Imphal, June 21: State Assembly today virtually turned into a pandemonium with Opposition members shouting slogans when Speaker TN Haokip rejected the Substantive Motion submitted by the Opposition to deliberate on the reasons for rejecting the earlier three no-confidence motions moved against him.

To express their resentment against the over ruling of the substantive motion, infuriated Opposition members shouted slogans denouncing Speaker TN Haokip as a dictator and a tainted person before they finally staged a walk out.

Following the walk out, none of the Opposition members were present during the discussion for passing the Manipur Appropriation Bill (Number III), 2004.It may be recalled here that on June 17, by evoking Rules No.128 of Rules of Procedure and Conduct of Business of the Manipur Legislative Assembly, four Opposition leaders had jointly proposed for raising the substantive motion to the Assembly Secretary .

The substantive motion jointly signed by RK Dorendra, M Nillachandra, L Tomba and O Joy, urged that a discussion be taken up to discuss the reasons for rejecting the three no- confidence motion moved against the Speaker by the Speaker himself.

The three motions were moved on January 23, 27 and February 13, 2004 respectively.

The last day of the Budget Session commenced without any hitch with Speaker TN Haokip presiding over it at 11 am today.

As soon as the agenda of Question and Answer was taken up, Opposition member O Joy Singh drew the attention of the Speaker and urged him to postpone the other agenda for the day and take up the substantive motion as one of the points of order under Rule No 336 of Rules of procedure and Conduct of Business of the House.

Joy, who is also the president of MPP said that the Opposition would not be asking any question for the day to facilitate discussion of the substantive motion raised in connection with the rejection of three no-confidence motions moved against the Speaker, but subsequently rejected by the Speaker.

Admitting that the ruling given by a Speaker in the House should not be challenged, Joy, nevertheless, contended that the substantive motion had been raised as it was necessary for the House to (thoroughly discuss the matter related to rejection of three no-confidence motions successively by the Speaker.

He denounced the ruling of the Speaker as dictatorial and said that it would set an unwanted precedent not only in the democratic history of Manipur but also in the whole of India.

The ruling given by the Speaker on himself is nothing but judgemental and such judgement had never ever been passed in the Parliamentary history of the country, Joy said mockingly.

Referring to rejection of impeachment motion moved against the then Deputy Speaker Jyotimoy Basu on April 15, 1975 on the ground that there was no text to supplement the motion, Joy noted that the no-confidence motions moved against Speaker TN Haokip are duly accompanied with corresponding texts.

But rejection of such valid motions by N Haokip has tarnished the image of the democracy, he added.

Asserting that the point of order being raised by Joy was reasonable, MPP Legislature Party leader Dr Nimaichand Luwang also insisted on discussing the substantive motion before taking up any other businesses of the House.

After hearing all the charges of the Opposition, Speaker TN Haokip bluntly rejected the substantive motion as not sustainable enough for entertaining in the House.

Speaker�s ruling came like salt to the wounded sentiments of the Opposition, who instantaneously started shouting slogans dubbing TN Haokip as dictator and an accomplice in killing of girl-student.

Comment