news details |
|
|
| Constitutional Questions | | |
Early Times Report
Jammu, Feb 25: The unprecedented development on the first day of assembly session which saw the Governor NN Vohra walking out of Central Hall leaving his speech midway has raised the questions of Parliamentary practices and constitutional regards even as the Law and Parliamentary Affairs Minister Abdul Rahim Rather quoted an over 40 years old judgment to put the record straight.
Normally the Governor leaves the House only after the National Anthem has been played. And when the Governor has left both Houses meet separately where a copy of his address is laid on the table of the House.
On Wednesday morning, the Governor NN Vohra left the House amidst a din and there was no National Anthem. When the Legislative Assembly met after Governor’s leaving, a copy of the address was laid on the table by the Law and Parliamentary Affairs Minister Abdul Rahim Rather.
As soon as the assembly reassembled after the initial mayhem in central hall of legislature, Harash Dev Singh of JKNPP condemned the role of government. He alleged that the government has shown disregard to the national anthem while not playing the same when Governor left the hall halfway.
“It is a great disregard to the nation that the national anthem was not played when governor left the house”, Harash Dev said. He further called for the placing of the governor’s address on the table as ‘unconstitutional’ as it was not read in full and the legislators were unaware of the contents.
Terming the incident as unprecedented in the history of Jammu and Kashmir State, Rather said that it should be condemned by the House in the strongest words. He said he would leave it to the conscience of the PDP Members to decide whether they had done a right thing to disrupt the Governor’s Address.
Mr. Rather was speaking in the Legislative Assembly during the tabling of the copy of the Governor’s Address in the House to which Panthers Party MLA, Mr. Harshdev Singh raised certain objections. He quoted the judgement of the West Bengal High Court of the Governor’s failure to deliver his Address to the Legislature on February 8, 1965, due to the noisy disturbances and made up the failure by publication of the Address to the Members of the Legislature by laying the Address on the Table of the House. Deciding the writ of mandamus, the Calcutta High Court had observed that the procedural failure should not be over-emphasized because of laying a copy of the Governor’s Address on the Table, the object of the Address was substantively served, he added.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
 |
|
|
