The Hindu : Opinion / Letters to the Editor : On disqualification

Online edition of India's National Newspaper
Thursday, Jul 31, 2008
ePaper | Mobile/PDA Version

Opinion

Opinion - Letters to the Editor

On disqualification

The article “Case for Speaker’s disqualification” (July 30) throws light on an interesting aspect. But it is difficult to accept the argument that the Lok Sabha Speaker, Somnath Chatterjee, ‘voluntarily gave up’ his membership of the CPI(M) by his tacit refusal to resign as Speaker following the party’s withdrawal of support to the UPA government. It would have been tenable only if Mr. Chatterjee had resigned from the membership of the CPI(M) any time after he was elected Speaker.

His refusal to comply with the instruction of his party to resign as Speaker cannot be construed as his ‘voluntarily giving up’ of the party membership. As far as the deeming provision in paragraph 2(1)(a) of the Tenth Schedule is concerned, in my opinion, it can be invoked for his disqualification only if he joins some other political party while continuing as Speaker. More important than the constitutional case for or against the Speaker’s disqualification, one should substantively look at the manner in which he has discharged his constitutional duties.

C.H. Mahadevan,

Hyderabad

* * *

The argument for Mr. Chatterjee’s disqualification, citing the case of Dr. L.P. Barbosa, makes interesting reading. The Speaker is a constitutional office and has a well-defined mode of election and removal. Persons holding constitutional positions are not bound by any party statute.

G. Narayanasamy,

New Delhi

* * *

The CPI(M) asked Mr. Chatterjee to give up his post but it did not issue a whip asking him to vote in a particular manner. The Speaker could have voted only in case of a tie. So there was only a theoretical possibility of his voting. When the CPI(M) did not issue a whip to the Speaker as a member of the party, where is the question of disqualifying him?

The turning down of a request or directive to resign as Speaker from the party on whose ticket he was elected MP is not sufficient ground to invoke the provisions of the anti-defection law.

Daman Prakash Rathod,

Chennai

* * *

It was the CPI(M) that pushed hard to elevate Mr. Chatterjee to the high office, well knowing that he would be committed to rising above partisan considerations in all matters relating to parliamentary affairs.

Having done so, it was not justified in expecting him to act in a manner it wanted.

P. Zachariah,

Vellore

* * *

The office of Speaker is non-partisan. He cannot be subjected to the disciplinary control of any political party from the time he assumes office.

Far from attracting disqualification, Mr. Chatterjee’s role during the debate on the confidence motion is worthy of praise as it has helped to strengthen the healthy parliamentary tradition of neutrality of the Speaker.

M. Jameel Ahmed,

Mysore

* * *

Had Mr. Chatterjee resigned at the time of the confidence vote, the country would have faced a huge crisis. His decision helped to avoid chaos.

S. Jenish,

Coimbatore

* * *

If Mr. Chatterjee voluntarily forfeited his membership of the CPI(M), what was the need for the party to expel him? Casting a vote is an extraordinary device that the Speaker uses only when there is a deadlock in the House.

P.P. Sudhakaran,

Bangalore

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

Opinion

News Update

Stories in this Section

Arrest this negative trend

Wetlands and climate change

If you are an Iraqi, how do I kill thee?

Kosambi and the discourse of civilization

Breaking the secret safe of Lake Baikal

How they fought for a photo-op with Obama

Corrections and clarifications