HP assembly monsoon session: Opposition's adjournment motion on disaster accepted
The acceptance of the motion marked a rare moment of agreement between the treasury benches and opposition benches, even as sharp exchanges over relief measures, compensation, and the government's handling of post-disaster challenges were witnessed.
Leader of Opposition Jai Ram Thakur had earlier announced that the BJP would bring a 'kaam roko' (adjournment) motion on the very first day of the session to focus attention on the large-scale damage caused by landslides, flash floods, and heavy rains. The government on Monday accepted the motion, paving the way for a full debate.
Chief minister Sukhvinder Singh Sukhu, while addressing the House, said the government was ready for discussion on the issue of disaster management and relief. 'The government is fully prepared to respond. The Opposition has brought the adjournment motion, and we welcome a meaningful discussion. We also appeal to BJP members to participate in the entire debate instead of staging a walkout midway,' the CM said.
On its part, the ruling Congress MLAs also submitted notices under Rule 130 to initiate discussion on the same subject. Parliamentary Affairs Minister Harshwardhan Chauhan clarified that these notices would be clubbed with the opposition's adjournment motion so that all perspectives could be taken up together.
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Hindustan Times
an hour ago
- Hindustan Times
New bills will ensure morality, probity: BJP
New Delhi : The Bharatiya Janata Party on Wednesday said the three bills moved by union home minister Amit Shah in the Lok Sabha that seek the removal of the Prime Minister or chief ministers facing corruption or serious offences if they remain in detention for 30 consecutive days, are intended at ensuring 'morality and probity' in public life. Proceedings of the Lok Sabha underway during the Monsoon Session of Parliament, in New Delhi on Wednesday.(Sansad TV/ANI) The party also underlined how its own leaders, from LK Advani to Amit Shah, had stepped down from their positions when they faced allegations of 'corruption and other charges.' 'When the bill was first drafted the PM's office was kept out of the ambit, but PM Modi insisted that the bill should include the head of the union government as well. Where is the question of any political witch hunt?The provisions of the bills are in line with the anti corruption agenda and will apply to all equally,' said a senior party leader, speaking on condition of anonymity. A second party functionary said that the Congress and other opposition parties should 'clearly state the reasons for their opposition to the bill…and whether they support a government being run from behind the bars,' While the opposition joined forces to criticise the bills, dubbing them as undemocratic and against the tenets of federalism -- they see this as a way for the BJP to topple state governments -- the BJP asserted that the move was line with the government's anti corruption agenda and not intended as a tool for vendetta. Amid disruption and protest by the opposition, Shah introduced the Constitution (One Hundred and Thirtieth Amendment) Bill, 2025. The bill seeks to remove the Prime Minister or chief ministers facing corruption or serious offence charges if they remain in detention for 30 consecutive days. He also introduced the Jammu and Kashmir Reorganisation (Amendment) Bill, 2025; since there is no provision under the Jammu and Kashmir Reorganisation Act, 2019 (34 of 2019) for such a measure, Section 54 of the Act, needs to be amended to provide a legal framework for the removal of the Chief Minister or a minister in these cases. And he introduced the Government of Union Territories (Amendment) Bill, 2025, which extends the same law to UTs. Senior BJP leaders explained that the bills which have been referred to a joint parliamentary committee that will present its report on the first day of the next session will ensure there is no recurrence of events where a minister or a CM, refused to step down even as charges were framed against them. A third senior party leader, cited the example of former Delhi CM and Aam Aadmi Party leader Arvind Kejriwal who was in prison for nearly six months in 2024 in the corruption case lodged by the CBI in connection with the excise policy 'scam', as an example of impropriety. 'There was this case of a sitting CM who was in jail and on August 15, another leader had to step in to unfurl the National Flag… it was against public morality,' added the third leader. On the timing of the Bill, the second leader said the government had thought of bringing the bill soon after Kejriwal's arrest, but decided against it, because it did not want the opposition to paint it as 'a political move to remove Kejriwal'. 'It was about the system and not the individual…' the leader said. He said there have been numerous instances where leaders who were accused of graft and other irregularities had stepped down pending a probe. 'When the Hawala Diaries were made public and LK Advani's name was mentioned, he stepped down as the party president and resigned from his Lok Sabha membership… Shah himself stepped down as minister in Gujarat and more recently Jharkhand CM, Hemant Soren stepped down as CM when he was arrested, and much earlier Lalu Prasad Yadav had to step down as Bihar CM when he was accused of the fodder scam,' the leader said. In 2024, Soren stepped down as CM following his arrest by the Enforcement Directorate (ED) in an alleged money laundering case. He went on to say that Shah did not accept any constitutional position till he was acquitted by the court in 2015. 