The swindle, which surfaced in the last several weeks, has raised issues that require public interest responses. Speaker U T Khader and Council Chairman Basavaraj Horatti denied requests for a discussion from members of the Bharatiya Janata Party and the Janata Dal (Secular), citing regulations.
Since “a commission of inquiry has been set up and it is not a recent issue,” Khader stated that he had rejected the notification. In support of the Speaker’s decision, Law Minister H K Patil hurled the book of parliamentary procedure at the opposition.
Source: Mathrubhumi English
The arguments don’t hold up. Although the MUDA’s decision to award Siddaramaiah’s wife sites is not new, the issue has just lately gained public awareness. A government-ordered investigation shouldn’t take precedence over a House debate. Typically, inquiries are ordered in order to silence critics and conceal problems. The BJP made the offer to talk about it without interfering with the current investigation.
It is incorrect to avoid a conversation by hiding behind regulations.That would be interpreted as a justification to conceal something due to technicalities. On the grounds that the situation is being looked into, the Congress and the administration have likewise declined to provide compelling justifications for the Valmiki Corporation scandal, in which money was transported out without authorization.
Source: NDTV
The Opposition resorted to various means of protest, such as a day and night dharna in the House, after being denied permission to hold a discussion. The issue is receiving attention from additional public demonstrations. Siddaramaiah refuted the accusations made against him and his family during a press conference on Friday and presented evidence to back up his claims.
The most reputable and democratic platforms for debate in the state are the Assembly and the Council, where he ought to have done this. Why not talk outside and avoid the House? Congress MPs have previously faced intimidation, suspension from Parliament, and unreasonable rejection of their requests for debate. Instead of trying to imitate it, the lesson ought to have been to let openness and willingness to communicate win out by suspending the rule if it got in the way.
What do you think about this? Comment below.
