The Assembly proceedings have been disrupted for the third consecutive day on Friday in the name of Sabarimala. Like in the first two days, the Opposition began their protests when the Question Hour began. Their demand, however, was not as rigid as on Thursday.
Last day, they wanted the Question Hour suspended for an adjournment motion on Sabarimala to be taken. On Friday, Opposition leader Ramesh Chennithala said either the Question Hour should be suspended and the adjournment motion on Sabarimala be taken up or the motion should be allowed to be moved during Zero Hour. Speaker P Sreeramakrishnan refused to suspend the Question Hour but did not mention anything about allowing the motion during Zero Hour.
However, when the Opposition kept shouting slogans, the Speaker said he would allow the issue to be taken up as the first 'submission'. This was however unacceptable to the Opposition. When they cranked up the decibel level, the Speaker cut short the day's session. Like yesterday, the day lasted for 22 minutes.
The Opposition wanted the issue to be taken up as an adjournment motion. The advantage of an adjournment motion is that it would allow not just the member who moves the motion but all the UDF parliamentary party leaders enough time to make their case. They will also get an opportunity to respond to the minister's version. On the other hand, a submission allows only the member to make his case. He will not be able to even reply to the minister's response to his submission.
The Speaker's main contention is that an adjournment motion cannot be allowed on the same issue consecutively. However, in a missive sent to the Speaker, Congress parliamentary party deputy leader K C Joseph has listed instances of earlier Speakers allowing the introduction of adjournment motions on the same issue not twice or thrice but nine to ten times.
Ramesh Chennithala said the UDF was willing to cooperate with the Question Hour. “We just wanted our adjournment motion to be taken up. Rule 50 is our right. To deny this right is autocratic. We will fight to the last if our democratic rights are trampled upon,” he said.
The Opposition also took exception to the Speaker's charges that the Opposition was an unruly lot. “If he had done some introspection he would not have spoken like that. We did not climb to the Speaker's podium, dragged the Speaker's chair and pushed it down,” Chennithala said, referring to the assembly brawl case of 2015 in which then Opposition party (CPM) MLAs climbed on to the Speaker's podium and damaged House property.
