Resolution for his removal: Speaker Birla to be present in House but not chair proceedings
New Delhi (PTI): The Lok Sabha will witness a rare moment most likely on Monday next when Om Birla will not chair proceedings but will be seated amongst the members as the House takes up a notice seeking his removal from office.
As Parliament meets for the second phase of the Budget session on March 9, the Lok Sabha is likely to take up the resolution moved by the opposition against Birla's for allegedly acting in a "blatantly partisan" manner.
According to the rules and laid down procedure, Birla will get a right to defend himself when the resolution is discussed by the lower house. He will also have the right to vote against the resolution, Constitution expert P D T Achary explained.
The expert said while Birla will not chair the proceedings when the resolution comes up before the House, he will be seated in the prominent rows in the Treasury benches.
At least 118 opposition members had submitted a notice for moving the resolution to remove Birla from office for not allowing Leader of Opposition (LoP) Rahul Gandhi and other opposition leaders to speak in the House on the Motion of Thanks to the President's address, as well as for suspending eight MPs.
Congress member and chief whip K Suresh submitted the notice to the Lok Sabha secretariat on behalf of several opposition parties, including his party, Samajwadi Party and DMK.
TMC MPs, however, did not sign the notice.
ALSO READ: Curbs on movement, assembly remain in force in Kashmir after protests against Khamenei's killing
Achary, a former Lok Sabha secretary general, told PTI, that the "allocation of the seat, which the Speaker occupies under such circumstances is not mentioned in the Rules".
He said Birla will also not be able to vote on the resolution using the automated vote system, but will have to fill a slip to register his vote.
He presumes that a seat belonging to a Union minister, who is from the Rajya Sabha, could be given to him as only Lok Sabha members will be able to cast their votes for or against the resolution.
Deputy speaker of the Lok Sabha and deputy chairperson of the Rajya Sabha have their earmarked seats in their respective Houses when they are not presiding over.
Front seats in the opposition benches are allocated to them.
Article 96 of the Constitution bars a speaker or a deputy speaker from presiding over the House sitting while a resolution for his removal from office is under consideration.
The speaker has a constitutional right to defend himself in the House if the resolution is discussed in the Lok Sabha.
At least two Lok Sabha members have to sign the notice to move a resolution for the speaker's removal. Any number of members can sign the notice but a minimum of two is mandatory.
The speaker can be removed from office by a resolution passed by the House through a simple majority.
Article 94C of the Constitution has provisions for such a move.
"All the members of the House are counted to compute the majority, not the members present and voting, which is the normal practice. It means the effective membership of the House, except for the vacancies, is used to calculate the majority," Achary said.
The notice has to be submitted to the Lok Sabha secretary general, and not the deputy speaker or anyone else, he said.
The document is then examined at the preliminary stage to see whether it contains "very specific charges", he said.
"At the threshold itself, there is a process of admissibility. At that stage, it is seen whether it contains specific charges. Specific charges are required as only then the speaker will be able to respond," Achary explained.
The resolution must not contain defamatory language or content.
Article 96 gives the speaker the opportunity to defend himself or herself in the House.
The language of the proposed resolution is usually examined by the deputy speaker, but since the present Lok Sabha does not have a deputy speaker, it may be examined perhaps by the senior-most member of the panel of chairpersons.
The panel helps the speaker run the House in his or her absence.
"The speaker examining a resolution that seeks his removal looks absurd," Achary said, adding that the rule is silent on the subject.
Once the processing part is over, the resolution reaches the House. But it can go to the House after 14 days, Achary said.
The chair then places it in the House for consideration. It is actually the House which admits it, or as the rule says, "grants permission".
Achary further said, "The chair then asks members in favour of the resolution to stand up. If 50 members stand up in support of it and if the criteria is fulfilled, the Chair announces that the House has granted permission. Once the House grants permission, it has to be taken up for discussion and disposed of within 10 days."
Lok Sabha sources said it will be taken up for discussion on Monday itself.
ALSO READ: SSLC exam begins in Kerala; Education Minister wishes students success
There are precedents of resolutions being moved. However, none has been adopted so far.
"The reason -- governments have a majority," Achary said.
The resolution alleges that Speaker Birla had acted in a "blatantly partisan" manner in conducting the business of the House and "abused" the constitutional office he occupies.
