M A I N   N E W S

Rebel Akalis reply to notices
Tribune News service

CHANDIGARH, May 10 — The “rebel” Akali MLAs today submitted separate but identical replies to the show-cause notices served on them by the Speaker of the Punjab Vidhan Sabha on April 29.

These replies were filed in response to the petition against them by certain ruling Akali Dal MLAs, who had sought their “disqualification” as members of the Vidhan Sabha.

While all 10 MLAs were present along with their lawyer, a former Punjab Speaker, Mr Ravi Inder Singh, was represented by his lawyer.

The Speaker, Mr Charanjit Singh Atwal, whom the MLAs met in his chamber, has fixed May 26 as the next date for “further proceedings”. He had not expected that all 11 MLAs would file their replies today, the last date to do so but had expected extension in time by them.

At the very outset the Speaker was put on the defensive when he was bluntly told that he was acting both “prosecutor” and the “judge” in this case since he already had played a partisan role by being a member of the Akali Party’s Political Affairs Committee as well as the Working Committee, which had decided, in principle, to “disqualify” the rebel MLAs.

This point has been mentioned even in the replies filed before him. In fact the reply mentions the date, May 14, 1999, when at a “secret” meeting held at the residence (House No. 296 , Sector 10, Chandigarh) of Mr Ravi Inder Singh, he along with others, including the Punjab Advocate-General, Mr Hardev Singh Mattewal, had decided, in principle, on the direction of the Akali Dal President, Mr Parkash Singh Badal, to “disqualify” the “rebel” Akali MLAs by invoking the provisions of the 10th Schedule.

In fact a former Advocate-General of Punjab, Mr G.S. Grewal, who represented Mr Ravi Inder Singh, maintained that now it was for the Speaker to prove his “impartiality” since circumstantial evidence showed his being a party to the whole issue. Mr Grewal also said that Press clippings could not be taken as “evidence” and the same had to be proved.

Another point mentioned was that the petition against the 11 MLAs was submitted by ordinary MLAs, who had no locus standi in the Akali Dal constitution. They were not even authorised by the Akali Dal President to move such a petition.

Since the Speaker was stated to be “privy” to the deliberations and decisions taken in June 1999 to disqualify the respondents, hence, it was abundantly clear that the whole exercise was being done with a predetermined mind and bias and the decision on the petition appeared to be a foregone conclusion, said the reply.

The reply, inter alia, defends “healthy” criticism of the government on the floor of the Vidhan Sabha and says that nowhere and in no manner, have the respondents spoken against the government policies and programmes.

Those who submitted their replies included, Mr Mahesh Inder Singh Grewal, Mr Manjit Singh Calcutta, Mr Harmel Singh Tohra, Mr Inderjit Singh Zira, Mr Hira Singh Gabria, Mr Surjit Singh Kohli, Mr Bikramjit Singh Khalsa, Mr G.S. Sidhu, Mrs Daljit Kaur and Mr Jagtar Singh Rajla. They had their counsel, Mr Mohan Lal Saggar, with them while Mr Grewal, representing Mr Ravi Inder Singh, had Mr R.S. Randhawa with him.

It was repeatedly contended that decision of the Speaker was hasty.