union of India & Another, [1978] 2 S.C.R. 1. It was there held that the Constitution vested only legislative power in Parliament and in the State Legislatures. A House of Parliament or State Legislature could not try anyone or any case directly, as a Court of Justice could. It could proceed quasi-judicially in cases of contempts of its authority and take up motions concerning its privileges and immunities because, in doing so, it sought removal of obstructions to the due performance of its legislative functions. If any question of jurisdiction arose, it had to be decided by the courts in appropriate proceedings. Beg, J. added, "For example, the jurisdiction to try a criminal offence, such as murder, committed even within a house vests in ordinary criminal courts and not in a House of Parliament or in a State Legislature".

In Tolaram Relummal and anr. vs. The State of Bombay, 1995 (1) S.C.R. 158, this Court construed the words "in respect of" occurring in Section 18(1) of the Bombay Rent Restriction Act, 1947, the relevant portion of which read thus:

"If any landlord either himself or through any person acting or purporting to act on his behalf........receives any fine, premium or other like sum or deposit or any consideration, other than the standard rent..........in respect of the grant, renewal or continuance of a lease of any premises........such landlord or person shall be punished.......".

The High Court had observed that the expression "in respect of" was very comprehensive but this Court took the view that it had laid undue emphasis thereon. This Court said, "Giving the words "in respect of" their widest meaning, viz, "relating to" or "with reference to", it is plain that this relationship must be predicated of the grant, renewal or continuance of a lease, and unless a lease comes into existence simultaneously or near about the time that the money is received, it cannot be said that the receipt was "in respect of" the grant of a lease.............It is difficult to hold that any relationship of landlord and tenant comes into existence on the execution of an agreement executory in nature or that the expression "premium" can be appositely used in connection with the receipt of money on the occasion of the execution of such an agreement. It may well be that if a lease actually comes into existence then any receipt of money which has a nexus with that lease may fall within the mischief of section 18(1), but it is unnecessary to express any final opinion on the question as in the present case admittedly no lease ever came into existence and the relationship of landlord and tenant was never created between the parties.:" The learned Attorney General submitted that the words "in respect of" had not always received a board meaning, and he cited the judgment of this Court in State of Madras vs. M/s. Swastik Tobacco Factory, Vedaranyam, 1966 (3) S.C.R. 79. A provision of the Madras General Sales Tax (Turnover and Assessment) Rules, 1939, which stated that, "the excise duty, if any, paid by the dealer to the Central Government in respect of the goods sold by him,...." would be deducted from the gross turnover of a dealer for the purposes of determining the net turnover, was under consideration. The Court noted that the words "in respect of" had been considered by the House of Lords in Inland Revenue Commissioners vs. Courts & Co., [1963] 2 All.

E.R.722, and it had observed that "the phrase denoted some imprecise kind of nexus between the property and the estate duty".In Asher v. Seaford Court Estates Ltd., L.R. [1950] A.C. 508, the House of Lords had held that the expression "in respect of" in the Increase of Rent and Mortgage Interest (Restrictions) Act, 1920, must be read as equivalent to "attribute". The Privy Council in Bicber, Ltd. V. Commissioners of Income-tax,[1962] 3 All. E.R.. 294, had observed that these words could mean more than "consisting of" or "namely". This Court said, "It may be accepted that the said expression received a wide interpretation, having regard to the object of the provisions and the setting in which the said words appeared. On the other hand, Indian tax laws use the expression 'in respect of' as synonymous with the expression 'on'." In the provision under consideration the expression "in respect of the goods" was held to mean "on the goods".

This Court drew a distinction in the above case between the use of the expression "in respect of" in taxing statutes in India and its use elsewhere. In the context of its use in the Constitution and having regard to the object which is intended to be secured by Article 105(2), we think that the broad interpretation thereof is the most appropriate. It is thus that this Court has already interpreted the provision.

The Attorney General submitted that a proceeding in court founded on the allegation that a member of Parliament had received a bribe to vote in a particular way was not a proceeding in respect of a vote that he had given and that, therefore, the member did not enjoy immunity from the proceeding by reason of Article 105(2) did not cover criminal proceedings. It had been held by the courts of the United States of America, Canada, Australia and, recently, England, he said, that a legislator could be proceeded against for corruption. The Attorney General relied upon the decisions and reports in this behalf to which we shall refer.The Attorney General submitted that the immunity given by Article 105(2) should be interpreted in the light of the times in which we live and, so interpreting it, should exclude from its coverage corrupt legislators.

In Bradlaugh v. Gossett, 12 Q.B.D.271, the plaintiff Bradlaugh had been elected to the House of Commons. He required the Speaker to call him to the table to take the oath. By reason of what had transpired on a earlier occation, the Speaker declined to do so and the House resolved that the Serjeant-at-Arms should exclude Bradlaugh until "he shall engage not further to disturb the proceedings of the House". Bradlaugh prayed for an injunction against the Serjeant-at-Arms restraining him from carrying out the resolution. The suit was dismissed. Lord Coleridge, C.J. said, "What is said or done within the walls of Parliament cannot be inquired into in a court of law...........The jurisdiction of the Houses over their own members, their right to impose discipline within their walls, is absolute and exclusive. To use the words of Lord Ellenborough, "They would sink into utter contempt and inefficiency without it."' He added, "The Houses of Parliament cannot act by themselves in a body : they must act by officers; and the Serjeant-at-arms is the legal and recognised officer of the House of Commons to execute its orders. I entertain no doubt that the House had a right to decide on the subject-matter, have decided it, and have ordered their officer to give effect to their decision. He is protected by their decision. They have ordered him to do what they have a right to order, and he has obeyed them.........If injustice has been done, it is injustice for which the Courts of law afford no remedy." Stephen, J., concurring, said that the House of Commons was not subject to the control of Her Majesty's Courts in its administration of that part of the statute law which had relation to its own internal proceedings, and that the use of such actual force as was necessary to carry into effect such a resolution as the one before the court was justifiable. In support, the learned Judge quoted Blackstone, who had said, "The whole of the law and custom of Parliament has its original from this one maxim, 'that whatever matter arises concerning either House of Parliament ought to be examined, discussed, and adjudged in that House to which it relates, and not elsewhere." This principle had been re- stated by the judges who decided Stockdale v. Hansard, 9 Ad. & E.I. Lord Denman had said, "Whatever is dome within the walls of either assembly must pass without question in any other place." Littledale, J., had said, "It is said the House of Commons is the sole judge of its own privileges; and so I admit as far as the proceedings in the House and some other things are concerned." Patteson, J., had said, "Beyond all dispute, it is necessary that the proceedings of each House of Parliament should be entirely free and unshackled, that whatever is said or done in either House should not be liable to examination elsewhere." And Coleridge, J., had said, "That the House should have exclusive jurisdiction to regulate the course of its own proceedings, and animadvert upon any conduct there in violation of its rules or derogation from its dignity, stands upon the clearest grounds of necessity." It seemed to follow that the House of Commons had the exclusive power of interpreting the Parliamentary Oaths Act, so far as the regulation of its own proceedings within its own walls was concerned: and that, even if that interpretation was erroneous , the court had no power to interfere with it "directly or indirectly". It was in regard to a possible case as to the effect of an order by the House of Commons to put a member to death or to inflict upon him bodily harm that the learned Judge said, "I know of no authority for the proposition that an ordinary crime committed in the House of Commons would be withdrawn from the ordinary course of criminal justice". Referring to the old case of Sir John Eliot, Denzil Hollis, and Others, the learned Judge said, "This case is the great leading authority, memorable on many grounds, for the proposition that nothing said in parliament by a member as such, can be treated as an offence by the ordinary Courts".