The Opposition also accused the speaker of making certain false allegations against members of the Congress.
Three Lok Sabha speakers -- G V Mavlankar (1954), Hukam Singh (1966) and Balram Jakhar (1987)-- had faced no-confidence motions in the past, which were negatived.
Let the Truth be known. If you read VB and like VB, please be a VB Supporter and Help us deliver the Truth to one and all.
Congress MLA Rajendra Bharti disqualified from MP assembly after conviction in cheating case
Bhopal (PTI): Madhya Pradesh Congress MLA Rajendra Bharti has been disqualified from the state legislative assembly following his conviction in a case involving the tampering of bank records to secure illegal interest payments, officials said on Friday.
Following deliberations on the issue on Thursday night, the Vidhan Sabha authorities issued a notification annulling Bharti’s membership from the Datia assembly seat, they said.
Bharti had defeated former MP home minister Narottam Mishra of the ruling BJP from the seat in the 2023 assembly polls.
The notification, citing a Delhi court order sentencing Bharti to three years’ imprisonment and declaring the Datia seat vacant, was issued by the assembly’s principal secretary, Arvind Sharma, on the night of April 2 and released to the media on Friday morning.
A Delhi court on Thursday sentenced Bharti and a former bank employee to three years’ imprisonment in a cheating case involving the forging of bank records to obtain illegal interest payments between 1998 and 2011.
Special Judge Dig Vinay Singh also imposed a fine of Rs 1 lakh on Bharti and former cashier Raghuvir Sharan Prajapati.
The duo was convicted on Wednesday for the offences of criminal conspiracy, cheating, forgery of a valuable security, forgery for cheating and using a forged document as genuine.
The case, which originated in MP’s Datia, was transferred to Delhi by the Supreme Court in October last year, in light of the claim that efforts were made to intimidate defence witnesses.
The top court, which had stayed further proceedings in the case pending before a court in Gwalior, had said it was the state’s duty to ensure a fair trial was conducted.
In its 95-page judgment, the Delhi court rejected the defence plea that the accused, as “public servants”, could not be prosecuted for discharge of official functions without government sanction, saying cheating and forgery are “dereliction of duty rather than the performance of a duty”.
It said that Bharti and Prajapati, along with the MLA's mother Savitri Devi and possibly other unknown persons, conspired to cheat the complainant bank -- Zila Sahkari Krishi Aur Grahmin Vikas Bank -- by continuing to draw interest at a much higher rate beyond 2011, even though their fixed deposit (FD) had an initial tenure of three years.
Proceedings against Savitri Devi were abated after she died in 2019.
The court also observed, “The argument by Bharti that he is politically targeted or that the prosecution is politically motivated is all speculation. He has failed to prove any such political motives or false implications.”
Instead, it is a case involving the forgery of bank documents and the cheating of a bank between 1998 and 2011, long before the alleged political rivalry claimed by Bharti, the court said.
According to the prosecution, Savitri Devi had deposited Rs 10 lakh in the Zila Sahkari Krishi Aur Grahmin Vikas Bank at Datia on August 24, 1998, and the deposit was made in the name of a family-run trust for an FD of three years at an interest rate of 13.5 per cent per annum.
It was alleged that the accused entered into a conspiracy to extend the high-interest payments beyond the stipulated period by tampering with bank records.
Using correction fluid and overwriting, the three-year term was extended by 10 and 15 years, allowing the trust to continue withdrawing annual interest payments till 2011, long after market interest rates had plummeted, claimed the prosecution.
It was alleged that the trust, where Bharti was a trustee, illegally got around Rs 18.5 lakh in interest. In its order, the court said that Bharti, who served as the chairman of the bank when the fraud was committed, used his position to pressure employees and facilitate the unauthorised payments to his family trust.
The court also noted that the initials of the then bank cashier Prajapati were found next to the tampered sections of the records where correction fluid had been applied.
The court rejected the defence submission that the accused were “public servants” immune from prosecution without government sanction.
It said that committing an offence punishable under the law can never be considered part of a public servant’s official duties.
Superior courts have consistently held that acts such as cheating, forgery, fabrication of records, and criminal conspiracy are not part of a public servant's official duties, it said.
Since forgery involves creating false documents and cheating involves deception, these acts are regarded as a dereliction of duty rather than the performance of a duty, it said.
