Total Pageviews

Wednesday, October 10, 2012


University Bills issue to surface in Upper House again

NC, PDP want TMU nut to crack on Congress’ head

Ahmed Ali Fayyaz

SRINAGAR, Oct 9: Much like the Women’s Property Rights Bill during the PDP-Congress coalition regime, a private member’s Bill seeking creation of Transworld Muslim University (TMU) is fast shaping into a trouble for the Congress party in Jammu & Kashmir. Yet again, this is a situation where Congress has voted for the Bill in Legislative Assembly but wants to fail it in Legislative Council---amid tossing of the ball between the three major political parties.

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 and other Muslim countries.

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”. “Don’t take up with Chairman. Take it up with New Delhi”, he shouted on Sagar. With all Ministers and MLAs of Congress chose to remain silent, party’s MLA from Banihal, Weqar Rasool, took strong objection to Javed Mir’s insinuation. “Why do you people drag Delhi in all matters? We have voted for and passed this Bill in Assembly”, he shouted back on the PDP MLA.

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: