Goa Pradesh Congress Committee (GPCC) President Shantaram Naik on Monday alleged that one of the grounds taken by Rajya Sabha Chairman Venkaiah Naidu in his order passed in case of impeachment of Chief Justice of India Deepak Mishra was ‘ridiculous’.
In a statement here, Naik, who has been Chairman of the Standing Committee of Rajya Sabha of Law and Justice in the past said, “One of the grounds taken by the Chairman in para 20 of his order, passed in case of impeachment of Chief Justice of India Deepak Mishra, is ridiculous as, most of the times, members of Rajya Sabha give advance publicity to the contents of their notices, submitted to the Rajya Sabha Secretariat, more particularly, matters which are sensitive and involve public interest.”
“The directions of the Chairman of the Rajya Sabha (57082) stated that as per parliamentary customs and conventions, a notice for raising a matter in the House should not be given publicity by any member or other person until it has been admitted by the Chairman and circulated to members. A member should not raise the issue of a notice given by him and pending consideration of the Chairman…,” the Congress leader said, adding but despite the direction, he himself had mentioned about his notices, given against Prime Minister Narendra Modi, the then Defence Minister Manohar Parrikar, Shipping Minister Nitin Gadkari and others and, the Chair had never objected to such publicity.
A number of leaders of present ruling party, when they were in opposition, left no opportunity to give advance publicity to their notices, Naik alleged.
“Present Chairman, when he was one of the ministers in NDA Government, used to raise matters in the Rajya Sabha even without giving required notice. Directions issued by the Chairman cannot be equated to the Rules of procedure of the House, as direction itself says, as per parliamentary practices and conventions,” Naik said.
He said as regards other grounds taken by the Chairman, the Chairman’s duty was only to confirm whether 50 members had signed the notice and whether charges were such which were required to be gone into.
“Thereafter, the Chairman should have admitted the notice and constituted a three member committee as required under section 3 of the Judges Inquiry Act, 1968. It was improper for the Chairman himself to assume the role of three member committee, which the Chairman conveniently avoided to constitute,” he alleged.