Chief Minister Pinarayi Vijayan on Tuesday agreed to a discussion on Kerala's fiscal crisis suspending all other proceedings of the Assembly. In fact, the Chief Minister thanked the Opposition for bringing an adjournment motion on the issue.
It was Congress MLA Roji M John who moved the adjournment motion asking that the Assembly be suspended to discuss the fiscal crisis.
The Chief Minister, contrary to expectations, accepted the challenge. "Let's have a detailed discussion to understand what the real reasons for the crisis are," the Chief Minister said. "We are also grateful that the UDF has conceded one thing. Their notice (for the adjournment motion) has said that the Centre's discriminatory attitude towards states was one of the reasons for the crisis," the Chief Minister said. "It is therefore an irony that the 19 UDF MPs have not bothered to issue such a notice in Parliament and force a discussion," he added.
Though the second Pinarayi Vijayan ministry had attempted to curtail the Opposition's right to move an adjournment motion in March 2023, it is also aware of the possibilities of accepting the notice for the adjournment motion.
Adjournment motions are moved on the basis of rules 50, 51 and 52 of the Kerala Assembly Rules and Procedure. It is the power given to the Opposition to bring to the Assembly matters of urgent public interest. Essentially, it is a plea to the government to temporarily suspend all normal proceedings to debate a particular issue of public importance.
Generally, adjournment motions are rejected. But even when they are rejected, the Opposition can get their points in, perhaps more effectively than the ruling side.
Once a one-line adjournment motion is moved, the Speaker will first ask the concerned minister whether a discussion was necessary.
If not, the minister is given 8-10 minutes to argue why there was no need to suspend the Assembly over the issue.
The mover of the motion can now counter the minister's contentions. He/she will be given 10-12 minutes to make the case for adjourning the House to discuss what he/she thinks is a serious matter. After this, the minister is given another chance, this time to rebut the points made by the mover of the motion.
Finally, on the basis of what the minister says, the Speaker declares that the motion has been rejected.
Now, it is time for the Opposition to stage a walk out. Before this, the Opposition Leader is given a chance to make a walk-out speech. He will take nearly as much time as the minister. He ends with calling for a walkout.
Though technically the motion has been rejected, a discussion of over an hour takes place in the Assembly. The Opposition's walkout is merely symbolic, and they get back to their seats soon enough.
However, for the ruling party, the adjournment motion poses a major political conundrum. The Opposition Leader gets the last word. The ruling side will not get a chance to counter the Opposition Leader's arguments. An effective and thoroughly researched Opposition Leader like Satheesan would not just debunk the ruling side's arguments but would also raise new arguments that cannot be countered at least for the moment.
So there have been rare occasions when adjournment motions were allowed, leading to a wider discussion on the issue involving more members from either side. For instance, the notices moved for a discussion on the SilverLine project and the attack on the AKG Centre.
In such cases, the last word will rest with the ruling side. It now looks that the government wants the last word for itself when it comes to the fiscal crisis.
It will be a two-hour discussion that would start at 1 pm.