In the case of Church of Scientology of California vs. Johnson Smith, (1972) ALL E.R. 378, the defendant, a member of Parliament, was sued for libel allegedly published in a television programme. He pleaded fair comment and privilege.

The plaintiffs countered by alleging malice, to prove which they sought to bring on record as evidence extracts from Hansard. The trial judge declined to permit them to do so.

In his ruling he said, "I am quite satisfied that in these proceedings it is not open to either party to go directly, or indirectly, into any question of the motives or intentions, of the defendant or Mr. Hordern or the then Minister of Health or any other member of Parliament in anything they said or did in the House." The report of the Royal Commission on Standards of Conduct in Public Life, chaired by Lord Salmon, was presented in July 1976. It says, "307. Only Parliament can decide what conduct constitutes a breach of privilege or a contempt of Parliament. In cases that are adjudged to be 'contempts', the House may exercise its penal jurisdiction to punish the offenders. The main penal sanctions available to the House are reprimand and committal to the custody of the Serjeant at Arms or to prisons. These sanctions apply both to Members and strangers. In addition, a Member may be suspended from the House or expelled. The House of Commons possesses no power to impose a fine.

"308. Whilst the theoretical power of the House to commit a person into custody undoubtedly exists, nobody has been committed to prison for contempt of Parliament for a hundred years or so, and it is most unlikely that Parliament would use this power in modern conditions." The Report states (in para 307), "it is in the light of the foregoing paragraphs that we note the fact that neither the statutory nor the common law applies to the bribery or attempted bribery of a Member of Parliament in respect of his Parliamentary activities". The Report speaks (in para 309) of "the historical circumstances in which the ordinary criminal law has not applied to bribery in respect of proceedings in Parliament". It finds (in para 310) that "the briber of a Member of Parliament would be immune from effective punitive sanctions of the kind that can be inflicted under the criminal law. Public obloquy is unlikely to be an effective sanction against such a person and accordingly we consider that there is a strong case for bringing such malpractices within the criminal law". It reiterates that "the bribery of a Member of Parliament acting in his Parliamentary capacity does not constitute an offence known to the criminal law........". The conclusion of the Report on the point is contained in para 311:

"Membership of Parliament is a great honour and carries with it a special duty to maintain the highest standards of probity, and this duty has almost invariably been strictly observed.

Nevertheless in view of our report as a whole, and especially in the light of the points set out in the foregoing paragraph, we recommend that Parliament should consider bringing corruption, bribery and attempted bribery of a Member of Parliament acting in his Parliamentary capacity within the ambit of the criminal law".

In Prebble v. Television New Zealand Ltd., (1994) 3 All E.R. 407, the Privy Council considered Article 9 of the Bill of Rights (1688), which applies by reason of incorporation in New Zealand. It reads thus:

"That the freedom of speech and debates or proceedings in parliament ought not to be impeached or questioned in any court or place out of Parliament." The defendant, a New Zealand television company, aired a programme in which it was alleged that the plaintiff, Prebble, then a Minister in the New Zealand Government, had conspired with certain businessman and public officials to give the businessmen an unfair opportunity to obtain certain state-owned assets which were being privatised on unduly favourable terms in return for donations to his political party, and he had thereafter arranged for incriminating documents and computer files to be destroyed. The plaintiff having brought an action for libel, the defendant company pleaded justification, alleging that the plaintiff and other ministers had made statements in the House of Representatives which had been misleading and that the conspiracy had been implemented by introducing and passing legislation in the House. The plaintiff applied to strike out these particulars on the ground that parliamentary privilege was infringed. The trial judge upheld the claim to immunity, as did the Court of Appeal. The privileges Committee of the House of Representatives having held that the House had no power to waive the privileges protected by Article 9, the plaintiff appealed to the Privy Council also upheld the claim to immunity. Lord Browne-Wilkinson, speaking for the Board, said that if Article 9 was looked at alone, the question was whether it would infringe that Article to suggest that the statements that were made in the House were improper or that the legislation was procured in pursuance of the alleged conspiracy, as constituting impeachment or questioning of the freedom of speech of Parliament. In addition to Article 9 itself, there was a long line of authority which supported a wider principle, of which Article 9 was merely one manifestation, namely, that the courts and Parliament were both astute to recognise their respective constitutional roles. So far as the courts were concerned, they would not allow any challenge to be made to what was said or done within the walls of Parliament in performance of its legislative functions and protection of its established privileges. The basic concept that underlay Article 9, namely , the need to ensure so far as possible that a member of the legislature and witnesses before a committee of the House spoke freely "without fear that what they say will later be held against them in the courts. The important public interest protected by such privilege is to ensure that the member or witness at the time he speaks is not inhibited from stating fully and freely what he has to say. If there were any exceptions which permitted his statements to be questioned subsequently, at the time when he speaks in Parliament he would not know whether or not there would subsequently be a challenge to what he is saying. Therefore he would not have the confidence the privilege is designed to protect." The privilege protected by Article 9 was the privilege of Parliament itself. The actions of an individual member of Parliament, even if he had an individual privilege of his own, could not determine whether or not the privilege of Parliament was to apply. The wider principle that had been encapsulated by Blackstone prevented the courts from adjudicating on "issues arising in or concerning the House, viz whether or not a member has misled the House or acted from improper motives. The decision of an individual member cannot override that collective privilege of the House to be the sole judge of such matters". Cases such as the one before the Privy Council illustrated how public policy, or human rights, issues could conflict. There were "three such issues in play in these cases: first, the need to ensure that the legislature can exercise its powers freely on behalf of its electors, with access to all relevant information; second, the need to protect freedom of speech generally; third, the interests of justice in ensuring that all relevant evidence is available to the courts. Their Lordships are of the view that the law has been long settled that, of these three public interests, the first must prevail." Very recently, in the case of R. vs. Currie, it was alleged against Harry Greenway, a Member of Parliament, that he had accepted a bribe from Plasser, Jurasek and Brooks as a reward for using his influences as a Member of Parliament in respect of Jurasek's application for British nationality.

The indictment of the four was sought to be quashed on the basis that the bribery of a Member of Parliament was not a crime and that, in any event, the court had no jurisdiction for only Parliament could try a member for bribery, the matter being covered by Parliamentary privilege. The trial judge, Buckley, J. did not agree. He quoted the Salmon Commission Report. He also noted that Lord Salmon, speaking in the debates of the House of Lords, had said, after referring to the immunity enjoyed by Members of Parliament from being prosecuted under the criminal law if they took bribes, that, "at Common Law you cannot be convicted of bribery and corruption unless you are a holder of an office, and most of us are not the holders of an office". Viscount Dilhorne had agreed. Buckley, J. could not accept that a question of such great importance could turn on semantics.

