Date:02/08/2008 URL: http://www.thehindu.com/2008/08/02/stories/2008080255051000.htm

Opinion - Letters to the Editor

On disqualification

This is in response to the article “Case for Speaker’s disqualification” (July 30). Somnath Chatterjee neither defected nor voted against a whip issued by the CPI(M). I think all parties should respect the freedom of conscience of its members when it does not issue a whip asking them to vote in a particular way. It was perhaps wrong to have elected Mr. Chatterjee as Speaker.

The episode has shown that only MPs from ruling parties must be elected as they will support the government at all times. It is not wise to elect as Speaker an MP whose party is not part of the government.

K. Giridhar,

Hyderabad

* * *

The case for Mr. Chatterjee’s disqualification is based on the assumption that his refusal to resign as the Speaker as per the wishes of the CPI(M) amounted to his voluntarily giving up the membership of the party. While the act of giving up party membership can be express or implied, such an inference can be drawn only if an MP resorts to anti-party activity or supports rival parties, not if he refuses to toe the party line. There is hardly any similarity between the cases of Mr. Chatterjee and L.P. Barbosa. The contention that had Mr. Chatterjee supported the trust motion in the event of a tie, it would have amounted to defection is also unacceptable because the party did not issue a whip.

S.N. Shukla,

Lucknow

* * *

As Speaker of the Lok Sabha, it would have been irresponsible of Mr. Chatterjee to resign at a crucial time. Even his most bitter critic would not attribute any motive to his continuing to remain in the post. The way in which he conducted the proceedings during the trust vote was impartial.

T.S. Venkata Ramani,

Chennai

* * *

Once an MP is elected to the post of Speaker, the party he belongs to ceases to have any control over his functioning. The party cannot direct him or determine how long he should continue as the Speaker.

T.S. Krishna Bhat,

Bangalore

* * *

The article “Mr. Speaker: the Indian ‘avatar’” (Aug. 1) has some concrete suggestions to restore the position of the Speaker. While the first two suggestions are logical and justified, the third one — “once a Speaker always a Speaker and a convention be established to re-elect him without contest” — seems to be far-fetched, as it is akin to issuing a blank cheque. Impartial conduct acceptable to all parties should constitute the sole criterion for the re-election of a Speaker without contest.

K.D. Viswanaathan,

Coimbatore

* * *

The anti-defection law gives the Indian Speaker an adjudicatory role to determine whether a legislator has defected or not. In such a scenario, notwithstanding the renewal of membership of the political party on whose ticket the Speaker was elected MP, he becomes a neutral person in law. He cannot attract the provisions of the anti-defection law.

P. Esakki Muthu,

Mumbai