All payments handed after the admission of no-trust movement constitutionally suspect, says Manish Tewari

By PTI

NEW DELHI: Congress MP Manish Tewari on Sunday claimed that every one payments handed after the no-confidence movement was admitted within the Lok Sabha are ‘constitutionally suspect’ and asserted that any substantive legislative enterprise should succeed the end result of the movement, not precede it.

The former Union minister additionally mentioned the 10-day interval for scheduling a dialogue on the no-confidence movement tabled within the Lok Sabha can’t be used to ‘steamroll’ payments.

The Lok Sabha MP’s assertion comes because the invoice to switch the Delhi providers ordinance is ready to come back up within the House this week.

READ MORE: Opposition ‘INDIA’, BRS transfer no-confidence movement in opposition to Modi authorities in Lok Sabha

In an interview with PTI, Tewari mentioned as soon as the no-confidence movement has been tabled within the Lok Sabha, any laws or materials enterprise introduced earlier than the HouseThe former Union Minister additionally mentioned the 10-day interval for scheduling a dialogue on the no-confidence movement tabled within the Lok Sabha can’t be used to ‘steamroll’ Bills is totally in violation of morality, propriety and parliamentary conventions.

He claimed the very legality of all of the legislations which have been handed within the Lok Sabha or the Rajya Sabha after the no-confidence movement was admitted must be examined by a court docket of legislation as to whether or not they had been legally handed or not.

“All legislative business transacted after the no-confidence motion was tabled is “constitutionally suspect”, he claimed.

On the BJP evaluating the 2018 no-confidence movement in opposition to the Narendra Modi authorities and the huge mandate it acquired within the 2019 elections with the present state of affairs, Tewari mentioned, “If history repeats itself once, it is a tragedy and if it does so twice, it is a farce.”

A no-confidence movement by the Congress on behalf of the opposition alliance INDIA in opposition to the federal government was admitted within the Lok Sabha on Wednesday amid concerted efforts by the anti-BJP bloc to power Prime Minister Narendra Modi to talk on the contentious Manipur subject in Parliament.

Asked in regards to the numbers not including up for the Indian National Developmental Inclusive Alliance (INDIA) bloc for the no-confidence movement, Tewari mentioned it was not a query of numbers however of morality.

“What has happened in Manipur and what is continuing to happen there is absolutely reprehensible. There is a BJP government in the state, there is a BJP government at the Centre. Therefore, somebody needs to take responsibility,” Tewari instructed PTI.

He mentioned the opposition anticipated the prime minister to make a suo motu assertion in each Houses of Parliament on the ‘extraordinarily important scenario’ in Manipur and that assertion would have been succeeded by a dialogue.

But, sadly, the prime minister selected to make a really ‘cursory comment’ simply earlier than the graduation of the Monsoon session.

READ MORE: PM Modi breaks silence over ethnic violence in Manipur after video exhibits mob molesting girls

After that, adjournment motions tabled in each Houses of Parliament repeatedly weren’t admitted by the presiding officers, the Congress chief mentioned.

“Thus the joint opposition was left with no option but to bring this no-confidence motion to enforce the principle of morality, probity and accountability in public life which must be the sine qua non of any governance,” he asserted.

Asked in regards to the expectations from Prime Minister Modi’s response to the no-confidence movement, Tewari mentioned the movement states that “this house expresses want of confidence in the council of ministers” and the rationale for that need of confidence has publicly been articulated ‘advert nauseum’ for the previous one week.

“So under those circumstances, if the prime minister chooses not to respond to Manipur it would be a travesty,” the MP from Punjab’s Anandpur Sahib mentioned.

On the BJP’s rivalry that previously cases of violence within the northeast, ministers have replied and never the prime minister, Tewari mentioned the Modi authorities may have accepted adjournment motions submitted by opposition MPs.

“We had been tabling adjournment motions every day. The government could have accepted the adjournment motions which can be replied to by a minister. The government chose not to accept them,” he mentioned.

“Under these circumstances, if the prime minister could speak outside Parliament and say that the developments in Manipur have made our heads hang in collective shame then what was the hesitation and diffidence in coming and addressing Parliament on the same issue,” Tewari argued.