In his view, "To hold that the existence of a Common Law crime of bribing a Member of Parliament depends upon the meaning to be given to the word "office" in this context, as opposed to looking at the principle involved, would not be calculated to commend the Criminal Law to the public it should serve." Buckley, J. noted what had been said by James Martin, C.J. in R.V. White, 13 SCR (NSW), 332, which case concerned the attempted bribery of a Member of Parliament in New South Wales, "........a legislator who suffers his votes to be influenced by a bribe does that which is calculated to sap the utility of representative institutions at their foundations. it would be a reproach to the Common Law if the offer to, or the acceptance of, a bribe by such a person were not an offence". Faucett, j., agreeing with the Chief Justice, had said, "The principle is, that any person who holds a public office or public employment of trust, if he accepts a bribe to abuse his trust - in other words, if he corruptly abuses his trust - is guilty of an offence at Common Law; and the person who gives the bribe is guilty of an offence at Common Law". The same view had been taken in Canada in R V. Bunting, 1885 Ontario Reports 524; that was a case of a conspiracy to bring about a change in the Government of the Province of Ontario by bribing members of the Legislature to vote against the Government. R.V..Boston,(1923) 33 Commonwealth Law Reports 386, was also a case where similar arguments had been advanced and turned down, and Buckley, J.quoted this "memorable sentence "from the judgment of Higgins, J.:" A member is the watch-dog of the public; and Cerberus must not be seduced from vigilance by a sop." Based upon these judgments, Buckley, J., was satisfied that "the undoubted common law offence of bribery is not artificially limited by reference to any particular shade of meaning of the word 'office'. The underlying reason or principle is concerned with the corruption of those who undertake a duty, in the proper discharge of which the public is interested." The learned Judge then considered the question of parliamentary privilege and noted Article 9 of the Bill of Rights, 1688, which has already been quoted. The learned judge quoted Lord Salmon, speaking in the House of Lords, thus: "To my mind equality before the law is one of the pillars of freedom. To say that immunity from criminal proceedings against anyone who tries to bribe a Member of Parliament and any Member of Parliament who accepts the bribe, stems from the Bill of Rights is possibly a serious mistake". After quoting the Bill of Rights, Lord Salmon had continued : "Now this is a charter for freedom of speech in the House it is not a charter for corruption. To my mind, the Bill of Rights, for which no one has more respect that I have, has no more to do with the topic which we are discussing than the Merchandise Markets Act. The crime of corruption is complete when the bribe is offered or given or solicited or taken." Buckley, J., commented, "It is important to note that which Lord Salmon pointed out, namely, that corruption is complete when the bribe is offered or given, solicited or taken. If, as is alleged here, a bribe is given and taken by a Member of Parliament, to use his position dishonestly, that is to favour the briber as opposed to acting independently and on the merits, the crime is complete. It owns nothing to any speech, debate or proceedings in Parliament. Proof of the element of corruption in the transaction is another and quite separate consideration. Privilege might well prevent any inquiry by a court into Parliamentary debates or proceedings. See : The Church Of Scientology v. Johnson-Smith, 1972, 1 KB 522.

However, it is not a necessary ingredient of the crime that the bribe worked." Referring to the case of Ex parte Wason, to which we shall make more detailed reference later, Buckley, J., observed that the substance of the proposed indictment there was that certain parties had conspired to make false statements in the House of Lords and Cockburn, C.J., had held "that the making of false statements in either House of Parliament could not be the subject of criminal or civil proceedings and nor could not be the subject of criminal or civil proceedings and nor could a conspiracy to do so". It seemed clear to the learned judge that the court had Article 9 of the Bill of Rights well in mind. "The only candidate", he said, "for the unlawful act or means was the very act which was not subject to the criminal law". He added that he could not see that the reasoning of Ex parte Wason, assuming the decision to be correct, would apply to alleged bribery for the proof of which no reference to going on in Parliament would be necessary. This approach, he found, happened to be in line with several United States authorities on their "Speech or Debate Clause" which, for all practical purposes, was the same as Article 9. That a Member of Parliament against whom there was a prima facie case of corruption should be immune from prosecution in the courts of law was to Buckley, J.'s mind an unacceptable proposition "at the present time". He did not believe it to be the law. The Committee of Privileges of the House was "not well equipped to conduct an enquiry into such a cases nor is it an appropriate or experienced body to pass sentence .................. The courts and legislatures have over the years built up a formidable body of law and codes of practice t achieve fair treatment of suspects and persons ultimately charged and brought to trial

Again, unless it is to be assumed that his peers would lean in his favour why should a Member be deprived of a jury and an experienced judge to consider his guilt or innocence and, if appropriate, sentence? Why should the public be similarly deprived." The prosecution went ahead against the other accused but the charge was not established. The member of Parliament was., therefore, also acquitted.

The Law Commission in England very recently published a Consultation Paper (No.145) entitled "Legislating the Criminal Code - Corruption". It refers to the Salmon Commission Report, the report of the Nolan Committee on the Standards of Conduct in Public Life and recent judgments (to one of which we shall advert). It states, "Whether Members of Parliament are subject to the criminal law of corruption, and more particularly whether they should be, are both contentious issues currently to the fore in public debate.

As to the latter, on the one hand it has been said of Members of Parliament that 'Few are in a higher position of trust or have a duty to discharge in which the public have a greater interest', and they should arguably therefore be subject to the criminal law. On the other hand, they are sui generis, in that, although they have be benefit of Parliamentary privilege, which protects them against criminal liability for things said in Parliamentary proceedings, they are, in consequence, subject to the jurisdiction in Parliament".

Halbury's Laws of England, Fourth Edition, in dealing with Members of Parliament under the subject of "Criminal Law, Evidence and Procedure" (in Volume 11, para 37), sets out the law succintly:

"37. Members of Parliament. Except in relation to anything said in debate, a member of the House of Lords or of the House of Commons is subject to the ordinary course of criminal justice the privileges of Parliament do not apply to criminal matters." Before we deal with the judgment of the United States Supreme Court in United States v. Daniel B. Brewster, 33 L. Ed. 2d 507, which lends support to the learned Attorney General's submissions, we should set out the speech or debate clause in the Constitution of the United States and refer to the United States Supreme Court judgment in United States v. Thomas F. Johnson, 15 L. Ed. 2d 681, to which the latter judgment makes copious reference.

Article 1, Section 6 of the United States Constitution contains the speech or debate clause. Referring to United States Senators and Representatives, it says : (F) or any Speech or Debate in either House, they shall not be questioned in any other Place".

Thomas F. Johnson was convicted by a United States Distinct Court for violating a federal conflict of interest statute and for conspiring to defraud the United States.

