Hyderabad : Leader of Opposition and the YSRCP President YS Jagan hs written a letter to Speaker of AP Assembly. He demanded to revoke the suspension of MLA Roja from Assembly. Letter is given here:
Respected Speaker,
I draw your kind attention to the recent suspension of Smt Roja, MLA for a
period of one year from the services of the House by way of a Motion moved
under Rule 340{2} of the Business Rules AP Legislative Assembly.
The said Rules are reproduced below:
340. (L) The speaker if he deems it necessary name a mernber who
disregards the authority of the Chair or abuses the rules of the House
by persistently and wilfully obstructing the business thereof.
{2) lf a member is so named by the speaker, the speaker shail on a
motion being made, forthwith put the question that the mernber
(naming him) be suspended from the service of the House for a period
not exceeding the remainder of the session:
Provided that the House may, at any time on a motion being made,
resolve that such suspensian be terminated.
(3) A member suspended under this rule shall forth-with withdraw from
the precincts of the House.
It is clear frorn the above that when a motion under Rule 340 is moved, the
Speaker has to necessarily put the Motion for voting and suspend the
Member so named from the service of the House for a period not exceeding
the remainder of the session upon the Motion being adopted. Nevertheless,
the Hon'ble Speaker has to ensure that such a Motion is in accordance with
Business Rules. lf it is ultra vires the Business Rules, he should, in no case,
allow such a Motion being taken up, even if hypothetically 100% of the
Mernbers of the House want such an illegal Motion to be moved.
lf one peruses the records of the proceedings of AP Legislative Assembly
dated 18th December 2015, it is clear that the Hon'ble Legislative Affairs
Minister, who himself was the Speaker of AP Legislative Assernbly during
1994-1999, moved the Motion under Sub-rule 2 of Rule 340 of the Business
Rules of the State Legislative Assembly for suspension of Smt Roja for a
period of one year when that said Rule cited by the Hon'ble Legislative
Affairs Minister, provides for suspension only till the remainder of the
session. At this stage, the Hon'ble Speaker ought to have objected to the
Motion under Rule 340, as the said Motion was against the provisions of the
said rule. The said Motion moved by the Hon'ble Minister for Legislative
Affairs was adopted, which is very unfortunate and certainly a black day in
the long history of State Assembly.
Apparently to cover up this misstake, the Hon'ble Legislative Affairs Minister
said on the floor of the House that the House is supreme anrd that there is no
need to follow the Business Rules. How can, of all the Members, the Hon'ble
Minister for Legislative Affairs, who was Speaker of this august House for five
full years during 1994-1999, could say that the Rules are irrelevant? Then
why do we have rules? Why does Lok Sabha have rules? Are they there only
to be breached?
I would like to submlt that all the State Legislatures and both the Houses of
parliament in lndia run according to the Business Rules made by them either
unden Article 208 or Art 118 of the Constitution, as the case may be.
Notwithstanding some aberrations, our Legislatures have been running in an
exemplary manner. The Business Rules, for instance, made by our own state
Legislature, which are rnore or less a replica of the Business Rules of Lok
Sabha, have stood the test of time. The problem arises only when we as
Mernbers do not want to follow the Rules.
The Hon'ble Legislative Affairs Minister said that the House is supreme and
that no court can question any decislon of the House; he might be relying on
the provisions of Art 212 of the Constitution of lndia.
The office of Speaker has been accorded highest position under Indian
Constitution and he/she is duty bound to run the House strictly in accordance
with the Business Rules, if any, in as much as each and every Member also is
duty bound to comply with them. lt is under this assumption only that Art
122/212 of the Constitution have provided for certain immunities to the
proceedings of the Parliament/State Legislatures. Art 212 is reproduced
below:
"212. (1) The validity of ony proceedings in the Legislature of a State
shall not be called in question on the ground of any alleged irregularity
of procedure."
it is clear from the above that bar on judicial review is available only in
regard to matters of alleged irregularity of procedure. If it involves violation
of Business Rules, then no such bar on judicial review is available.