Asked whether or not the invoice to switch the Delhi providers ordinance ought to be introduced after the no-confidence movement is deliberated and voted upon, Tewari mentioned, “Even (the book by) MN Kaul and SL Shakdher, which I had quoted, is explicit that once the no-confidence motion is accepted by the Speaker, no other business should be given precedence.”

Tewari recalled that in July 1966 when a no-confidence movement was introduced in opposition to the federal government, the then minister for parliamentary affairs, Satyendra Narayan Sinha, had accepted the truth that as soon as such a movement is earlier than the House, no different materials enterprise ought to be transacted.

Asked in regards to the opposition’s insistence on discussing the no-confidence movement instantly regardless of the principles speaking of a 10-day interval for scheduling, Tewari mentioned it was for the easy purpose that when there’s need of confidence within the council of ministers, what’s the locus that the federal government to carry legislations and get them handed within the House.

“Those 10 days are there because if the presiding officer in his wisdom wants to adjourn the House and take it up at a later point in time within 10 days, that flexibility has been given to the presiding officer to schedule the vote of confidence,” he mentioned.

It just isn’t a interval that may be utilised to ‘steamroll’ legislations or substantive coverage issues via the House with none dialogue, the Congress chief asserted.

Asked whether or not the constituents of the INDIA alliance would participate within the debate if the invoice to switch Delhi ordinance is taken up for consideration earlier than the no-confidence movement or will they oppose its introduction and boycott it until the movement is taken up, Tewari mentioned that may be a name which the INDIA alliance has to take.

There is a basic sense that the ordinance is a ‘Serious assault on federalism’, he mentioned.

“According to me, every legislation, important or unimportant, should succeed the outcome of a no-confidence motion and not precede it,” the Congress MP mentioned.

On disruption quite than debate changing into the norm, Tewari mentioned whereas disruption is a authentic parliamentary tactic, the duty of working Parliament rests squarely on the shoulders of the federal government.

The doctrine of disruption being a authentic parliamentary tactic was not coined by the Congress however by the BJP’s Arun Jaitely when he was the chief of the opposition within the Lok Sabha, he mentioned.

NEW DELHI: Congress MP Manish Tewari on Sunday claimed that every one payments handed after the no-confidence movement was admitted within the Lok Sabha are ‘constitutionally suspect’ and asserted that any substantive legislative enterprise should succeed the end result of the movement, not precede it.

The former Union minister additionally mentioned the 10-day interval for scheduling a dialogue on the no-confidence movement tabled within the Lok Sabha can’t be used to ‘steamroll’ payments.

The Lok Sabha MP’s assertion comes because the invoice to switch the Delhi providers ordinance is ready to come back up within the House this week.googletag.cmd.push(operate() googletag.show(‘div-gpt-ad-8052921-2’); );

READ MORE: Opposition ‘INDIA’, BRS transfer no-confidence movement in opposition to Modi authorities in Lok Sabha

In an interview with PTI, Tewari mentioned as soon as the no-confidence movement has been tabled within the Lok Sabha, any laws or materials enterprise introduced earlier than the HouseThe former Union Minister additionally mentioned the 10-day interval for scheduling a dialogue on the no-confidence movement tabled within the Lok Sabha can’t be used to ‘steamroll’ Bills is totally in violation of morality, propriety and parliamentary conventions.

He claimed the very legality of all of the legislations which have been handed within the Lok Sabha or the Rajya Sabha after the no-confidence movement was admitted must be examined by a court docket of legislation as to whether or not they had been legally handed or not.

“All legislative business transacted after the no-confidence motion was tabled is “constitutionally suspect”, he claimed.

On the BJP evaluating the 2018 no-confidence movement in opposition to the Narendra Modi authorities and the huge mandate it acquired within the 2019 elections with the present state of affairs, Tewari mentioned, “If history repeats itself once, it is a tragedy and if it does so twice, it is a farce.”

A no-confidence movement by the Congress on behalf of the opposition alliance INDIA in opposition to the federal government was admitted within the Lok Sabha on Wednesday amid concerted efforts by the anti-BJP bloc to power Prime Minister Narendra Modi to talk on the contentious Manipur subject in Parliament.