Evidence was admitted and argument was permitted at the trial that related to the authorship, content and motivation of a speech which the Congressman had allegedly made on the floor of the House of Representatives in pursuance of a conspiracy designed to give assistance, in return for compensation, to certain savings and loan associations which had been indicated on mail fraud charges. The conviction had been set aside by the Court of Appeals on the ground that the allegations in regard to the conspiracy to make the speech were barred by the speech or debate Clause. Finding that the evidence that had been adduced upon the unconstitutional aspects of the conspiracy count had infected the entire prosecution, the Court of Appeals had ordered a new trial on the other counts. The Supreme Court , in further appeal, held that the prosecution on the conspiracy charge, being dependent upon an intensive inquiry with respect to the speech on the floor of the House, violated the speech or debate clause warranting the grant of a new trial on the conspiracy count, with all elements offensive to the speech or debate clause eliminated. The earlier cases, it said, indicated that the legislative privilege had to be read broadly to effectuate its purpose.

Neither of those cases, however, had dealt with criminal prosecution based upon the allegation that a member of Congress had abused his position by conspiring to give a particular speech in return for remuneration from private interests. However reprehensible such conduct might be, the speech or debate clause extended at least so far as to prevent it from being made the basis of a criminal charge against a member of Congress of conspiracy to defraud the United States by impeding the due discharge of Government functions. The essence of such a charge in the context was that the Congressman's conduct was improperly motivated, and that was precisely what the speech or debate clause generally foreclosed from executive and judicial inquiry.

The Government argued that the clause was meant to prevent only prosecutions based upon the "content" of speech, such as libel actions, but not those founded on "the antecedent unlawful conduct of accepting or agreeing to accept a bribe". Th language of the Constitution was framed in the broadest terms. The broader thrust of the privilege had been indicated by Ex parte Wason, which dealt specifically with an alleged criminal conspiracy. Government had also contended that the speech or debate clause was not violated because the gravamen of the charge was the alleged conspiracy, not the speech, and because the defendant, not the prosecution, had introduced the speech. Whatever room the Constitution might allow for such factors in the context of a different kind of prosecution, they could not serve to save the Government's case under the conspiracy charge. It was undisputed that the Congressman had centered upon the questions of who first decided that a speech was desirable, who prepared it, and what the Congressman's motives were for making it. The indictment itself focused with particularity upon motives underlying the making of the speech and upon its contents. The prosecution under a general criminal statute dependent on such inquiries necessarily, contravened the speech or dabate clause. The court added that its decision did not touch a prosecution which, though, as here, it was founded on a criminal statute of general application, did not draw in question the legislative acts of a Congressman or his motives for performing them. The court expressly left open for consideration the case of a prosecution, which though it might entail an inquiry into legislative acts or motivations, was founded upon a narrowly drawn statute passed by Congress in the exercise of its legislative power to regulate the conduct of its members.

Daniel B. Brewster was a United States Senator. He had been charged with accepting bribes in exchange for promises related to official acts while a Congressman. The charge was that he had violated the terms of a narrowly drawn statute.

The Senator moved to dismiss the indictment before the trial began on the ground that he was immune from prosecution for any alleged act of bribery because of the speech or debate clause. The District Court upheld the claim of immunity. The Government preferred a direct appeal to the Supreme Court. Burger, C.J., spoke for 6 members of the court. Brennan, J. and White, J. delivered dissenting opinions, with which Douglas, J., joined. The charges were that the Senator, while such and a member of the Senate Committee on Post Office and Civil Service, "directly and indirectly, corruptly asked, solicited, sought, accepted, received and agreed to receive sums.........in return for being influenced in his performance of official acts in respect to his action, vote and decision on postage rate legislation which might at any time be pending before him in his official capacity........." The other charge was in respect of official acts performed by him in respect to his action, vote and decision on postage rate legislation which had been pending before him in his official capacity.

Burger, C.J. took the view that the immunities of the speech or debate clause were not written into the Constitution simply for the personal or private benefit of members of Congress, but to protect the integrity of the legislative process by insuring the independence of individual legislators. Although the speech or debate clause's historic roots were in English history, it had to be interpreted in the light of the American constitutional scheme of government rather than the English parliamentary system. It had to be borne in mind that the English system differed in that Parliament in England was the supreme authority, not a coordinate branch. The speech or debate privilege was designed to preserve legislative independence, not supremacy. The courts' task , therefore, was to apply the clause in such a way as to insure the independence of the legislature without altering the historic balance of the three co-equal branches of Government. Referring to the cause of Johnson(ibid). Burger, C.J., said that it unanimously held that a member of Congress could be prosecuted under a criminal statute provided that the Government's case did not rely on legislative acts or the motivation for legislative acts. A legislative act had consistently been defined as an act generally done in Congress in relation to the business before it. The speech or debate clause prohibited inquiry only into those things generally said or done in the House or the Senate in the performance of official duties and into the motivation for those acts. Counsel on behalf of the Senator had argued that the court in Johnson had expressed a broader test for the coverage of the speech or debate clause. He had urged that the court had held that the clause protected from executive or judicial inquiry all conductg" related to the due functioning of the legislative process." Burger, C.J., said that the quoted words did appear in the Johnson opinion, but they were taken out of context. In context, they reflected a quite different meaning from that urged. In stating the speech or debated clause did not apply to things which "in no wise related to the due functioning of the legislative process" the court in Johnson had not implied as a corollary that everything that "related" to the office of a member was shielded by the clause. In Johnson it had been held that only acts generally done in the course of the process of enacting legislation were protected. In no case had the court ever treated the clause as protecting all conduct relating to the legislative process. In every case thus far before the court, the speech or debate clause had been limited to an act which was clearly a part of the legislative process, the due functioning of the process.

The contention on behalf of the Senator for a broader interpretation of the privilege drew essentially on the flavor of the rhetoric and the sweep of the language used by the courts, not on the precise words used in any prior case, and not on the sense of those cases, fairly read. It was not sound or wise, s

LatestLaws.com presents: Lexidem Offline Internship Program, 2024

LatestLaws.com presents 'Lexidem Online Internship, 2024', Apply Now!

LatestLaws Guest Court Correspondent

Publish Your Article

Campus Ambassador

Media Partner

LatestLaws Partner Event : 3rd Arbitrate In India Conclave 2024

• IAS Preparation
• This Day in History
• This Day In History Jun - 21

P V Narasimha Rao Became The Prime Minister of India - [June 21, 1991] This Day in History

It is important to know about the leaders of the Indian government. P V Narasimha Rao was the 9th Prime Minister of India. IAS Exam candidates should know some important facts about the former Indian Prime Minister P V Narasimha Rao, to gain some additional information that can help them in writing mains answers.

The Indian Government announced the Bharat Ratna for Narasimha Rao in honour of his work and contribution towards India.

P V Narasimha Rao – 9th Prime Minister

Pamulaparti Venkata Narasimha Rao took oath as India’s 9 th Prime Minister on 21 June 1991. Rao was the first Prime Minister from the non-Hindi belt and the first person from a southern state to adorn the post. His tenure saw impactful economic reforms like the shift from Nehruvian socialism to liberalisation.

