 Hello and welcome to NewsClick. I am Paranjoy Guha Thakurtha and today we are going to discuss what happened in the Rajya Sabha and to discuss what happened in the Rajya Sabha, its implications whether it is unprecedented or not. I am very happy to welcome Mr. P. D. T. Achary. He is a 4 month secretary general of the Lok Sabha, the lower house of parliament. He was secretary general of the Lok Sabha for 10 years between 2004 and 2014 that is the 14th Lok Sabha and the 15th Lok Sabha and he understands parliamentary procedures and rules very well. Thank you so much Mr. Achary for giving us your time. On Monday the 21st of August 8 members of parliament, opposition members of parliament in the upper house of parliament that is the Rajya Sabha, they were suspended. These included members like Derek O'Brien of the Trinamool Congress, Sanjay Singh of the Ahmadi Party, Rajiv Satap of the Indian National Congress and K.K. Ragesh of the Communist Party of India Marxist. Now what happened on Sunday when discussions were going on about the bills pertaining, the bills include the farmers produced trade and commerce bill and the price assurance and farm services bill, there was a big hue and cry and these bills that had been approved by the Lok Sabha earlier and though the opposition obviously lacked the numbers to block the bills, the opposition wanted the bills to be sent to a select committee. The opposition members wanted to extend the discussion to Monday and the deputy chairman Hari Vansh Singh, Hari Vansh as we call him, he refused permission. He allowed the agriculture minister Narendra Singh Tomar to continue his reply despite a lot of hullabaloo. What we saw was at one point of time you know the copies of the bill were torn and thrown, microphones were wrenched from their handset, the Trinamool Congress member of parliament Derek O'Brien went up to the deputy chairman Hari Vansh's desk, waved the rule book at him and there was a lot of unruly behavior and at one stage the marshals actually formed a human wall between the deputy chairman and the protesting opposition members and the chairman of the Rajya Sabha who is also the vice president of India, Sri Venkaya Naidu, he said that the deputy chairman had been physically threatened and abused and that was the reason why these eight opposition MPs were suspended. Now we've seen unruly scenes in the Lok Sabha and the Rajya Sabha and we've now seen no confidence motion being moved against the deputy chairman which has been rejected and typically on both sides of the political divide there have been predictable responses. The opposition has said there's been a murder of democracy, the prime minister said this is a historical day because of the passage of these bills and the opposition claimed that the Rajya Sabha deputy chairman broke every rule and the Rajya Sabha television feed was also blocked, there was censorship. So sir, I want you to explain to the viewers of NewsClick what you make of this unruly scene that took place. The unruly scenes and ruckus, pandemonium in the house is nothing new. This used to happen in the Lok Sabha quite often and it used to happen in the Rajya Sabha to some extent. So there is nothing extra ordinary about the ruckus in the house. Yesterday actually you know there are two things which are important when we look at yesterday's happenings in the Rajya Sabha. One is that the house extended its sitting beyond one o'clock. They were to adjourn at one o'clock. The chair extended the sitting. Normally there is a consensus built up on extending the sitting. If there is no consensus that means if the opposition does not agree then the sitting is not extended and the house adjourns. That used to be the practice all through. Now here what I understand is that yesterday the house sitting was extended without the being a consensus and the opposition naturally they shouted and so on. But the proceedings went on and during this extended time the minister was also replying and the reply was given and then all the rest of the things happened. So why the chairman or the government thought it necessary to pass this bill yesterday itself by extending the time actually is not known. They could have passed it today by accommodating the views of the opposition. That is what normally is done in parliament because nothing will be lost. The government has majority in any case in the Rajya Sabha also they are the largest single party and the other parties are there to support them. So they have nothing to fear so far as the fate of the bill is concerned. But then the only problem was that they wanted to pass it yesterday itself. No, no, I may just interrupt you sir. What was the urgency and what was the urgency of the deputy chairman Mr. Hari Vandu wanting to pass those bills on Sunday itself? This is something we are unable to understand at the same time. Does the chair in this case the deputy chairman does he not is it not within his discretionary power to decide to extend the session or not? I mean after all there is no rule or that binds him to that. I mean it is his discretion is it not? Actually it is not his discretion. It is the decision of the house that is a consensus. There is a sense of the house taken on such issues. The sense of the house is taken. That is what I said earlier that even if I mean if there is no consensus if the members in the opposition say that they don't agree to this proposal then the chair adjourns the house. Chair would say that there is no since there is no consensus we are not going to sit beyond the scheduled time of adjournment. That is the normal practice but yesterday I do not know why no effort was made. No effort seems to have been made to bring the opposition on board and then actually that should have been done. That is a normal practice that is