The last day of the 16th session of the Assembly was disrupted by the UDF on a technicality.
They walked out in protest against Speaker P Sreeramakrishnan's 'censure' of four Congress MLAs who the Speaker said had violated rules of conduct by rushing towards the speaker's chair on November 20.
The protest was not against the 'censure', though opposition leader Ramesh Chennithala initially seemed to have no idea what it meant, but the “arbitrary” manner in which the punishment was meted out.
Before leading the walk out, Chennithala said the speaker went against the assurance he had given in the House on November 20 and announced the 'censure' without consulting legislative party leaders.
“You said in the Assembly that action would be taken only after holding a discussion with legislative party leaders. But today you came in and threw a surprise,” Chennithala said.
Poor vocabulary
In fact, the moment after the speaker announced the 'censure, there was silence on the opposition side. It was as if they had accepted the relatively mild sentence. There was a rumour that the members could even be suspended for a day.
Perhaps emboldened by the silence, the speaker invited Muslim League leader P K Basheer to move his adjournment motion on the problems in the implementation of Life Mission.
At this point, the opposition leader stood up wanting some clarity on the 'censure'. There was no mention of his later charge that the speaker had not consulted him before censuring his flock. “What do you mean by 'censure'? It is not clear,” he said.
“Are you not aware of the rules. Read Rule 53 of Rules of Procedure and Conduct of Business,” the speaker virtually dismissed Chennithala.
Under Rule 53, in case of conduct violation the speaker can impose any of the following punishment or penalties: (a) Admonition; (b) Reprimand; (c) Censure; (d) Withdrawal from the House; (e) Suspension from the service of the House for a specific period; and (f) Any other penal action considered appropriate by the House.
Censure is nothing but a strong disapproval, a stern rebuke.
O Rajagopal's influence
It was then that Chennithala spoke of the speaker's breach of promise. In his reply, the Speaker made a stray observation that seemed to provoke the Opposition. “When I called a meeting of legislative party leaders yesterday, O Rajagopal (BJP MLA) wanted action to be taken against the MLAs,” the speaker said.
The UDF members rushed to the well of the House showering the speaker with angry abuse. Some of the UDF members were heard shouting that this once again exposed the CPM's secret RSS links. “Why is the speaker listening to O Rajagopal's advice,” another member shouted.
Chennithala then stood up and said it was true that O Rajagopal wanted action against the MLAs. “But the chief minister was silent about any action and he only wanted the day's proceedings to be quickly wound up,” Chennithala said. Hearing this another UDF member shouted: “Is O Rajagopal bigger than even the chief minister?”
The speaker was forced to clarify things. “I only said that O Rajagopal had spoke of action but that was also my opinion. The decision was mine, and I own up the responsibility for it,” the speaker said.
Sreeramakrishnan's unholy past
He then asked Basheer whether he wanted to move his adjournment motion. Basheer, who had not joined the protestors at the well of the House, looked confused. Chennithala then gestured to him that he was planning a walk out. Basheer then stood up and said he was withdrawing his motion.
“I would have loved to move the motion but given the sad state of affairs it would be morally wrong to press my motion,” he said. The speaker said it was unfortunate that the UDF did not have the democratic spirit to accept even a mild punishment.
The opposition members then reverted to their usual protest mode whenever they were disappointed with the speaker. “Have you forgotten the things you had done,” was one of the slogans the opposition members shouted.
This is clearly a sensitive issue for the speaker. He even repeatedly acknowledged that unfortunate incidents had happened inside the Assembly before. “Such things had happened even before,” he kept saying today, a clear reference to the anarchy unleashed by LDF members, including himself, in the Assembly on March 13, 2015.
Then, a case was registered against six LDF MLAs - K T Jaleel, E P Jayarajan (both now ministers), C K Sadasivan, K Ajit, Kunhahamed Master and Sivankutty - under the Prevention of Destruction of Public Property Act, criminal trespass and mischief causing damage.
Question left unasked
The UDF walked out and sat right outside the House raising slogans, mostly against the speaker. Later, the speaker hit back: “The UDF should not consider old incidents as a kind of fixed deposit and hope to live off its interest.”
Curiously, Chennithala did not even seek the answer for which he came to the Assembly on Thursday. He wanted Chief Minister Pinarayi to tell whether he would suspend police officers allegedly involved in the brutal attack on Shafi Parambil MLA and KSU activists.
Right at the start of the day, he wanted the answer from the chief minister. The speaker then told him that he was anyway going to raise it as a 'submission' during Zero Hour. “You can ask the chief minister then,” the speaker said. “In that case, we are boycotting the Question Hour,” Chennithala said, and led his flock out in the first walk out of the day.
And when he returned, he abandoned his 'submission' in the confusion caused by the 'censure'.