Speaker MB Rajesh rejected down the Opposition’s notice for an adjournment request to address the charges made by gold smuggling suspects against Chief Minister Pinarayi Vijayan in their statement to Customs. The Speaker stated that it was inappropriate to hold a debate in the Assembly based on purported remarks made by defendants in a case. In addition, the issue is being considered by a court under the Prevention of Money Laundering Act (PMLA).
In their statement, the gold smuggling suspects claimed that Pinarayi and former Speaker P Sreeramakrishnan were involved in smuggling foreign cash with the help of UAE consulate employees.
The Speaker pointed out that the Opposition’s demand for a debate falls under Rule 52 (vii) of the Assembly’s Rules of Procedure and Conduct of Business. According to the regulation, the motion cannot deal with a subject that is adjudicated by a court of law in any region of India.
Read also: Cong holds mock session outside Kerala assembly against Vijayan
VD Satheesan, the Opposition leader, reminded the Assembly that it had previously debated identical notifications for adjournment motions. In 2007, the Assembly discussed the private medical college managements association’s request for police protection to hold their admission exams on the same day the Supreme Court heard the case.
The Assembly debated the use of Vigilance against political opponents in 2012. According to Satheessan, the Assembly also considered in 2015 the High Court’s comment that the AG’s office should be closed down while the matter was still pending.
The Leader of the Opposition further noted that the House had already examined the High Court’s 2017 ruling on the self-financing college admissions problem. The review petition on Sabarimala women’s admission was addressed a year later when the matter had still to be heard by the Supreme Court. He added that the Kodakara black money theft case was recently discussed in the Assembly, even before a charge sheet was filed.
“Many comparable examples were addressed in the Assembly throughout the inquiry stage as well as when the case was under appeal. The purpose of today’s news was to highlight a serious charge levelled against the Chief Minister by a defendant in a lawsuit. Where else will we debate it if we don’t do it in Assembly?” Satheessan was the one who inquired. He went on to say that a debate in the House would only serve to confirm Pinarayi’s innocence in the case.
According to Law Minister P Rajeev, the Assembly regulations prohibit not just addressing topics that are pending in court but also those that are being reviewed by quasi-judicial organizations, statutory agencies, or commissions.
Read also: Kerala Oppn stages disciplined protest against Sivankutty
“The Supreme Court has stated unequivocally that precedents cannot trump Rules and Acts,” Rajeev added. He went on to say that defamatory topics are also prohibited under Assembly regulations. He went on to say that the conditions under which the accused made such a remark were well known to everyone since central authorities had pressed them to name political leaders who held constitutional office. The Opposition raised chants for a brief while protesting the notice’s denial before announcing its decision to boycott Assembly sessions for the day.
