Allow Assembly to function in Odisha
The Winter Session of the Odisha Assembly was adjourned sine die on Friday, a good 20 day ahead of its scheduled closure. Intense protests by the opposition BJP and Congress from the very start did not allow the House to conduct normal transaction. It was also for the first time that question hour could not be taken up even for a single day. The demand for the dismissal of Dibya Shankar Mishra, minister of state for home, over his alleged links with the main accused in the murder of a woman teacher had brought the opposition parties to their feet and both outfits were unrelenting.
From dharna to sprinkling of Ganga jal, the session saw ruckus of all kinds and normal business was fully stalled. After the Appropriation Bill for supplementary budget was passed, the Chief Whip brought a motion suggesting that the House be adjourned as no pending business was awaiting transaction. Following this, the House was adjourned after being in limbo for nine days. The Rules of Procedure and Conduct of Business in the Odisha Assembly is clear: “Subject to Article 174 of the Constitution of India in every calendar year, the Assembly shall have not less than three Sessions with minimum 60 sitting days.” This year, the House met for just 43 days, though it is well within its rights to decide curtailment below that.
The problem is not about meeting the 60 days norm. It is that there are issues of public concern crying out for attention that were not debated. And this is the primary role of a legislature. Though history is witness to similar truncated sessions back in the 1980s and 90s, the Assembly did vigorously discuss key subjects. But the past years have seen the opposition stalling the House over a single issue and the ruling dispensation, with its brute majority, moving to adjourn the session.
The BJP and Congress may consider this a win but they lost a golden chance of pinning down the government on many burning topics. No question hour, adjournment or calling attention motion and no opportunity for MLAs to flag issues of their respective areas, which is their basic right—this definitely is not a good sign. It’s about time the treasury and the opposition benches sat down and reached a common ground to allow the House to function. That would be in greater public interest.