'He could have become union minister or a Rajya Sabha member in 2014 itself, but he chose not to. He became the minister in 2017…' Speaking in the Lok Sabha, Shah referred to his own decision to step down as the home minister of Gujarat till he was cleared of all charges by the courts 'False allegations were levelled against me, and I resigned on moral grounds, and I did not take any constitutional posts until I was cleared of all charges by the courts,' Shah said. The BJP also stepped up its attack on the Congress, pointing out that the party, when it was in power, had attempted to amend the Office of Profit bill to seek exemption for the post of NAC chairperson Sonia Gandhi and several other posts from its ambit. 'When Sonia Gandhi had to resign for holding an office of profit the party tried to amend the provisions. Instead of leading by example and walking the talk on probity and public morality they chose to alter the rules,' the first leader quoted above said. In 2006, Gandhi had to resign as Lok Sabha MP after being accused of holding an office of profit by being a Member of Parliament as well as the Chairperson of the National Advisory Council, which was a post with the rank of a Cabinet minister. Responding to a question whether the government was confident of getting the numbers to pass the bill, the second leader said, 'We don't have the numbers, but we decided to send it to the JPC so that there can be discussion on the bill…Let the opposition stall its passage and explain to the people why they did so.' The BJP also dismissed the opposition's claims that the provisions were violative of the constitution. Responding to AIMIM chief Asasduddin Owaisi's charge that the bills violate the principle of separation of powers and undermine the right of the people to elect a government, the second leader said the bills state that the offences should carry a jail term of five years or more, which implies it will be implemented only in serious cases. 'Thirty days is sufficient time for the courts to consider and pass judgment…the bill also says that the dismissed minister or CM can be appointed again after their release. Where does it undermine the democratic process?'
Hindustan Times
an hour ago
- Hindustan Times
Papers hurled at Amit Shah, MPs stage protests in Lok Sabha
The Lok Sabha on Wednesday witnessed vigorous protests by the Opposition that nearly led to a scuffle between government ministers and senior Opposition leaders prompted the entry of 15 marshals, and forced Union home minister Amit Shah to change his seat during the introduction of three bills that seek to bar ministers, chief ministers or the Prime Minister from holding office after being arrested for serious crimes. A scrap of paper thrown in front of Union Home Minister Amit Shah in the Lok Sabha, in New Delhi on Wednesday.(PTI) When Shah tried to introduce the 130th constitution amendment bill and two other related bills at 2pm, a number of Opposition MPs, especially from Trinamool Congress (TMC), rushed to the Well to protest against the proposed law, even as a verbal duel started between the minister and some Opposition leaders over the merit of the bill. Soon, things took a turn for the worse. Congress leader KC Venugopal tore apart a copy of the bill as he accused the government of trying to target the Opposition. TMC's Kalyan Banerjee, who was standing in front of Shah, turned around and tried to use the home minister's microphone to oppose the bill. Soon, a few other TMC MPs came close to Shah and started throwing papers in front of the minister. Parliamentary affairs minister Kiren Rijiju, who was seated on the second row, rushed to stand between the protestors and Shah. Minister of state Ravneet Singh Bittu also came running down. Bittu later told HT that the Opposition committed a shameful act and even blamed the 'infighting' in the TMC for the aggravated situation that saw different leaders of TMC protesting in their own way. Bittu said, 'I rushed because I feared they might harm our home minister.' The TMC later alleged that some of the women MPs were 'assaulted' by Rijiju and Bittu. 'MP Mitali Bag confirmed this to the media. Also, Satabdi Roy was pushed and heckled,' a leader aware of the matter said. The Bharatiya Janata Party refuted these allegations. At 3 pm, when the House reassembled after an adjournment, Shah sat in the fourth row and introduced the bill amid another round of protests. At least 15 marshals also came inside the House and as soon as the protests restarted, they rushed to the well to protect the treasury bench. Lok Sabha Speaker Om Birla sent them back as the Opposition raised objections over their deployment. The Leader of the Opposition in the Lok Sabha, Rahul Gandhi, said, 'There is a lot of action going on about the new bill that the BJP is proposing. We are going back to medieval times when the king could just remove anybody at will. There's no concept of what an elected person is. He doesn't like your face, so he tells ED to put a case, and then a democratically elected person is wiped out within 30 days.' West Bengal chief minister Mamata Banerjee said, 'I condemn the 130th Constitutional Amendment Bill, proposed to be tabled, by the Government of India today. I condemn it as a step towards something that is more than a super- Emergency, a step to end the democratic era of India for ever. This draconian step comes as a death knell for democracy and federalism in India.' TMC's Mahua Moitra took jibes at Shah for sitting in a middle row. 'India watched how Amit Shah did not have courage to sit in his own seat to bring in his Unconstitutional Amendment. Even with 20 extra marshals protecting him, he cowardly sat in fourth row!' To be sure, when the Women's Reservation Bill was first introduced in the Rajya Sabha in 2010, similar protests had erupted in the Upper House. It is not the first time that a minister sat in a middle row to table a contentious bill to avoid any harm or escalation of protests.
