Assembly stalled over byelections

By Our Special Correspondent

HYDERABAD, FEB. 16. The heat generated by the byelection campaign in Giddalur and Badvel Assembly constituencies was felt in the Assembly on Friday when Congress(I) members forced the adjournment of the House over the attempts by the TDP to prevent Dalits from voting on February 19.

Congress(I) members contended that the election atmosphere had been vitiated by the ruling party, which had ensured that Dalits, particularly in 37 villages in Badvel, were kept out of the voters' list and by the Government in harassing Congress(I) workers in both constituencies.

Normal business was paralysed for more than 90 minutes, including a 40 minute-long adjournment of the House, after the Speaker, Mrs. K. Pratibha Bharathi, disallowed an adjournment motion tabled by Mr. D. Srinivas, Deputy Leader of the Congress(I), and other members seeking a debate on discrimination against Dalits. As a result, the question hour could not be taken up.

The Treasury Benches stoutly opposed a debate because Article 324 of the Constitution clearly stated that the Election Commission alone was empowered to arbitrate in poll-related matters. Therefore, the Government had no power to consider the Congress(I)'s complaint.

The stalemate ended after the House re-assembled when the Congress(I) offered to raise only those issues which fell under the Government's purview. The Speaker gave her ruling later in the day after reserving it in the morning. She ruled that under Rule 66 of the Assembly proceedings and other constitutional provisions, a matter pending with a statutory body like the Election Commission could not be allowed. Rules also debarred any election issue to be raised in the House.

Trouble began before question hour with all members of the Congress(I) and CPI(M) rising on their feet, the latter to know the fate of their adjournment motion stating that the Government was misleading people about the availability of power to the agriculture sector.

Disallowing both motions, Mrs. Pratibha Bharathi told the Congress(I) members that she would allow a debate if they approached her under any other rule. Mr. Srinivas said his party would give a notice under Rule 304 and urged the Speaker to post it for discussion tomorrow.

But the Speaker turned down this plea on the ground that she would stick to the system of posting notices under Rule 304 through the method of rotation. The Congress(I) deputy leader protested, saying this would not serve any purpose because the byelections would be completed by them.

As Mrs. Pratibha Bharathi sought to take up the question hour, all the Congress(I) members were on their feet in protest. Mr. K. R. Suresh Reddy (Congress-I) urged her to permit a discussion in exercise of the residuary powers vested in her under Rule 63.Unsatisfied over the response, Congress(I) members stalled the proceedings.

Five of them, including Dr. P. Shanker Rao, Mr. D. S. Redya Naik, Mrs. G. Kutuhalamma and Mr. M. Sikhamani, went to the podium and argued with the Speaker besides raising slogans.

Send this article to Friends by E-Mail

Section  : Southern States
Next     : Writ pleas against EC action dismissed