University Bills issue to surface
in Upper House again
NC, PDP want TMU nut to crack on Congress’ head
Ahmed Ali Fayyaz
In hours of hullabaloo on the issue in Legislative Assembly (LA),
Minister of Law & Parliamentary Affairs, Ali Mohammad Sagar, held an
emergency meeting with Chairman of Legislative Council (LC), Amrit Malhotra, at
the latter’s office this evening. What transpired between the two was not
immediately clear but Early Times learned
from political sources that the matter could surface in the Upper House on
Wednesday as some members would seek to know “current status” of the three
Bills that had been passed by LA and were supposed to come up for consideration
and passage in LC.
Even as Chairman had returned to his home, he was requested to
return to the Legislature Complex for discussion on an “extremely urgent
issue”. The closed-door meeting between the Minister and Chairman of LC
continued for about an hour.
The Bills titled “Transworld Muslim University Bill, 2009 (L.A.
Private Member’s Bill No: 23 of 2009”, “Sheikh-ul-Alam Research University
Kashmir, Bill 2010 (L.A. Private Member’s Bill No: 9 of 2010)” and “Guru Nanak
Dev Open University Bill, 2010 (L.A. Private Member’s Bill No: 59 of 2010” have
been almost unanimously passed in LA and have been clubbed for consideration and
passing in LC. These had been separately moved in LA respectively by NC’s MLA
of Kupwara, Mir Saifullah, NC’s MLA of Handwara, Chowdhary Mohammad Ramzan, and
independent MLA from Kathua, Charanjit Singh.
Exactly like in the Women’s Property Rights Bill that put NC and
PDP on one side and Congress on the side a few years ago, change of heart in
Congress became evident when the party’s MLC, Bashir Ahmad Magray, got the legislation
stalled in LC last year. Asserting that his party had certain reservations with
regard to the Transworld Muslim University Bill, the Congress MLC pressed for
its reference to a Joint Select Committee (JSC), comprising members of both the
Houses.
Then Deputy Chairman and LC’s incharge Presiding Officer, Arvinder
Singh Micky, sought nominations from the Lower House. LA Secretariat submitted
names of 10 MLAs of different political parties. However, the JSC was not
constituted till Mr Micky’s term expired. As required under Rule 97 (2) of
Business Rules, Secretary of LA informed the Lower House on March 24th,
2011, that the three Bills had not been passed by LC.
According to a barrage of speculations, including reports in
national dailies, word spread that Congress had changed its heart following
apprehensions in union Ministry of Home Affairs (MHA) that two of the three
Bills could lead to “sectarian divide” and “ideological clash” in the sensitive
border state. According to some of these reports, MHA had developed
“reservations” after learning that funds for one of these universities would flow
from a foreign country that had already established a wide network of Madrasas in Pakistan
Even as the mover of the Bill made emphatic clarifications in LA
and outside that all these apprehensions were misplaced and the proposed
university would only cultivate religious harmony and promote research in
science and technology, Congress chose to watch the developments like a mute
spectator. Significantly, only one MLA of PDP had opposed the Bill in LA,
arguing that creation of universities on sectarian and ideological basis could
lead to sectarian and ideological divide in the state. With the parties like
BJP and Panthers Party remaining mute, almost all members of NC, PDP and
Congress had voted in favour of the three Bills.
With everybody trying to be politically correct, nobody moved the
Bills afresh in either of the Houses. With the approval of the new Chairman of
LC, Deputy Secretary of the Upper House wrote to Secretary of LA under No:
LB/JSC/2012-LC Dated 19-04-2012: “I am directed to inform you that since
Secretary Legislative Assembly has read out a message in the Legislative
Assembly on 24th of March, 2011, under Rule 97 (2) of the Rules of
Procedure and Conduct of Business in the J&K Legislative Assembly in
respect of the above referred three Bills, the procedure prescribed under Rule
98 (1) of the Rules of Procedure and Conduct of Business in the J&K
Legislative Assembly has become applicable”.
It was widely interpreted that the new Chairman wanted LA to
initiate the process afresh if the movers under Rule 98 wanted to press the
legislation.
Deputy Secretary’s communication to Secretary LA added: “In view
of restrictions on powers of Legislative Council, under section 75 of the
Constitution of Jammu and Kashmir, the Legislative Council shall have a limited
role only after these Bills are again transmitted to this House under Rule 101
of the Rules of Procedure and Conduct of Business in the J&K Legislative
Assembly read with the section 75 (2) of the Constitution of Jammu and
Kashmir”.
Rule 97 (2) reads: “If a Bill other than a Money Bill is passed by
the House and transmitted to the Council and more than three months elapse from
the date on which the Bill is laid before the Council without the Bill being
passed by it, the Secretary shall, as soon as may be, report these facts to the
House”.
This is exactly what Secretary of LA has done on March 24th,
2011.
During the course of a discussion on amendment to Constitution for
strengthening of Panchayati Raj Institutions, PDP’s MLA from Chadoura, Javed
Mustafa Mir, today raked up the issue of the Trans World Muslim University Bill
in LA. “The Bill was supposed to be passed by the Upper House. It has not come
back to this House. I want to know where this Bill is”, he shouted.
Speaker Mohammad Akbar Lone explained that the Bill had been
passed by LA and transmitted to LC for passage. He stated that LC asked for
nominations as it wanted to refer the Bill to JSC. He said that Assembly
Secretariat proposed names of 10 members but the JSC had not been constituted
by Chairman of LC. He said that it was a matter of controversy between
Presiding Officers of LC and LA as the former’s contention was that the matter
lay with LA after Secretary’s reading the message but the latter was of the
opinion that the Upper House needed to constitute JSC and consider the Bill for
passage.
Thereupon, PDP’s MLA from Bandipore, Nizam-ud-din Bhat argued that
after Secretary’s reading out the message under Rule 97 (2), Rule 98 had become
applicable.
Rule 98 (1) reads: “At any time after a message has been reported
to the House or published in the Bulletin under Rule 97 (1) (b) or a report has
been made to the House under Rule 97 (2) the member in charge of the Bill to
which the message or the report as the case may be, pertains, may in the same
or in any subsequent session, after giving three days’ notice or with the
consent of the Speaker with shorter or without notice, move that the Bill as
originally passed by the House be passed again”.
While all the three movers---Mir Saifullah, Chowdhary Ramzan and
Charanjit Singh---did not utter a word, Mr Sagar responded to the points raised
by PDP’s Javed Mustafa Mir, Nizam-ud-din Bhat and Abdul Rehman Veeri. He stated
that he would take up the matter with Chairman of LC to learn about the current
status of these Bill and accordingly inform the House next day.
Not satisfied with the Minister’s reply, Javed Mustafa staged a
walk-out while yelling that the problem was “neither in Assembly nor in Council
but in Delhi New Delhi Delhi
With the PDP trying to take advantage of the coalition’s quandary,
it appears clear NC and Congress would go for a silent abortion of this Bill.
Once put to vote, NC and PDP could be seen on one side of the fence, like the
Women’s Bill, and Congress on the other, perhaps with BJP and NPP.
END
No comments:
Post a Comment