resorted to or followed in the legislature particularly in parliament. Mr Achary there were also some other developments that were unusual. Now before the voting took place after all this ruckus the opposition wanted physical voting. They wanted the votes I mean individuals who are present to cast their vote. However the deputy chairperson decided to go along with the voice vote. Is this also unusual out of the ordinary? So far as the voting procedure is concerned things are clear. According to the voting procedure when the debate is over the chair puts the question before the house. For example the chair would say now the question is that the motion be adopted. There is a motion before the house. Everything is presented before the house in the form of a motion. So he would say that the question is that the motion be adopted. Those in favor say aye so some people will say aye and those against may say no some people will say no. Then the speaker will the chairman will say I think the eyes have it. He will say that and he stops there. Then a member mostly from the opposition stands up and says no have it. No have it. That means he is challenging the decision of the chair. He wants a division. Then the chairman would say let the lobbies be cleared and the lobbies are cleared for three minutes. Then all the members who are sitting in the lobby and all that they will come into the house. They will be ready for voting. He will repeat it again. Those in favor may say aye and no and then people will say no. They knows have it. Then he will say division and then the members will press that button. The voting will be done. This is the process. Now the question is can the chair ignore a demand for voting. Voting means the division. Actual voting in the house. The other is voice vote. Whether the chair can ignore a demand from members for a voting in the house. I would say chair has no authority, no power to ignore a demand from the members for an actual voting in the house. He has to under the rules he has to. The reason is that under article 100 of the Constitution of India the issue that is before the house, any question that is before the house is decided by a majority of the members present and voting. Now as you know the majority can be decided. Majority is a very precise thing. Majority in terms of number. Otherwise you cannot decide majority. Majority has no other meaning. Majority has to be decided in terms of the number. So that is determined by voting in the house. That is what the constitution says. So constitution is very clear. But the practice of voice vote is there is followed in all the legislatures. When there is a presumption that the government has majority it is okay. So we can pass it by voice vote. But if there is a controversy and if there is a demand from the members that there should be a voting in the house then the chair cannot ignore that and the chair has to proceed to conduct the voting in the house. To the first point that you mentioned which was that normally there should be a consensus on extending the sitting of a particular session in either house or parliament and unless there is a sense of the house and there is no consensus whether it's a speaker of the Lok Sabha or the chairperson of the Rajya Sabha or the deputy chairperson whoever is in the chair should abide by the sense of the house. That was given a go by on Sunday. The second point you say that the chair cannot ignore. He has no power, no authority to ignore a demand for voting, physical voting as opposed to voice vote. Am I correct sir? Yes, absolutely. All right. Now let's come to the third equally contentious and controversial aspect of the proceedings of the upper house or parliament and that was nearly 50 almost 50 members of the Rajya Sabha. All of them are belonging to opposition parties. They moved a no confidence motion against the deputy chairman Mr Harivansh and this was rejected on Monday by the chairman of the Rajya Sabha, Mr Venkara Naidu. Once again is this something unusual, unprecedented? The constitution of India provides for a resolution to remove the deputy chairman in the case of Rajya Sabha and the same provision applies to the speaker and the deputy speaker in the Lok Sabha. The only stipulation is that there should be a 14 days notice. If the notice period is less than 14 days, then it can be rejected. Then the notice should contain specific charges against the deputy chairman or deputy speaker or speaker. These are the two conditions which need to be fulfilled and there is no other things. There is no other ground on which a resolution can be rejected. I do not know on what ground this resolution has been rejected. I do not know. But sir the question that would arise is did the members of the Rajya Sabha who moved this no confidence motion against the deputy chairman Harivansh Ji did they give a 14 day period, a notice for 14 days? Did they specify specific reasons why they had lost their confidence in the deputy chairman? Are we aware of these two aspects of the no confidence motion moved by almost 50 members of the belonging to opposition parties why in the Rajya Sabha? Well I do not know. I have no access to this inside information. But what I am saying is that as per the rules and as per the constitution this is the procedure that needs to be followed 14 days notice and as per the schedule of the session the house is to adjourn on 10th of October 10th of October and if you go by that there is 14 days are available 14 days are available because this motion is taken up and put in the order paper after 14 days that is why it is called 14 days notice period so it will be taken cognizance of and it will be put in the order paper after the completion of the 14 days and if there are no 14 days left then the notice can be rejected but in this