Asked in regards to the numbers not including up for the Indian National Developmental Inclusive Alliance (INDIA) bloc for the no-confidence movement, Tewari mentioned it was not a query of numbers however of morality.

“What has happened in Manipur and what is continuing to happen there is absolutely reprehensible. There is a BJP government in the state, there is a BJP government at the Centre. Therefore, somebody needs to take responsibility,” Tewari instructed PTI.

He mentioned the opposition anticipated the prime minister to make a suo motu assertion in each Houses of Parliament on the ‘extraordinarily important scenario’ in Manipur and that assertion would have been succeeded by a dialogue.

But, sadly, the prime minister selected to make a really ‘cursory comment’ simply earlier than the graduation of the Monsoon session.

READ MORE: PM Modi breaks silence over ethnic violence in Manipur after video exhibits mob molesting girls

After that, adjournment motions tabled in each Houses of Parliament repeatedly weren’t admitted by the presiding officers, the Congress chief mentioned.

“Thus the joint opposition was left with no option but to bring this no-confidence motion to enforce the principle of morality, probity and accountability in public life which must be the sine qua non of any governance,” he asserted.

Asked in regards to the expectations from Prime Minister Modi’s response to the no-confidence movement, Tewari mentioned the movement states that “this house expresses want of confidence in the council of ministers” and the rationale for that need of confidence has publicly been articulated ‘advert nauseum’ for the previous one week.

“So under those circumstances, if the prime minister chooses not to respond to Manipur it would be a travesty,” the MP from Punjab’s Anandpur Sahib mentioned.

On the BJP’s rivalry that previously cases of violence within the northeast, ministers have replied and never the prime minister, Tewari mentioned the Modi authorities may have accepted adjournment motions submitted by opposition MPs.

“We had been tabling adjournment motions every day. The government could have accepted the adjournment motions which can be replied to by a minister. The government chose not to accept them,” he mentioned.

“Under these circumstances, if the prime minister could speak outside Parliament and say that the developments in Manipur have made our heads hang in collective shame then what was the hesitation and diffidence in coming and addressing Parliament on the same issue,” Tewari argued.

Asked whether or not the invoice to switch the Delhi providers ordinance ought to be introduced after the no-confidence movement is deliberated and voted upon, Tewari mentioned, “Even (the book by) MN Kaul and SL Shakdher, which I had quoted, is explicit that once the no-confidence motion is accepted by the Speaker, no other business should be given precedence.”

Tewari recalled that in July 1966 when a no-confidence movement was introduced in opposition to the federal government, the then minister for parliamentary affairs, Satyendra Narayan Sinha, had accepted the truth that as soon as such a movement is earlier than the House, no different materials enterprise ought to be transacted.

Asked in regards to the opposition’s insistence on discussing the no-confidence movement instantly regardless of the principles speaking of a 10-day interval for scheduling, Tewari mentioned it was for the easy purpose that when there’s need of confidence within the council of ministers, what’s the locus that the federal government to carry legislations and get them handed within the House.

“Those 10 days are there because if the presiding officer in his wisdom wants to adjourn the House and take it up at a later point in time within 10 days, that flexibility has been given to the presiding officer to schedule the vote of confidence,” he mentioned.

It just isn’t a interval that may be utilised to ‘steamroll’ legislations or substantive coverage issues via the House with none dialogue, the Congress chief asserted.

Asked whether or not the constituents of the INDIA alliance would participate within the debate if the invoice to switch Delhi ordinance is taken up for consideration earlier than the no-confidence movement or will they oppose its introduction and boycott it until the movement is taken up, Tewari mentioned that may be a name which the INDIA alliance has to take.

There is a basic sense that the ordinance is a ‘Serious assault on federalism’, he mentioned.

“According to me, every legislation, important or unimportant, should succeed the outcome of a no-confidence motion and not precede it,” the Congress MP mentioned.

On disruption quite than debate changing into the norm, Tewari mentioned whereas disruption is a authentic parliamentary tactic, the duty of working Parliament rests squarely on the shoulders of the federal government.

The doctrine of disruption being a authentic parliamentary tactic was not coined by the Congress however by the BJP’s Arun Jaitely when he was the chief of the opposition within the Lok Sabha, he mentioned.