Important Facts about P V Narasimha Rao

• On 28th June 2020, the 99th year of P V Narasimha Rao’s birth was celebrated. P V Narasimha Rao’s centenary celebration was in the news.
• His term as the Prime Minister of India was 1991-1996.
• He was born to a farmer’s family in Lanepalli (Telangana’s Warangal District.)
• His parents were Sitarama Rao and Rukminamma.
• He was a pioneer of all rural economies and rural welfare.
• Clean Water
•  Development of Women and Children in Rural Areas
• Primary health care
• Primary Education sector
• Empowerment of Artisans
• Animal Husbandry and Poultry
• Small Industries
• Khadi and Village Industries
• Textiles, etc.
• In his tenure, the fund to implement schemes for rural development was increased to Rs.30000 crores in the 8th Five Year Plan, from Rs. 7000 crore in the Seventh Five Year Plan.
• During his tenure, foreign exchange had increased 15-fold in 1996. It was Rs. 3000 crores in 1991.
• With his economic reforms, the GDP hovered around 7-7.5 percent.
• He is also called the pioneer of inclusive growth. (Learn about the economic planning of India in the linked article.)

Aspirants can read about other eminent leaders from the articles linked in the table below:

Journey of P V Narasimha Rao

• He finished part of his schooling at Karimnagar and then completed his BA in Arts from Osmania University. After that, he secured a Master’s in Law degree from Hislop College in Nagpur.
• Rao took part in the freedom struggle and was part of the Vande Mataram movement in Hyderabad State.
• In the 1940s, he co-edited and contributed articles to a Telugu weekly journal called Kakatiya Patrika.
• He joined the Indian National Congress ( Formed on 28th Dec 1885 ) and entered politics full-time after independence.
• He became the Chief Minister of Andhra Pradesh in 1971 and remained in office till 1973. His CM tenure was marked by a stringent implementation of the Land Ceilings Act in the Telangana region.
• Rao was well-versed in several languages and could speak 17 languages. He was fluent in many Indian languages like Hindi, Marathi, Odia, Tamil, Bengali, Gujarati, Sanskrit, Kannada and Urdu, apart from his native tongue Telugu. He could also speak many foreign languages like German, French, Arabic, Persian and Spanish.
• He rose to national prominence when he became the External Affairs Minister in 1980 under the prime ministership of Indira Gandhi. He was the external affairs minister for four years and then again from 1988 to 1989 under Rajiv Gandhi. He was also the Defence Minister under Rajiv Gandhi.
• After a near-retirement from politics in 1991, Rao made a comeback after the assassination of Rajiv Gandhi in May 1991. In the elections that followed, the Congress Party could lead a minority government and Rao was selected as the PM. He got elected in a by-election from Nandyal in Andhra Pradesh. This win entered the Guinness Book for the victory margin (of 5 lakh votes).
• He was the first person from the non-Hindi belt to become India’s PM. When he completed his five-year term, he became the first person outside of the Nehru-Gandhi family to do so as the PM.
• Rao’s tenure as PM is most remembered for the major economic reforms that were undertaken. The country decided to open up the economy and move towards a market economy as opposed to the socialism of the previous decades.
• The dreaded License Raj was dismantled by Rao and his team. The finance minister was Manmohan Singh, whose non-political lineage caused a flutter when he was appointed by Rao. He opened up to foreign investment, deregulated domestic business, and reformed the capital markets and the trade regime.
• In 1992, his government abolished the Controller of Capital Issues (which decided how many shares firms could issue at what prices).
• He introduced the SEBI Act and Global Depository Receipts (GDRs – which allowed Indian firms to raise capital on foreign markets).
• His government also started the National Stock Exchange (NSE) , reduced tariffs and increased the FDI limit to 51%. Certain sectors also permitted 100% foreign equity.
• From $132 million in 1991-92, the total foreign investment in the country rose to $5.3 billion in 1995-96.
• Industrial licensing was drastically reduced and rationalised.
• Rao supported and nurtured the nuclear security and missile program of the country. The 1998 Pokhran tests of 1998 (carried out by the Vajpayee government) were actually planned under Rao’s term itself, it is speculated.  (Learn about Pokhran-II in the linked article.)
• The occupation of the Hazratbal Shrine in Jammu & Kashmir was brought to an end without damaging the shrine.
• Rao started India’s Look East Policy as part of foreign relations with South East Asia.
• The Babri Masjid demolition, the 1993 Bombay blasts, the Latur earthquake and the Purulia arms drop case took place during his tenure.
• Rao pushed for the ‘cultivate Iran’ policy which reaped rich benefits when Pakistan tried to push through a resolution in the UN on the human rights situation in Kashmir and it failed because of opposition by China and Iran.
• India’s first anti-terrorism legislation, the Terrorist and Disruptive Activities (Prevention) Act (TADA) was passed by Rao’s government.
• Rao was above party politics. This became evident when he appointed two opposition party members, A B Vajpayee and Subramanian Swamy to important positions. Vajpayee represented India in a UN meeting at Geneva and Swamy was given a Cabinet rank post as Chairman of the Commission on Labour Standards and International Trade.
• Rao was accused of corruption in three cases but was acquitted of all charges later.
• After the 1996 elections, his party lost and he was replaced as the party president by Sitaram Kesri.
• Rao had a heart attack in December 2004 and was admitted to AIIMS in New Delhi. However, he died a few days later on 23 rd  December 2004.
• In February 2024, the Government of India announced the Bharat Ratna, the country’s highest civilian award for Rao. This had been a long-standing demand of many people.
• Former President APJ Abdul Kalam described Rao as a “patriotic statesman who believed that the nation is bigger than the political system.”

Questions related to P V Narasimha Rao for UPSC

Who was ruling india in 1992, when did pv narasimha die.

1948 : C. Rajagopalachari was appointed India’s last Governor-General.

See previous  ‘This Day in History’ here .

UPSC Preparation:

Leave a Comment Cancel reply

Your Mobile number and Email id will not be published. Required fields are marked *

Request OTP on Voice Call

Post My Comment

IAS 2024 - Your dream can come true!

Download the ultimate guide to upsc cse preparation, register with byju's & download free pdfs, register with byju's & watch live videos.

