Online edition of India's National Newspaper
Wednesday, May 17, 2006
Google



National
News: Front Page | National | Tamil Nadu | Andhra Pradesh | Karnataka | Kerala | New Delhi | Other States | International | Opinion | Business | Sport | Miscellaneous | Engagements |
Advts:
Classifieds | Jobs | Obituary |

National Printer Friendly Page   Send this Article to a Friend

Not consulted, says Advani

Special Correspondent

Wrote letters to all leaders: Pranab


  • Maneka Gandhi leads BJP's offensive in Lok Sabha
  • Brajesh Pathak (BSP) questions "double standards" of House

    NEW DELHI: Leader of the Opposition and BJP leader L.K. Advani, who led a walkout by the National Democratic Alliance when the Parliament (Prevention of Disqualification) Amendment Bill, 2006 was introduced in Lok Sabha on Tuesday, said he was not consulted on the issue. The Bill deals with the office-of-profit controversy.

    Stating that the Government had not consulted him, Mr. Advani urged Speaker Somnath Chatterjee to intervene. However, Mr. Chatterjee, who is chairman of the Sriniketan Santiniketan Development Authority, one of the offices exempted under this amendment, preferred not to conduct the proceedings and left the House.

    Leader of the House Pranab Mukherjee expressed surprise at Mr. Advani's charge. He said while he had written to leaders of all parties and received their response, Parliamentary Affairs Minister Priyaranjan Dasmunsi consulted them personally.

    When the debate began post-lunch, Maneka Gandhi led the BJP offensive. She lamented that Parliament, which had sent across a firm message by expelling members caught in the cash-for-question scam, was taking three steps backwards by passing this Bill aimed at protecting members and their privileges. This sentiment was echoed by Mohan Singh (Samajwadi Party), who otherwise supported the amendment.

    Brajesh Pathak (Bahujan Samaj Party) questioned the "double standards" of the House, which expelled the less influential members caught in the cash-for-question scam but was protecting the influential MPs when they were found erring.

    While supporting the amendment, K. Yerrannaidu (Telugu Desam) was critical of the haste with which it was being introduced and passed.

    Holding a similar view, Varkala Radhakrishnan (Communist Party of India-Marxist) sought to know the rationale behind making the amendment retrospective from April 1959. The Bill was "patently defective." Commenting on the fact that most of the offices exempted under this amendment were based in West Bengal, he said the power to decide which post was an office of profit in a State should be delegated to the respective Assembly.

    Printer friendly page  
    Send this article to Friends by E-Mail



    National

    News: Front Page | National | Tamil Nadu | Andhra Pradesh | Karnataka | Kerala | New Delhi | Other States | International | Opinion | Business | Sport | Miscellaneous | Engagements |
    Advts:
    Classifieds | Jobs | Obituary | Updates: Breaking News |


  • News Update



    The Hindu Group: Home | About Us | Copyright | Archives | Contacts | Subscription
    Group Sites: The Hindu | Business Line | Sportstar | Frontline | Publications | eBooks | Images | Home |

    Copyright © 2006, The Hindu. Republication or redissemination of the contents of this screen are expressly prohibited without the written consent of The Hindu