Chandigarh, October 30
If October 15, when five innocent Dalits were lynched to death at Dulina in Jhajjar district, was a day of national shame, today was a day of state shame. The Haryana Assembly did not even discuss the barbarious act. The Treasury Benches took shelter behind “misinterpreted technicalities” to prevent the Opposition from having its say on the incident. Of course, the House mourned their death in a five-line resolution.

The Speaker, Mr Satbir Singh Kadian, found the ground to reject the Opposition-sponsored adjournment motions in the language of the motion. The mistake of the Opposition, if any, was that it did not keep its focus only on the Dulina incident. It combined certain other crimes like murders and the rape and murder of a minor with the Dulina incident. Mr Kadian took the plea that since in the explanatory note to the motions, the Opposition had identified the rape victim, it had violated Section 228A of the IPC, which prohibits the disclosure of the identity of a victim of a sexual offence. He, therefore, rejected the adjournment motions, much to the chagrin of the Opposition, which vociferously protested against his ruling. However, the Speaker expunged most of what was said by the Opposition.

When Mr Bansi Lal (HVP) wanted to know how his adjournment motion violated Rules 66 and 67 of the Haryana Assembly Business Rules on adjournment motions, the Speaker again took shelter behind Section 228A. The Parliamentary Affairs Minister, Prof Sampat Singh, defended the Speaker’s ruling and read out Section 228A, which prescribes a jail term extending to two years for the violators.

However, he did not take the challenge of the Leader of the Opposition, Mr Bhupinder Singh Hooda, who dared him to register a criminal case against the Opposition members. Unable to move the speaker, the Opposition staged a walkout.

In the absence of the Opposition, Prof Sampat Singh alleged that the language of the explanatory memo was such which showed that the Opposition was “anti-women and anti-Dalit”. But when the Opposition rejoined the proceedings, Mr Hooda’s allegations that the government was “anti-..., anti-...” were expunged by the Speaker.

Section 228A was incorporated in the IPC by the Criminal Law Amendment, 1983, when the late Giani Zail Singh was the Union Home Minister to prevent social victimisation or ostracism of the victim of a sexual offence. The section, which says that “whoever prints or publishes the name...shall be punished with imprisonment...”, was primarily aimed at the media. It was incorporated on the demand of several women’s organisations so that the victims were not deterred from seeking justice by unnecessary publicity. It was never meant to prevent representatives of the people from discussing gross injustice to their electors.

After the House adjourned for the day after passing seven Bills, including those on allowing gambling and opening of casinos in the state, in a “tearing hurry”. The Opposition demand for a debate on the Bills was brushed aside by Deputy Speaker, Gopi Chand Gehlot with ruling party members smiling in their seats. In an unprecedented move former Chief Minister, Bansi Lal, who is known as the stickler for House decorum, moved to well of the House to request the Deputy Speaker to allow the Opposition to speak on the Bill relating to the establishment of the casinos. His plea fell on deaf ears.

Mr Gehlot put the Bill to voice vote and adjourned the House for the day amidst protests from the Opposition.

Later, at a hurriedly convened meeting, the entire Opposition decided to move a no-confidence motion against the Government tomorrow. A notice for the no-confidence motion signed by 23 MLAs was submitted to the Speaker’s office.

Mr Hooda, Mr Bhajan Lal and Mr Bansi Lal criticised the government for “strangulating democracy”. Mr Karan Singh Dalal (RPI) said going by the interpretation of Section 228A by Mr Kadian and Prof Sampat Singh, even the trial of sexual offenders would become impossible.