Thiruvananthapuram: Opposition leader and Speaker once again created ruckus in the Assembly over the MLA’s refusal to quash the financial fraud charges leveled against the opposition leader. PV Anwar.
Anwar actually made allegations of financial fraud VD Satisan During the discussion on a bill in the House on Wednesday. Since the Speaker was not in the chair at the time, it was ruled that the objections raised by the opposition against Anwar’s allegations would be looked into and the verdict would be delivered later. It was K Babu who on Wednesday raised the issue of arrangement against the allegations made by Anwar without giving written notice.
Speaker MB Rajesh on Thursday gave an opportunity to the opposition leader to make his stand clear. Referring to Rule 285, the Speaker said that no allegation of defamatory or objectionable nature shall be made by a member against any person, unless the member has given previous notice, adding that oral information is also a form of information. form and “if the speaker is satisfied, that oral information is sufficient.” He ruled that such information received by the speaker should be conveyed only to the ministers.
However, the opposition leader questioned the Speaker’s decision citing the provisions of the same Rule 285. He said that this rule is applicable to all the members of the House. Satisan said there was no truth to Anwar’s allegations that he was involved in some money chain fraud case in the early 90s. He said the government was free to conduct any kind of investigation and called the allegations baseless.
Despite repeated demands by the opposition leader, the speaker refused to remove the allegations made by Anwar from the assembly records. As Speaker refuses to budge, former opposition leader Ramesh Chennithala Said that if there was a previous decision which prevented the Speaker from deleting the comments, it would be better if the Speaker set aside the previous decision.
Soon after the debate on the allegations, the opposition staged a second walkout from the House to protest the government’s refusal to discuss over 650 amendments recommended by opposition members to the University Laws (Amendment) Bills.
Anwar actually made allegations of financial fraud VD Satisan During the discussion on a bill in the House on Wednesday. Since the Speaker was not in the chair at the time, it was ruled that the objections raised by the opposition against Anwar’s allegations would be looked into and the verdict would be delivered later. It was K Babu who on Wednesday raised the issue of arrangement against the allegations made by Anwar without giving written notice.
Speaker MB Rajesh on Thursday gave an opportunity to the opposition leader to make his stand clear. Referring to Rule 285, the Speaker said that no allegation of defamatory or objectionable nature shall be made by a member against any person, unless the member has given previous notice, adding that oral information is also a form of information. form and “if the speaker is satisfied, that oral information is sufficient.” He ruled that such information received by the speaker should be conveyed only to the ministers.
However, the opposition leader questioned the Speaker’s decision citing the provisions of the same Rule 285. He said that this rule is applicable to all the members of the House. Satisan said there was no truth to Anwar’s allegations that he was involved in some money chain fraud case in the early 90s. He said the government was free to conduct any kind of investigation and called the allegations baseless.
Despite repeated demands by the opposition leader, the speaker refused to remove the allegations made by Anwar from the assembly records. As Speaker refuses to budge, former opposition leader Ramesh Chennithala Said that if there was a previous decision which prevented the Speaker from deleting the comments, it would be better if the Speaker set aside the previous decision.
Soon after the debate on the allegations, the opposition staged a second walkout from the House to protest the government’s refusal to discuss over 650 amendments recommended by opposition members to the University Laws (Amendment) Bills.
.