Indian Express
an hour ago
- Indian Express
HC suspends conviction of Abbas Ansari in hate speech case: ‘refusal to do so also amounts to injustice to his electorate'
The Allahabad High Court on Wednesday suspended the conviction of Abbas Ansari, the son of gangster-politician Mukhtar Abbas Ansari, in a three-year-old hate speech case, saying 'refusal to stay his conviction amounts to injustice not only to him but also to the electorate which elected him'. Abbas Ansari, who was elected from the Mau Assembly seat in 2022 Uttar Pradesh elections, was sentenced to two years of rigorous imprisonment in May this year, leading to his disqualification from the membership of the House. The 33-year-old was booked on March 3, 2022, for his campaign speech in which he had allegedly threatened to 'teach a lesson' to the administrative officials of Mau after the elections. On May 31 this year, a court in Mau convicted him and sentenced him to two years of imprisonment, leading to his disqualification from the UP Assembly. He then challenged the order in the sessions court, which on July 5 stayed the sentence but declined to stay the conviction. He then appealed in the Allahabad High Court. In his order, Justice Sameer Jain of the Allahabad High Court cited the 2024 Supreme Court order against disqualifaction of Congress leader Rahul Gandhi (Rahul Gandhi Vs Purnesh Ishwarbhai Modi, 2024), saying 'disqualification of a person not only affect the right of public representative to continue in the public life but also affect the right of electorate who have elected him to represent their constituency'. '… (Abbas Ansari) was a sitting MLA and at the time of election he was delivering the speech, and although being an MLA, he should restraint himself but merely on delivering such speech… refusal to stay his conviction in view of this Court amounts to injustice not only to the revisionist (Ansari) but also to the electorate who elected him. It appears, while refusing the prayer to stay the conviction, appellate court (sessions court) did not consider this aspect,' the order stated. 'Further, non-suspending the conviction… indicates far-reaching consequences… He not only remained disqualified, but also remained disqualified to contest the future election,' the court said. The order further stated that the purpose of the introduction of Section 8 of the Representation of the People Act 'is to resolve the issue of criminalisation of politics and to depoliticising criminality.' '…but while deciding the issue at hand, it is also necessary to consider the other facts and circumstances of the case like what are the actual allegations against the person who has been disqualified due to his conviction and whether his criminal antecedents of such nature which threatens the very idea of democracy,' Justice Jain added in the order. Setting aside the July order of the sessions court, Justice Jain in his order said: 'Considering the overall facts and circumstances of the case including the political background of the revisionist and his family, facts of the present case and his criminal antecedents, this Court is of the view that it is not a case in which prayer to suspend the conviction of the revisionist should be refused.' '…the impugned order dated 5.7.2025 passed by learned appellate court is illegal and is liable to be set aside… The conviction order passed by trial court against the revisionist (Abbas Ansari) shall remain suspended during the pendency of his appeal before the appellate court,' the High Court ordered, adding, 'the instant revision filed by revisionist (Abbas Ansari) stands allowed'. The High Court also made it clear that the observation made by his court was only for the purpose whether the conviction order can be stayed or not during the pendency of the appeal. 'The appellate court shall not be influenced from any observation made in this order and shall decide the appeal of the revisionist independently in accordance with law,' the High Court added. In his revision petition filed in the High Court, Abbas Ansari submitted that due to the conviction order passed by the trial court, he has been disqualified as a sitting MLA, and therefore, the case fell under the category of 'rare and exceptional' cases. He argued that the appellate (sessions) court should have stayed his conviction order, but the 'learned appellate court refused to stay the conviction and therefore committed gross illegality'. He also submitted that due to the refusal of the appellate court in granting a stay on his conviction, his entire political career was adversely affected. He also added that due to his conviction, he has also been disqualified from contesting elections for six years. In his petition before the High Court, Ansari stated that out of 11 cases, proceedings of three cases have been quashed, including a case related to the UP Gangsters Act, and in another case he was convicted, but granted bail, and his appeal is pending. The counsel appearing on behalf of the UP governmnent vehemently opposed his plea and submitted that Ansari committed offences under sections 171 F, 153A and 189 of the IPC, and 'considering the entire evidence produced by prosecution, prima facie, it cannot be said that the trial court wrongly convicted him'. Abbas's younger brother, Umar Ansari, who is also an accused in the same case, is pending in the court.