• Classroom Programme
• Interview Guidance
• Online Programme
• Drishti Store
• My Bookmarks
• My Progress
• Change Password
• From The Editor's Desk
• How To Use The New Website
• Help Centre

Achievers Corner

• Topper's Interview
• About Civil Services
• UPSC Prelims Syllabus
• GS Prelims Strategy
• Prelims Analysis
• GS Paper-I (Year Wise)
• GS Paper-I (Subject Wise)
• CSAT Strategy
• Previous Years Papers
• Practice Quiz
• Weekly Revision MCQs
• 60 Steps To Prelims
• Prelims Refresher Programme 2020

Mains & Interview

• Mains GS Syllabus
• Mains GS Strategy
• Mains Answer Writing Practice
• Essay Strategy
• Fodder For Essay
• Model Essays
• Drishti Essay Competition
• Ethics Strategy
• Ethics Case Studies
• Ethics Discussion
• Ethics Previous Years Q&As
• Papers By Years
• Papers By Subject
• Be MAINS Ready
• Awake Mains Examination 2020
• Interview Strategy
• Interview Guidance Programme

Current Affairs

• Daily News & Editorial
• Daily CA MCQs
• Sansad TV Discussions
• Monthly CA Consolidation
• Monthly Editorial Consolidation
• Monthly MCQ Consolidation

Drishti Specials

• To The Point
• Important Institutions
• Learning Through Maps
• PRS Capsule
• Summary Of Reports
• Gist Of Economic Survey

Study Material

• NCERT Books
• NIOS Study Material
• IGNOU Study Material
• Yojana & Kurukshetra
• Chhatisgarh
• Uttar Pradesh
• Madhya Pradesh

Test Series

• UPSC Prelims Test Series
• UPSC Mains Test Series
• UPPCS Prelims Test Series
• UPPCS Mains Test Series
• BPSC Prelims Test Series
• RAS/RTS Prelims Test Series
• Daily Editorial Analysis
• YouTube PDF Downloads
• Strategy By Toppers
• Ethics - Definition & Concepts
• Mastering Mains Answer Writing
• Places in News
• UPSC Mock Interview
• PCS Mock Interview
• Interview Insights
• Prelims 2019
• Product Promos
• Daily Updates

Indian Polity

Make Your Note

Supreme Court to Revisit Legislative Immunity on Bribery

• 25 Sep 2023
• GS Paper - 2
• Indian Constitution

For Prelims: Article 105(2), Article 194(2), Parliamentary Privileges

For Mains : The Privileges of Members of Parliament.

Why in News?

The Supreme Court of India has referred the 1998, 5-judge Constitution Bench judgement P V Narasimha Rao case to a 7-judge Bench for reconsideration.

• The case deals with the interpretation of Articles 105(2) and 194(2) of the Constitution , which extends parliamentary privilege and immunity to members of Parliament and State Legislatures against criminal prosecution on bribery charges for any speech or vote in the House.
• The decision was taken in another case related to bribery charges against an MLA, who had relied on Article 194(2) for quashing the charge sheet and criminal proceedings.

What is the Case of PV Narasimha Rao v/s State,1998?

• No-confidence motions are significant political events that usually occur when there is a perception of the government losing majority support.
• The Supreme Court had quashed the case against the JMM MPs, citing immunity under Article 105(2) of the Constitution.
• No member of Parliament shall be liable to any proceedings in any court in respect of anything said or any vote given by him in Parliament or any committee thereof, and no person shall be so liable in respect of the publication by or under the authority of either House of Parliament of any report, paper, votes or proceedings.
• The purpose of Article 105(2) is to ensure that members of Parliament can perform their duties without fear of consequences.
• No member of the Legislature of a State shall be liable to any proceedings in any court in respect of anything said or any vote given by him in the Legislature or any committee thereof, and no person shall be so liable in respect of the publication by or under the authority of a House of such a Legislature of any report, paper, votes or proceedings

Why did the Supreme Court Refer the Matter to a 7-Judge Bench?

• The objective is not to give legislators higher privileges in terms of immunity from the general criminal law of the land.

What are the Parliamentary Privileges?

• These privileges are defined in Article 105 of the Indian Constitution.
• The privileges are claimed only when the person is a member of the house. 
• As soon as s/he ends up being a member, the privileges are said to be called off.
• It has been guaranteed under Article 105(1) of the Indian constitution. However, freedom is subject to rules and orders that regulate the proceedings of the parliament.
• Freedom of speech should be in accordance with the constitutional provisions and subject to rules and procedures of the parliament, as stated under Article 118 of the Constitution.
• The only exception is if there is a motion to present an address to the President requesting the judge's removal.
• Arrest within the Parliament's limits requires the house's permission.
• But a member can be arrested outside the limits of the house on criminal charges against him under the Preventive Detention act , the Essential Services Maintenance Act (ESMA), the National Security Act (NSA) , or any such act.
• For paramount and national importance, it is essential that the proceedings should be communicated to the public to aware them of what is going on in the parliament.
• The members of the house have the power and right to exclude strangers who are not members of the house from the proceedings. This right is very essential for securing free and fair discussion in the house.

Biography of P.V. Narasimha Rao

Pamulaparthi Venkata Narasimha Rao, popularly known as P.V. Narasimha Rao was the ninth Prime Minister of India during 1991-1996.

P.V. Narasimha Rao is a multifaceted personality being a scholar of repute, polyglot in Telugu, Hindi, Urdu, Marathi, Sanskrit, Persian and English, a politician of high caliber and journalist of courage and integrity.

P.V. Narasimha Rao was born at Warangal on 28 June 1921. His father Ranga Rao was a man of means and cultured tastes. Narasimha Rao had his early education at Warangal and Hyderabad. In 1938 he participated in the popular Vande Mataram agitation launched by the students of the Osmania University. Having drawn into the vortex of the freedom struggle and State politics of Hydera­bad, he never looked back. For participating in the Vande Mataram Move­ment he was expelled from the Osmania University. He therefore had to complete his studies at Nagpur and Poona and took B.Sc. LL.B., degrees.

After his studies Narasimha Rao was drawn into the popular resistance movement against the autocratic rule of the Nizam. The movement was spearheaded by the Communist-dominated Andhra Maha Sabha. Narasimha Rao being a Gandhian by temperament could not adjust himself in the Andhra Maha Sabha. So in 1946, when the ban against the State Congress was lifted, he joined that organization as the camp follower of Swami Ramananda Tirtha. When the State Congress launched ‘Join India’ Move­ment, Narasimha Rao gave up his law practice and involved himself fully in the last phase of the Freedom Struggle and organized the border camp set up at Chanda.

After the ‘Police Action’ on Hyderabad, Narasimha Rao held a number of positions in the Congress organization. During the years 1949-50 he was the President of the Karimnagar District Congress Committee. In 1952 he was elevated to the position of the General Secretary of the Hyderabad State Congress Committee. After the formation of Andhra Pradesh he became the Vice-President of the Andhra Pradesh Congress Committee. From that time onwards he became a well-known figure in the State politics.

From 1957 to 1977 Narasimha Rao was the member of the A.P. Legisla­tive Assembly. From 1962 to September 1971 he functioned as minister holding different portfolios like Law, Hindu Religious Endowments and Education. It is as a Minister for Education that Narasimha Rao left his impress on Andhra Pradesh. The switchover to Telugu from English as the medium of instruction at Degree level was effected during his tenure of office as Education Minister. He was instrumental in the establishment of a number of public school type residential schools for meritorious but economically poor students. On the same pattern the silver Jubilee College was established at Kurnool for the undergraduates.

Narasimha Rao became the Chief Minister of Andhra Pradesh on 30 September 1971. He was the first person from the Telangana region to occupy this position. Soon after assuming office he had to face a Separatist agitation known as the “Jai Andhra’ Movement” which demanded the bifurcation of the state. The upshot of the agitation was the resignation of Narasimha Rao’s ministry in January 1972 and the imposition of President’s rule over Andhra Pradesh.