The Hon'ble Supreme Court in Raja Rampal vs Speaker of Lok Sabha clearly
directed that if there is a blatant violation of rules, the proceedings of both the
houses of Parliament could become justiciable in High Courts/Supreme
Court notwithstanding the immunities under Art 122/212.
The very foundation of a Constltutional democracy rests on the principle that
no power or immunity vested in any constitutional authority is absolute and
unfettered and therefore cannot be exercised arbitrarily, whimsically or in a
pick and choose manner. The Hon'hle Supreme Court has intervened on
many occasions in the past when decisions are taken by any Constitutional
authority against Rules and Principles of Natural Justice.
You are kindly aware that despite specific bar on the jurisdiction of courts
over the decision of the Speaker under Tenth Schedule to the Constitution of
lndia, it did not deter the Supreme Court from subjecting the actions of the
Speaker to judicial review. The latest case belng Balchandra L Jarkiholi & Ors
vs B.S Yeddiyurappa & Ors, in which the Supreme Court declared the order of
the Hon'ble Speaker, Karnataka Assembly disqualifying 13 Members of
Karnataka Legislative Assembly under 10th Schedule to Constitution,
dilsqualifying the MLAs from rnembership of the House, null and void on
grounds of violation of Rules 6(5)(b) and 7(3) of the Disqualification Rules,
1986, as also the principles of natural justice.
The Hon'ble Mlnister for Legislative Affairs further said that during the
currency of the suspension of Smt Roja, she will be an ordinary person not
entitled to any priviteges as MLA and that she cannot draw salary and stay in
the official residence allotted to her as MLA!!! Does he not realize that she
has been suspended only fnom the services of the House and that her
Membership is intact?
I draw your kind attention to Rule 374 of Lok Sabha Business Rules, which are
reproduced below:
374. (1) The Speaker may, if he deems it necessary, name a member
who disregards the authority of the Chair or abuses the rules of the
House by persistently and wilfully obstructing the business thereof.
(2) lf a member is sa named by the Speaker, the Speaker shall, on a
motion being made forthwith put the question that the member
(narning hirn) be suspended from the service of the House for a period
not exceeding the remainder of the session:
Provided that the House may, at any time, on a, motion being mode,
resolve that such suspension be terminated.
(3) A member suspended under this rule shall forthwith withdraw from
the precincts of the House".
It may please be seen that Rule 374 of Lok Sabha Business Rules is identical
to the Rule 340 of the AP Legislative Assembly Rules.
It is relevant to note that even when extreme pandemonium broke out in Lok
Sabha on 13th Feb 2014 and Members of Lok Sabha were coming to blows in
the podium and when one of the Members went even to the extent of
spraying pepper spray near the podium of Lok Sabha causing a huge health
hazard in Lok Sabha, Smt Meira Kumar suspended 18 MPs only for remainder
of the session because that is the rule.
How can AP Assembly alone follow an entirely different interpretation of
rules from that of the rest of the country, particularly for allegedly much
smaller offence?
Therefore, much depends on how Impartially we conduct the proceedings of
the house in strict adherence to the Buslness Rules. If the entire House, in its
wisdom, for whatever reasons, decides that the existing rules are not
adequate, the same may be referred to the Rules Committee to make
necessary amendments to the rules and comrnunicate the same to all
Members and start implernenting them prospectively. But, to say that
Business Rules of AP Legislative Assernbly are irrelevant smacks of either
ignorance of law of the land; in any case, such a stand is very unfortunate'
If we do not follow a transparent, rational and intelligible policy, our
decisions will be open to questions by Courts and if that happens, the
supremacy of Legislature will be breached, which will be a sad day for all of us.
I have vide my letter dated 19th December 2015 requested you kindly to
revoke the suspension of Smt Roja, as the same is violative of Rule 340(2) of
APLA Business Rules.
In the light of the above, I once again request you sincerely to kindly,
respecting the time tested Business Rules, revoke the suspension of Smt
Roja, as the Motion that was passed suspending Smt Roja for a period under
Rule 340(2) of the Business Rules was against the provisions of the said Rule
and hence illegal and unconstitutional.
No comments:
Post a Comment