Speaker says sorry, promises protection of Opposition privileges. UDF says not enough

assembly-shamseer
Though he reprimanded the UDF for what he called a "series of avoidable events", the Speaker gave a firm assurance on an issue that has been troubling the Opposition the most. Photo: File image

The Opposition UDF on Monday refused to take the hand of rapprochement offered by Speaker A N Shamseer.

Though he reprimanded the UDF for what he called a "series of avoidable events", the Speaker gave a firm assurance on an issue that has been troubling the Opposition the most.

"I will continue to protect the right of the Opposition to move adjournment motions under Rule 50 on matters of great importance. I will follow the model set by my predecessors in this regard," the Speaker said in his ruling on Monday.

The Speaker had refused the Opposition permission to even move adjournment motions on three consecutive days this session triggering an unprecedented scuffle in front of the Speaker's office on March 15 and days of Assembly stalemate.

On top of this assurance, the Speaker also apologised for the remarks he made against Congress MLA Shafi Parambil. On March 14, while the UDF MLAs ganged up in front of the Speaker's podium and created a din, an irritated Speaker took certain MLAs by name and told them they were being watched by their voters. He also told some of them that they had won by narrow margins. He pulled up Shafi in particular and told him that he would lose the next elections.

The Speaker also apologised for the remarks he made against Congress MLA Shafi Parambil. Photo: Sabha TV/File image

The Speaker atoned for what he said. "I realise that certain remarks I had made against Palakkad MLA Shafi Parambil were inappropriate and has caused the member immense pain," the Speaker said. "I am withdrawing these remarks that were made without adequate forethought. These will be removed from the Assembly records, too," he said.

The Opposition Leader was highly impressed by the apology. "It suggests a big heart," he later said.

It was not all. The Speaker even agreed to remove the biases that had recently crept into the broadcast of the Sabha TV. The UDF had alleged that only the faces of ministers were shown even when the Opposition Leader talks. The Opposition Leader welcomed this move, too.

Nonetheless, Satheesan was unwilling to buy the Speaker's assurance on Rule 50.

Satheesan wants the assurance to come from the government itself. "What the Speaker said in his ruling is not what the Chief Minister told us during the all-party meeting (convened on March 16)," Satheesan said. "Then, he had told that the government would first vet our notices and then decide which adjournment motions to allow," he said.

V D Satheesan
Satheesan was unwilling to buy the Speaker's assurance on Rule 50. Photo: Manorama

Since the Speaker's ruling came later, the Chief Minister's stand should ideally be considered superseded, and, therefore, redundant. But the UDF still holds the belief that the Chief Minister is supreme, and the Speaker is absolutely under his control.

Ironically, it was this impression that the Speaker sought to forcefully dispel in his ruling today. "Members had alleged that Rule 50 notices were turned down at the behest of the government. This very canard was repeated outside the Assembly and during press conferences," Shamseer said.

"Not only are these charges baseless but are tantamount to questioning the Chair's fairness and are grave violations of Parliamentary decorum," the Speaker said.

Despite the Speaker's fervent attempt to show that he is his own man, the UDF is unwilling to give him the benefit of doubt. "Assume that we agree to co-operate. They might grant permission to move one adjournment motion but the next day they will get back to their old ways," Satheesan said. "We have to ensure that our rights are protected," he said.

So according to the UDF, the only solution to break the deadlock is for the government to call for a discussion with the Opposition. "When there is a stalemate in the Assembly, it is the ruling party that usually takes the initiative to patch things up," said Muslim League leader P K Kunhalikutty. "In this case, such an attempt at reconciliation has not come from the ruling side," he said.

The uncertain fate of the non-bailable charges slapped against seven UDF MLAs have also held back the Opposition from demonstrating any enthusiasm for the Speaker's offer of truce. In fact, the Speaker too has not been able to offer the UDF any firm solace on this score.

The Speaker is in possession of 10 complaints related to the March 15 scuffle, including against two ruling side MLAs. "Further action will be taken only after detailed examination," was the only assurance the Speaker could offer.

It is by now evident that the Opposition will cooperate only if the cases are withdrawn.

"They have registered fake non-bailable charges that could invite an imprisonment of up to 10 years against seven of our MLAs, including two women. They say legislators like K K Rema and Uma Thomas had indulged in rioting," Satheesan said. "We cannot be expected to cooperate when our legislators are trapped in false cases," he added.

Satheesan said the government's provocative behaviour could be understood from one fact. "Simple bailable charges were taken against SFI criminals who had held 21 teachers, including 16 women, hostage inside a room in Thiruvananthapuram Law College. But our MLAs who were complainants were slapped non-bailable charges," the Opposition Leader said.

The comments posted here/below/in the given space are not on behalf of Onmanorama. The person posting the comment will be in sole ownership of its responsibility. According to the central government's IT rules, obscene or offensive statement made against a person, religion, community or nation is a punishable offense, and legal action would be taken against people who indulge in such activities.