Waqf bill row: Strictly acted as per rule book, says Speaker

Jammu, Apr 7: Speaker J&K Legislative Assembly Abdul Rahim Rather Monday affirmed that he strictly acted by the rule book by rejecting adjournment notices and disallowing discussion on “Waqf Amendment Bill” in the House.

The issue triggered pandemonium thus forcing adjournment of the House, twice for a specified period and finally for the day.

“Issue was sub judice. Rules say that sub judice matters cannot be discussed in the House,” he asserted, while speaking to Greater Kashmir, after adjournment of the House for the day, following tumultuous scenes.

About the contention of Kashmir-based opposition members, mainly Peoples Democratic Party’s Waheed-ur-Rehman Para that the Tamil Nadu assembly passed a resolution against the Waqf Amendment Bill, Rather clarified, “Resolution was passed when it was still a Bill and not an Act. However, the main difference was that it (matter) was not sub judice when it was raked up in the Tamil Nadu Assembly. However now it is sub judice (in the Supreme Court). The Supreme Court is the highest temple of justice in the country. When the matter is before the SC for adjudication, how can I allow discussion on it in the House? More so, when the rules (of J&K LA) prohibit it. They are supposed to know rules and law.”

“Today nine members had sent notices vis-à-vis adjournment motions seeking suspension of listed business of the House for the day and the discussion on the Waqf Amendment Bill. After carefully examining their notices in the light of the Rules of Procedure and Conduct of Business in the J&K Legislative Assembly, I found that they could not be allowed. Under Rule 56, notices can be submitted. Rule 58 deals with restrictions. Sub rule 7 of Rule 58 stipulates that no adjournment motion can be admitted if it relates to a sub judice matter,” Rather explained the scenario which emerged in the House during the day.

He stated that before his ruling, he even reconfirmed and got a copy of the petition as well which was filed in the Supreme Court.

“In this scenario, I had no option but to disallow their adjournment motion. I could not admit their notices as the rules did not permit me. I strictly acted as per the rule book.

With regard to the charges of opposition that he (Speaker) played a partisan role, Rather asked, “How I played partisan role? I rejected the adjournment notices moved by the treasury benches as I did not find them in conformity with the rules. As the Speaker, I’m strictly bound by rules. I need to be neutral and I followed rules and laws of neutrality in letter and spirit.”

Responding to another charge by the opposition (BJP) that he did not take action against the treasury benches for ruckus like he (Speaker) did against them (BJP MLAs) during the Srinagar session of Legislative Assembly, Rather dismissed it (charge) as misplaced contention.

“There was a difference in the scenario. During the Srinagar session, they (BJP members) had entered the well and perched atop the (reporters’) table with their shoes on. The Constitution of India and its emblem were placed on that table. How could it be tolerated? That is why action was taken against them. Today we did not allow the protesting members to enter the well,” he explained.

The Speaker, however, expressed disappointment over sloganeering, including religious slogans from both sides inside the House during the ruckus.

“I could not allow this to go on that is why I adjourned the House as both sides remained unrelenting,” he stated.

What if the protests and ruckus continue tomorrow also, responding to this query, Rather said, “See, I’ve to go by rules. If the members continue to behave this way, it will be their loss as pending business includes private members’ bills and resolutions.”