After his exit from State politics, Narasimha Rao made his entry into national politics when he functioned as the General Secretary of the All India Congress Committee from December 1974 to January 1976. In the Sixth General Elections of March 1977, Narasimha Rao was elected to the Lok Sabha from Hanumankonda constituency. When Indira Gandhi was returned to power in 1980, Narasimha Rao became her automatic choice for the prestigious position of Minister for External Affairs. Very soon he reached the position of number two in the Indira Gandhi Cabinet.

After the great tragedy of October 1984, Narasimha Rao was able to maintain rapport with the new Prime Minister Rajiv Gandhi and maintain his position as number two in the Cabinet.

In spite of his active political life, Narasimha Rao found time for his literary pursuits. He translated the famous Telugu novel Veyi Padagalu into Hindi under the title Sahasra Phan and won award from the Government of India.

P.V. Narasimha Rao died on 23rd of December, 2004 at New Delhi.

Brief note on Four Vedas (Hindu Vedas)

Speech on National Constitution Day

Indian industrialist Jamsetji Tata

Guru Ravidas Jayanti

Biography of Dr. Radhakrishnan

Utkalmani Gopabandhu Das

Essay on Indira Gandhi

Biography of Raja Ram Mohan Roy (Social Reformer) – Life, Works, Contribution

Paragraph on ‘Brevity is the soul of wit’

Short Biography of Lakshmi Sahgal

Short Biography of Annie Besant

Short Biograpy of Kamala Nehru (wife of Jawaharlal Nehru)

Comments are closed.

Welcome, Login to your account.

Prove your humanity

Recover your password.

A password will be e-mailed to you.

Read The Diplomat , Know The Asia-Pacific

• Central Asia
• Southeast Asia

Environment

• Asia Defense
• China Power
• Crossroads Asia
• Flashpoints
• Pacific Money
• Tokyo Report
• Trans-Pacific View

Photo Essays

• Write for Us
• Subscriptions

Remembering Modern India’s Forgotten Reformer

Recent features.

What’s Driving Lithuania’s Challenge to China?

Hun Manet: In His Father’s Long Shadow

Afghanistan: A Nation Deprived, a Future Denied

In Photos: Life of IDPs in Myanmar’s Rakhine State

Indian Government’s Intensifying Attack on Scientific Temperament Worries Scientists

Beyond Tariffs: Unveiling the Geopolitics of Electric Vehicles Through Supply Chains

In Photos: Bangladesh After Hasina Fled

First Known Survivor of China’s Forced Organ Harvesting Speaks Out 

Nuclear Shadows Over South Asia: Strategic Instabilities in the China-India-Pakistan Triad

Securing America’s Critical Minerals: A Policy Priority Conundrum

The Geopolitics of Cambodia’s Funan Techo Canal

The Killing of Dawa Khan Menapal and the Fall of Afghanistan’s Republic

It took a non-Congress government to properly memorialize one of India’s greatest Congress prime ministers.

P.V. Narasimha Rao addresses a joint session of U.S. Congress in 1994.

History has a way of doing justice that is often as unpredictable as it is illuminating. The Modi government is ready with a memorial for late Indian Prime Minister PV Narasimha Rao at New Delhi’s Ekta Sthal Samadhi Complex, a common place for erecting memorials for former presidents, prime ministers and others, with the approval of the Union cabinet. Ten years after his demise, Rao has finally got a memorial in his name in the national capital. This move may be aimed at embarrassing the Congress party, but it does justice to the legacy of one of India’s finest prime ministers. A party that prays at the altar of the dynasty can never appreciate how far-reaching Rao’s accomplishments were.

Ironically, this news comes weeks after the charging of former prime minister Manmohan Singh with corruption and criminal conspiracy for his alleged role in the scandal over the sale of coal fields. Singh has been built up by the Congress party over the years as the real architect of economic reforms in an effort to marginalize Rao. In his last ten years as prime minister, Singh himself hardly found time to acknowledge Rao’s contributions to India. In fact, he hardly reacted when Rao’s body was not even allowed to be taken inside the All India Congress Committee building after his death in 2004 as the Congress party tried its best to deprive Rao of all the credit that should have been his due as the nation’s prime minister at one of the most difficult times in its contemporary history.

The early 1990s was a time when a succession of weak governments had left India rudderless—economically, politically and strategically. The world was changing rapidly and the Indian economy was collapsing. India was facing a million mutinies and there was no one of national stature to stem the tide. The Mandal-Mandir discourse—controversies surrounding caste reservations and Ayodhya—was threatening to unravel the country. It was at such a juncture that Rao assumed power. He had scant support from the senior party leadership of his own party, which was filled with those had their own aspirations to become prime minister.

Despite the caricature of Rao being indecisive, he was one of the most decisive leaders this nation has seen. On all crucial issues, he took decisions that have continued to shape India’s rise over the last two decades. Manmohan Singh may be touted as the father of Indian economic reforms, but it was Rao who fathered the process. Singh was an economic technocrat with little understanding of political constraints and hardly any ability to navigate them. It was Rao who shielded Singh from the left wing of his own party, a flank that had left no stone unturned in opposing the economic liberalization program.

Rao made economic reforms politically tenable at a time when his own party was out to scuttle his most ambitious undertaking. He effectively linked economic policy with foreign policy as he reached out to the United States, recognizing that India would need the support of the West if economic reforms were to succeed.

His imprimatur is everywhere in Indian foreign policy today: Delhi’s subtle balancing act in the Middle East; trying to establish a stable balance with China; the outreach to East and Southeast Asia as part of India’s “Look East” policy; and helping India achieve enough economic heft to withstand sanctions after the NDA conducted Pokharan-II. In the Middle East, Rao had courage no other Indian leader has displayed. He established full diplomatic ties with Israel in 1992 even as he reached out to Iran, paying a landmark visit to Tehran in 1993 — the first Indian prime minister to do so since the 1979 revolution. Rao was also the initiator of the “Look East” policy. He understood early on that the center of gravity of global economics was shifting to the East and that India’s economic future needed to be linked to the booming economies in East Asia. He expanded India’s engagements with the Association of Southeast Asian Nations not only as a matter of India’s economic revival, but also as a counterweight to rising Chinese dominance.

On the internal security front under Rao, the Punjab situation improved markedly and the Indian security forces got a handle on the Kashmir insurgency — even as Rao revived that state’s political process. It was therefore distinctly odd the way Manmohan Singh acquiesced in his party’s decimation of Rao’s legacy. It was only in his last years when the Indian economy – Dr Singh’s claim to fame – seemed to be unraveling, he suddenly remembered the role that Rao had played in making the reforms happen when he acknowledged Rao in his last speech from the Red Fort. In his speech, Dr Singh said, “In the year 1991, under the leadership of Shri Narasimha Rao, we successfully negotiated a major economic crisis and embraced reforms for strengthening our economy. These reforms were opposed by many political parties at that time. But the reforms were in national interest and were therefore continued by all governments that came to power subsequently. Since then, the reform process has continually moved forward.”

