M A I N   N E W S

Adjournment motion on Ayodhya rejected
Tribune News Service

New Delhi, July 23
Lok Sabha Speaker Manohar Joshi today rejected an Opposition-sponsored adjournment motion on the issue of “dropping” of conspiracy charge by the CBI against Deputy Prime Minister L K Advani and seven others in the Ayodhya case after a belligerent Opposition attacked the government for “pressurising” the investigating agency to protect them.

In his ruling on the admissibility of the motion, the Speaker observed that he would allow a short-duration discussion on it, provided the members refrained from raising issues which were being adjudicated by the Rae Bareilly court. The Speaker decided to allow a short debate on the admissibility of the motion after a two-day ruckus over the issue.

The Speaker’s ruling came after a two-hour-long acrimonious and noisy debate. The high points of the Speaker’s ruling are as follows:

* Speaker not inclined to admit the motion as the government has disputed the contention of the Opposition which said the CBI was misused to drop conspiracy charges against union ministers L.K. Advani and Murli Manohar Joshi and other leaders.

* Notice on adjournment motion, under Rule 53, should be on matters of urgent importance and should relate to recent happenings not pending in any court. But in this case, it is sub judice and the court is yet to frame the charges.

* The issue of framing charges under specific offences ought to be decided by the court and not by this House.

* If a discussion takes place in the House on this matter by way of an adjournment motion culminating in a decision by the House, the possibility of the court being influenced thereby cannot be ruled out.

* The notices for adjournment motion were based on press reports and unless they were admitted by the government, they could not be accepted as authoritative for the purpose of an adjournment motion.

The Speaker said if the House agreed, he was prepared to allow a short-duration discussion on the matter as it would not culminate in a decision by the House.

“During the discussion, whenever it takes place, the members would, however, keep this in mind and not say anything which would influence the court in its consideration of the matter,” Mr Joshi observed.

The opposition which contested every point of Mr Jaitley, staged a walkout after the Speaker’s ruling, accusing the government of misleading the House.

Mr Joshi asked the members not to raise matters during the debate which were being currently adjudicated before the Rae Bareilly court.

Opposition members, including Mr P.R. Dasmunsi (Congress) and Mr Somnath Chatterjee (CPM), asked the government to clarify whether the CBI had ever sought the inclusion of Section 120 (B) of the IPC (criminal conspiracy) against Mr Advani, M.M. Joshi and others in the case.

“Who has omitted the charge under Section 120(B)...this an executive act...who is incharge of the CBI,” Mr Chatterjee said in an apparent pointer to Prime Minister Atal Bihari Vajpayee under whom the CBI is functioning.

Responding to the arguments put forward by the Opposition, Law Minister Arun Jaitley asserted that the February 27, 1993 chargesheet against Mr Advani and others never contained the conspiracy charge. The charge was sought to be included in a joint chargesheet involving 49 individuals, including Mr Advani and others filed before a Lucknow court later and the merger of two chargesheets was rejected by the Allahabad High Court.

Mr Jaitley told the House that the matter was sub judice and Parliament had no jurisdiction to have a “parallel debate” on what charges the judiciary should frame. He said this was solely the prerogative of the court.

Mr Jaitley was supported by his ministerial colleague, Ms Sushma Swaraj in contending that there was no dilution of charges against Mr Advani and others.

In an apparent dig at the opposition, he said the first chargesheet in the case filed on February 27, 1993, by the Uttar Pradesh Criminal Investigation Department, did not contain the charge of criminal conspiracy. “At that time there was no Mayawati or Rajnath government. But the state was under President’s rule and an eminent Congress leader was the Governor”, he said.

After the 2001 judgement of the Allahabad High Court rejecting clubbing of two chargesheets before the Lucknow court, Mr Jaitley said what the CBI had done on May 31 this year was only to revise the original chargesheet against Mr Advani and others which did not contain the conspiracy charge.

The Opposition accused Mr Jaitley of avoiding reply to its specific query whether the CBI had at any stage sought to incorporate conspiracy charge against Mr Advani and others.

Congress member P.R. Dasmunsi, who moved the adjournment motion, said the government was misleading the House and cited a number of precedents since 1961 when matters had been taken up for discussion in this House even though they were sub judice. He mentioned Bofors and JMM bribery cases to drive home his point.

Mr Somnath Chatterjee said the chargesheet was filed by the CBI on May 31 this year and later Section 120 (B) was dropped.