Neeraj Rohmetra
JAMMU, Nov 9: The issue pertaining to constitution of a House Committee by Legislative Council Chairman to inquire into allegations against the Minister for PHE, Irrigation and Flood Control Taj Mohi-ud-Din has embroiled into a major political controversy with two of its members submitting their resignations to the Chairman today.
Besides, Leader of the Upper House and Medical Education Minister R S Chib has written a formal letter addressed to Legislative Council Chairman, Amrit Malhotra to quash the House panel probing allegations against the Minister. Further, eight members of the Legislative Council belonging to the Upper House have also submitted a written request to the Chairman to review his decision.
The House Committee had comprised People’s Democratic Party (PDP) MLC – Murtaza Ahmad Khan as Chairman and four other members – Syed Rafiq Shah (Panther’s Party), Bashir Ahmad Magray (Congress) and Dr Bashir Ahmad Shah (Veeri), Khalid Najib Suhrawardy (both from National Conference).
Political analysts are peeved over the fact that two members of the House Committee – Bashir Ahmad Shah and Khalid Najib Suhrawardy, who have submitted their resignation belonged to the ruling party (NC) and still have chosen to oppose the decision of constitution of Committee against Congress Minister — Taj Mohi-ud-Din. However, Bashir Ahmad Magray – the lone member belonging to the Congress party in the panel has not resigned.
“These political developments have also brought to the fore the deep factionalism within the Congress ranks once again”, commented analysts.
The resignation letter, which has been submitted by the NC legislators to the Legislative Council Chairman says, “we undersigned offer resignation as members of the House Committee constituted by you for investigating the matter pertaining to Taj Mohi-ud-Din, Minister for PHE, Irrigation and Flood Control. We uphold great moral propriety in public life and in favour of accountability of public servants”.
“However, the formation of the House Committee is in violation of certain Constitutional provisions and is also against the principle of justice”, the letter added.
Sources in Legislative Council confirmed that Minister for Medication Education, R S Chib in his letter written on 7th November has also vehemently opposed the constitution of the House Committee.
While claiming that the process of constitution of the House Committee is heading towards Constitutional crisis in the State, the Minister’s letter says, “the order for constitution of a House Committee for investigation of the issue raised while replying/discussion to the Starred Question has been passed in spite of the vehement opposition by Minister for Law, Justice & Parliamentary Affairs, Ali Mohammad Sagar; Minister for Forest & Environment, Mian Altaf, majority of the sitting members present in the House at the time of discussion including undersigned, as Leader of House, MLCs Khalid Najeeb Suharwardy and Naresh Gupta”.
“The House Committee, if necessary, has to be constituted against the Department to whom the Question under reference pertains and not against a sitting Cabinet Minister, which looks quite contrary to the Parliamentary procedure. Also, both the complainant (Syed Rafiq Shah) and lone supporter has been included in the House Committee, which seems that the Committee itself shall act as Prosecutor, Judge and the Jury, therefore, defeating basic tenets of natural justice”, the letter said.
The documents further read: “That the mute question under discussion was whether the Minister, Taj Mohi-ud-Din is in possession of forest land or not but it appeared that the Committee so constituted has crossed its mandate and has started asking Assembly Secretariat to provide property statements of Minister and has even asked Commissioner/Secretary, Revenue Department to furnish details of his land at various locations across the State, which has nothing to do with the present enquiry to be conducted by the Committee. It seems that all this is being done for unknown reasons and may unnecessary malign the public image of the sitting Cabinet Minister”.
“In view of the above discussions, it is requested to kindly examine the whole issue and explore the possibility of rescinding the order which have been issued for the constitution of the House Committee”, the letter concluded.
Minister for Law and Parliamentary Affairs, Ali Mohammad Sagar confirmed to EXCELSIOR that he had opposed the decision to constitute the House Committee on the issue. “On that day in the Upper House, I had requested the Chairman not to do so and suggested that the Committees shouldn’t be constituted on each and every issue. Certain matters should be left to the Government in the best interest of Executive and the Legislature”.
“Further, the Committee is generally constituted against a Department and not against any particular individual as is the case”, he said when asked to comment on the matter.
Constitutional experts, when consulted were unanimous in their opinion that the resignation of two members wouldn’t make any difference to the functioning of the Committee. “The Chairman of Legislative Council has powers to reconstitute the Committee and include new members, if some of them choose to resign. Further, the necessary quorum required only three members and the resignation of two members wouldn’t’ make any difference”.
Meanwhile, eight Members of the Legislative Council (MLCs), who belonged to the Congress party have submitted a joint letter to the Chairman requesting review of his order for constitution of a House Committee.
The signatories to the joint letter included B R Kundal, Naresh Kumar Gupta, Mohammad Amin Bhat, Haji Ali Mohammad Bhat, Jehangir Mir, Jugal Kishore, Subhash Chander Gupta and Narboo Gyaltson.
The letter submitted by the eight MLCs to the Chairman says, “the constitution of the House Committee on a deferred question is in violation of the Rule 27 of the Legislative Business. As such, Chairman is requested upon to either revoke or review its decision of constitution of a House Committee”.
However, Constitutional experts differ on interpretation of the Rules 27 and commented that the Rule only deals with what type of questions are allowed to be asked during business and has nothing to do with House Committee. “The Rule only dwells about the type of question one can ask, the length of question and similar query ought not to have been asked within the last one year”.
In the meantime, Minister for PHE, Taj Mohi-ud-Din has in his latest communiqué to the Chairman Legislative Council submitted fresh set of land documents for record. “I have sent documents for the past several years pertaining to the land in question and this shall help to further resolve the issue”, said the Minister while talking to EXCELSIOR.
Sources stated that the Minister had submitted Intikhab Girdawari and a communication of Divisional Forest Officer for perusal of the Chairman.
The Legislative Council Chairman had constituted a five-member House panel on October 11 to go into allegations against Taj afer the issue was raised by Panthers Party MLC, Rafiq Shah. But, Taj had termed these allegations baseless and had offered to quit from Council of Ministers, if allegations against him were proved.
Trending Now
E-Paper
Follow our WhatsApp channel