It was Rao’s sagacious political leadership that sustained economic reforms in the early 1990s. Today, the Congress party’s leadership has little understanding of what’s at stake. Neither Sonia Gandhi nor Rahul Gandhi has shown any leadership on the issue, leaving Singh adrift at a time of global and local economic turmoil. The Congress has, over the years, created this myth that Rao was a closet sympathizer of the Ram Janmabhoomi movement. This allowed the party to absolve its rank and file of all the blame and make Rao a convenient scapegoat. It is neatly forgotten that it was Rajiv Gandhi’s government that opened the locks and performed shilanyas (ground-breaking ceremony) at the disputed site. The party may have given Rao a short shrift but there is a new awareness of Rao’s achievements in India today.

By honoring Rao after his death, the Modi government will be only giving Rao what should have been his due during his lifetime.

To Save India’s Democracy, Congress Must Focus on Regional Parties 

By ali malik.

What Can the Imbalance in the BJP’s National vs Regional Popularity Tell Us?

By krzysztof iwanek.

The Privatization of Heritage: Why Corporate Funding To Restore Monuments Worries India

By priyanka borpujari.

India's Debate on Citizenship Continues

By padmapriya govindarajan.

By Shawn Rostker

Sheikh Hasina’s Exit Renews Concerns of India-Pakistan Conflict in Bangladesh

By umair jamal.

Guangzhou Shows Why China Is So Attractive to the Global South

By gabriele manca.

Fresh Reports Emerge of Rohingya Killings in Western Myanmar

By sebastian strangio.

By Aleksander Lust

By Markus Karbaum

By Coco Ree

By Snigdhendu Bhattacharya

SHRI. P.V. NARASIMHA RAO MEMORIAL CHARITABLE TRUST

Shri. P.V. Narasimha Rao

(28th June, 1921 - 23rd December, 2004)

Born on June 28, 1921 in a Telugu Brahmin family in Andhra Pradesh, Narasimha Rao was a polyglot and spoke 17 languages fluently. Narasimha Rao started his political career in the Indian National Congress party, and was first elected as a Member of Parliament in 1971. He held several key portfolios in different governments, including the Ministry of External Affairs, Home Affairs, and Defence, before being appointed as the Prime Minister in 1991. 

In March 2024, Narasimha Rao has been honored with the highest Civilian Award of the country, the BHARAT RATNA.

A singular goal of “service to all” was his driving force throughout and it is this vision that he shared and passed on to his family. “I clearly remember the day when I went and told my grandfather that I am a doctor now, he was ecstatic”, says Dr. N.V. Sudha Kiran, CEO, Shri. PVNR Memorial Charitable Trust. “The first thing he said to me was not congratulations or I’m proud of you, but ‘service is what you should do, service without any filters or any discrimination, service especially in the rural areas, this is my dream, this is what I’ve been trying to do my whole life. Will you take it forward? Will you continue to serve the people of this country?’ and I found myself saying ‘Yes’. No second thoughts, no apprehensions, no questions asked. In a way, I feel by putting these questions in front of me and sharing his dream, he showed me a direction, a path for me to move forward. And that is what I did. Setting up of this Trust and Blood Centres, doing the kind of work that we do, I have no regrets, every day I wake up with a sense of purpose and duty, a zeal to make a difference in someone’s life and every single day I go to bed with a smile and sense of satisfaction that I have done what I set out to do, and I owe this all to my grandfather,” Dr. Kiran shares.

As the Prime Minister, Narasimha Rao ushered in economic reforms that liberalized and opened up the Indian economy, leading to a period of rapid growth and development that helped transform India into a global economic player. He also introduced major policy changes in the areas of education, infrastructure, and governance, and sought to improve relations with neighbouring countries such as China and Pakistan. Narasimha Rao remained a respected and influential figure in Indian politics, and is remembered for his intellectual prowess, pragmatic leadership, and commitment to national development. After retiring from politics, Narasimha Rao returned to his passion for writing and scholarship, and authored several books on diverse subjects such as Indian philosophy, culture, and history. He passed away on December 23, 2004, leaving behind a legacy as one of India’s most visionary and transformative leaders.

Family of 6 among those obliterated by Israeli bombs at dawn Saturday

Wyoming reporter caught using AI to create fake quotes and stories

Thai court removes PM in another ruling shaking up nation's politics

Judge rules RFK Jr. not a resident, can't have name on NY ballot

Hop on kangaroo appoints former prime minister p. v. narasimha rao's great granddaughter aditi siri gayatri as official brand ambassador for india.

ANI PR Wire 17th August 2024, 16:39 GMT+10

Read This Next

Big News Network

• Big News Network News Agency
• Midwest Radio Network
• Mainstream Media

BIG NEWS NETWORK.COM

• Contact & Support
• Terms & Conditions

PRODUCTS & SERVICES

• News Releases

Copyright © 1998-2024 Big News Network All rights reserved. ISSN : 2616-6917

• Share full article

Advertisement

Supported by

Float Planned for N.Y.C. India Day Parade Is Condemned as Anti-Muslim

The float, slated for inclusion in Sunday’s parade, depicts a Hindu temple in India that was built on the site of a mosque torn down by religious extremists.

By Liam Stack and Anusha Bayya

A float slated to appear in New York City’s India Day Parade this weekend is causing an uproar, with community groups calling it a symbol of anti-Muslim hate, parade organizers defending its inclusion and elected officials scrambling to respond.

The planned float will include a large-scale model of the Ram Temple, which was built on the disputed site of a 16th-century mosque in the Indian city of Ayodhya. The mosque was destroyed in 1992 by Hindu nationalists, which set off widespread violence in the country that killed thousands of people, primarily Muslims.

The new temple was dedicated this past January by Narendra Modi , India’s hard-line Hindu nationalist prime minister, at a ceremony that was also followed by widespread anti-Muslim violence. Ankur Vaidya, the chairman of the board of trustees for the group organizing the parade, the Federation of Indian Associations, said on Wednesday that a model of a temple — measuring 8 feet by 8 feet by 16 feet — would be driven down Madison Avenue on the float.

On Thursday, the group organizing the float, the Vishwa Hindu Parishad of America, said it celebrated the temple in Ayodhya as “a sacred site that has been central to Hindu faith and spirituality for thousands of years.”

Ajay Shah, the president of the group, which is an offshoot of India’s Vishwa Hindu Parishad, a right-wing nationalist organization, also accused the float’s critics of “Hindu hate.” He said their “full-time job is to malign mainstream Hindus and their faith.”

“Their problem is not with a single temple but all temples,” said Mr. Shah. He asked elected officials to “reject the calls to malign the Hindu faith and its practitioners who have enriched every aspect of the lives of residents of New York City, the state of New York and indeed all of the U.S.A. ”

We are having trouble retrieving the article content.

Please enable JavaScript in your browser settings.

Thank you for your patience while we verify access. If you are in Reader mode please exit and  log into  your Times account, or  subscribe  for all of The Times.

Thank you for your patience while we verify access.

Already a subscriber?  Log in .

Want all of The Times?  Subscribe .