particular case there are 14 days if the house is adjourning as per the schedule on 10th of October that means they have 14 days so on that ground it cannot be rejected the other ground is that it should specify the charges against the deputy chair post I do not know what charges have been made in because I have not seen that and if they don't conform to the rules in this regard then of course the chair can reject it if they don't conform to the rules again I must say that I have not seen the grounds which have been cited in the notice therefore I can't make any comment on that but tell me have there been any instances in the past any precedence of no confidence motions being moved against either the speaker of the Lok Sabha the deputy speaker of the Lok Sabha the chairman of the Rajasabha the deputy chairman of the Rajasabha are there instances of such no confidence motions being moved against these constitutional authorities yes in the Lok Sabha there are many instances there have been many occasions when no confidence resolution was moved against the speaker as well as the deputy speaker but in the Rajasabha I have not come across any such instance where a no confidence motion was moved or resolution was moved against the deputy chair person but so far as the vice president is concerned it stands on a different footing there the resolution has to come before the Rajasabha first it has to be passed and then it has to go to the other house and all that so there is a different procedure for that but so far as the deputy chairman is concerned the procedure is the same as is applied to the deputy speaker and the speaker in the Lok Sabha so Mr. Achary what would you say is the big takeaway what happened on Sunday well subsequently what has happened the suspension of it members of the opposition in the Rajasabha if you I mean you explain the the the laws the rules the procedures but if you look at the big picture in what sense in in what respect I should say is the the the events that took place on Sunday unique different out of the ordinary unusual unprecedented well as I said in the beginning records of pandemonium is nothing new in the houses of parliament and in other legislatures in the country these have been occurring with greater frequency and there are ways of dealing with that there has to be a trust built up between the government and the opposition in fact I would remember one parliamentary affairs minister by name K. Raghura maya he was the minister for parliamentary affairs in Indira Gandhi's cabinet in the 70s the early part of 70s he would be most of the time moving around in the opposition benches he would come and sit with them the lead is even the ordinary members and sit with them and discuss with them in the house itself you are an extremely mobile parliamentary affairs minister in fact I would say that he was a role model of parliamentary affairs although Indira Gandhi had no fear of no fear in the house I mean she had an absolute two-thirds majority in fact so she had nothing to fear but still Raghura maya would be sitting with the opposition members building up a consensus and taking them on board so that is the way in which parliament should be conducted parliament business should be conducted to build rapport with the opposition so that business is transacted with the cooperation of the opposition you know there is a famous dictum in parliamentary system the opposition should have it say and the government will have its way government will have its way that is a famous dictum we should be followed in practice the opposition should have it say they should not get a feeling that they have been denied an opportunity to present their views similarly the proper procedure is being followed and enough opportunities are available to the opposition if proper procedure is followed in everything and that is why we have rules in the house these rules are to be obeyed followed in letter and spirit only then we can say that we have a very smooth running of parliament otherwise it will give rise to resentment and when there is resentment the members you know they react in different ways and in the earlier Lok Sabha's when I was there in in the 70s there was no occasion for members to come into the well of the house this started much much much later nobody would think of coming into the well of the house in those days there was no such instance at all but there used to be very very very very good debates syndicating debates in the house and they would often put the governments on the mat but that kind of a thing is not seen these days now the immediate reaction is to shout slogans and come to the well of the house well that kind of a situation could be avoided as I said my point is this if a prop if trust is built between the government and the opposition if that is done then I don't think this kind of a scene will be repeated in the houses of parliament if I can summarize your views you then today believe that the trust between the government and the opposition has been broken and what happened on Sunday by by the the decisions of the deputy chairman not to extend the session of parliament the his decision in terms of the voting procedure and you know going ahead and not going with a physical vote but a voice vote and finally the no confidence motion against the deputy chairman of the Rajasabha all these are unprecedented developments that have taken place and these reflect the breakdown of the trust between the government and the opposition so would this be a fair summary of your views Mr Achary yeah yes yes thank you so much for speaking with news click and thank you those who have been viewing and hearing the views of Mr. P. D. T. Achary former secretary general of the Lok Sabha do keep watching news click thank you for being with us