New Delhi, Feb 5 (PTI) Congress MP K C Venugopal wrote to Lok Sabha Speaker Om Birla on Thursday over what he said were “procedural irregularities” during the conclusion of the debate on the Motion of Thanks to the President’s Address and urged him to apprise the House about the procedure followed in dealing with the prime minister’s reply.
In an unprecedented development, the Lok Sabha on Thursday passed the Motion of Thanks on the President’s Address without the customary speech by Prime Minister Modi amid vociferous protests by the opposition.
In his letter to Birla, Venugopal said that according to Rule 20 of Rules, it is mandatory for the prime minister to explain the position of the government at the end of the discussion on the motion of thanks.
“If, for any reason, the Prime Minister is unable or unwilling to do so, the responsibility vests upon him to inform the House accordingly. In the present case, neither did the Prime Minister reply to the debate nor was the House informed about his inability to do so. This clearly amounts to a violation of provisions of Rule 20,” Venugopal said.
Further, it is well established that a debate is normally concluded with the reply of the concerned minister, he said.
“In exceptional circumstances, if the House desires to close the debate without such a reply, a motion under Rule 362 is required to be moved by a Member. Only after the Speaker places such a motion before the House and it is approved by the House, can the debate be treated as closed and the main motion be put to vote,” Venugopal said.
In the present instance, no such motion under Rule 362 was moved, he said.
“Nevertheless, at around 12 o’clock, the Motion of Thanks was abruptly put before the House, thereby bringing the debate to a close without following the prescribed procedure. This action, therefore, constitutes a violation of Rule 362,” the Congress general secretary claimed.
“I wish to bring to your kind attention serious procedural irregularities that occurred during the conclusion of the debate on the Motion of Thanks in the House on 5th February,” he alleged.
Venugopal urged the Speaker to inform the House about the authenticity of the procedure he followed in dealing with the prime minister’s reply under Rule 20 and also the closure of the debate on the motion of thanks under Rule 362.
“You are the custodian of the Rules of the House and all of us are duty-bound to adhere to the Rules. This House can be run only on the basis of the Rules which have been framed under Article 118 of the Constitution.
“Article 105 gives us freedom of speech and it is the sacred duty of the Speaker to ensure that Members of Parliament enjoy this freedom to the fullest extent while speaking in the House. Rules do not and cannot nullify this valuable freedom,” Venugopal said.
“We look up to you for the full protection of our freedom to speak in the House,” he added.
So far as the proceedings are concerned, the House is in the dark as to how the prime minister’s reply was allowed to be skipped, Venugopal said.
“Therefore, I would most respectfully request you to apprise the House of the procedure followed by you in dealing with the Prime Minister’s reply to the debate on the Motion of Thanks and also the closure of the debate. A proper analysis of the concerned Rules and the procedure adopted by you in this regard will greatly benefit the House,” Venugopal said in his letter.
In his post on X, Venugopal said, “The whole nation was shocked and confused that the PM chose to avoid replying to the Motion of Thanks to the Hon’ble President’s address in the Lok Sabha yesterday.” The Lok Sabha passed the motion of thanks without the customary speech by the PM amid vociferous protests by the opposition.
The PM was not present in the House when the Speaker put the amendments moved by the opposition to to vote, which were rejected.
The Speaker then read out the Motion of Thanks to the President for her Address to both Houses of Parliament on January 28, which was passed by a voice vote, amid sloganeering by the opposition members.
As the protests continued, the Speaker adjourned the proceedings till 2 pm.
Congress members stormed the Well, carrying posters with PM Modi’s picture and “Narendra-Surrender” slogan written at the top.
Constitutional expert P D T Achary termed the passage of the Motion of Thanks on the President’s Address without the customary reply by the prime minister as an “unprecedented development”.
Achary, a former Lok Sabha secretary general, said that in 2004, the then prime minister Manmohan Singh was present in the House but did not make a speech according to an understanding reached with the then opposition BJP.
“Speaker sir, I learn that there is an understanding among political parties on both sides that the Motion of Thanks on the President’s Address be put to vote straightaway and passed unanimously. Therefore, sir, I request you to put the motion to vote,” Manmohan Singh had said on June 10, 2004. PTI ASK KSS KSS
This report is auto-generated from PTI news service. ThePrint holds no responsibility for its content.