In what is being seen as a last-ditch effort to stall state bifurcation, Chief Minister N Kiran Kumar Reddy, when many expected that he would try to get the T-bill put to vote, instead sent a notice to Speaker N Manohar on Saturday requesting permission to move a ‘government resolution’ rejecting the AP Reorganisation Bill.
In his notice, submitted through Legislative Affairs Minister Sake Sailajanath, Kiran Reddy enclosed the draft resolution which reads: “The House while rejecting the AP Reorganisation Bill, 2013, resolves to request the President not to recommend the bill to be introduced in Parliament as it seeks to bifurcate Andhra Pradesh without any reason or basis.”
Sailajanath submitted the notice to the Speaker soon after the Assembly was adjourned for the day. The Chief Minister, gave this notice in the capacity of the Leader of the House in the Assembly, under Rule 77 of Procedure and Conduct of Business in the AP Assembly.
Meanwhile, the leader of the House in the Council, minister C Ramachandraiah, too submitted a similar notice to Chairman A Chakrapani, requesting him to allow the resolution for rejection of the T-bill. Ramachandraiah gave the notice under rule 76 of Procedure and Conduct of Business in the Council.
At the same time, TDP Seemandhra MLAs, under the leadership of D Narendra Kumar, also served another notice to the Speaker seeking permission to move a similar resolution to return the bill to Delhi, alleging that it is full of flaws.
Seemandhra TDP MLCs under the leadership of Yanamala Ramakrishnudu on Friday served a similar notice to Chakrapani.
Earlier, there was a furore for a while on the Assembly premises, soon after the adjournment of the House, when the Chief Minister, while leaving the Assembly, claimed that the bill was invalid as the Union Home Ministry referred to it as ‘draft bill’ and not ‘final bill’, which is against the Constitution.
Even while taking part in the debate on the T-bill in the Assembly, Kiran Reddy said the Union Home Ministry had once called it the “bill” and at another time as “draft bill” only. He also claimed that the Union Home ministry had erred in sending the T-bill, “which is full of flaws”.
Interestingly, as soon as Kiran Reddy made this remark, Leader of Opposition N Chandrababu Naidu, while speaking in the Assembly, wondered how the Chief Minister could ignore the flaws in the bill and allowed its introduction in the House.
On the other hand, as soon as the Chief Minister sent the notice to the Speaker, TRS Legislature Party leader E Rajender, and MLAs KT Rama Rao and P Srinivasa Reddy, along with government chief whip Gandra Venkataramana Reddy, met the Speaker and argued against the contention of the Chief Minister.
BJP MLA Nagam Janardhan Reddy and Congress member P Shankar Rao too met the Speaker and took exception to the Chief Minister’s move.
Some Pertinent Questions
Several questions are being raised on the intent of Chief Minister N Kiran Kumar Reddy sending a notice to Speaker N Manohar. While Seemandhra lawmakers are describing it just as a part of Kiran’s game plan to emerge as a champion of Samaikyandhra, their Telangana counterparts are angry. below are some of the questions being raised in the wake of Kiran kumar reddy’s latest move:
1. Ten days notice is required for moving a resolution under Rule 77. How did the Chief Minister choose to do it only five days before the deadline to conclude the T-debate? (However, the Speaker may still decide to accept it.)
2. Has Kiran, who has completed his speech on Saturday, effectively shut the door for further debate on the T-bill, thus denying other members an opportunity to express their views?
3. If the CM really wanted to move such a resolution rejecting the T-bill, why did he seek extension of time for debate?
4. Why did Kiran move the resolution, having ignored such a demand by YSRC and Seemandhra TDP members earlier?
5. Does Kiran, who was Speaker himself before and
fully aware of the rule book, want to put N Manohar in a piquant situation over waiving the 10-day notice period?
6. Can a resolution of this nature be taken up by the House when the bill is a Presidential reference?
7. What is the sanctity to the ‘government resolution’ proposed by the CM when his Cabinet was not cunsulted and some of his colleagues are opposed to it?
8. Is it intended to prevent the Leader of Opposition N Chandrababu Naidu from expressing his opinion on the T-bill in detail, as well as from attacking Kiran Reddy?
9. How serious is the Chief Minister in opposing state bifurcation as his latest move preempts any voting on the clauses of the bill?
10. If the T-bill is referred to state Assembly under Article 3, how is Rule 77 under which the CM served the notice applicable?
CM’s Resolution Draft
The House while rejecting the AP Reorganisation Bill-2013, resolves to request the Honourable President of India not to recommend the bill for introduction in Parliament as the bill seeks to bifurcate the State without any reason/basis and without arriving at a consensus, in utter disregard to the linguistic and cultural homogeneity and economic and administrative viability of both regions. The bill also completely ignores the very basis of formation of the first linguistic State.
NO CABINET APPROVAL
Minister K Jana Reddy wondered how theCM could submit such a notice to the Speaker without taking either the consent of Telangana members or the Cabinet. Jana decided to write to the Governor and Speaker. He may also undertake Delhi visit to complain against his attitude to Delhi bosses.
NEWS FAUX PAS
Kiran Reddy’s assertion that the Union Home Ministry had referred to the T-bill as a ‘draft bill’ while sending the background information to the Assembly led some TV news channels to misconstrue that the CM wants to send the T-bill back to the President on the grounds that what was referred to the Assembly was a ‘draft bill’. However, that was not the reason mentioned in the resolution sought to be moved by him.