By L.S. Herdenia
BHOPAL: The Kamal Nath government is at loggerheads both with the state governor and the opposition. A section of opposition mainly the BJP is not only holding angry demonstrations but also talking in the language of violence. The BJP in the Vidhan Sabha is disrupting proceedings by entering “Well” of the House.
In Bhopal, Surendra Singh, a former BJP MLA is leading the agitation of vendors (Gumtivallas) who have been displaced from a crowded market area. Surendra Singh is of the opinion that before displacing them they should have been provided alternative place. Since it has not been done they have been thrown on the verge of hunger. While warning the authorities he declared that blood would flow on the streets of Bhopal if they are not rehabilitated forthwith. And blood will be that of Chief Minister Kamal Nath. He also warned that he would along with the affected persons enter Vallabh Bhavan (secretariat).
Due to uproarious scenes, Question hour is being suspended and proceedings also being adjourned. The opposition not only clashed with the government but Gopal Bhargava, leader of opposition also entered into arguments with the speaker.
Surendra Singh, when threatened with punitive action said that he would continue to speak in the same language and would also take all possible steps to safeguard the interests of these people who belong to the category of below poverty line. The issue again rocked the Vidhan Sabha when at least half a dozen ministers demanded immediate action against the BJP leader. Later Surendra Singh was arrested, produced in the court. Surprisingly ministers raised this issue during the question hour. Opposition pointed out that perhaps it is for the first time that ministers are asking for the suspension of question hour. After his arrest Surendra Singh calmed down and asserted that he would abide by law.
Initially the BJP kept mum about Singh’s outburst but later on it decided to maintain distance. Gopal Bhargava said BJP doesn’t subscribe to such thoughts and that action will be taken against Singh. State party chief Rakesh Singh spoke with Narendra Singh Tomar and Shivraj Singh Couhan on the issue. The party issued a show cause notice to Singh late Friday night and asked him to reply in 15 days, say sources.
Coming in the wake of BJP MLA Akash Vijayvargiya’s bat attack and ‘danadan line of action’ Singh threat has deeply embarrassed the party. The 108-strong BJP bench was on the defensive for the first time in the assembly as Congress came out all guns blazing.
The house was adjourned twice amid uproar during question hour on Friday as Congress protested Surendra Singh’s objectionable statement against CM Kamal Nath.
Commotion started as soon as the speaker NP Prajapati entered the house and Congress MLAs said “There is talk of committing murder on the street”. For the first time in this session the opposition was on the defensive and did not speak much during the uproar from ruling party’s legislatures.
Law minister PC Sharma said “This is the character of BJP. He should be arrested”. Congress MLAs raised anti-BJP slogans. At 11.08 AM house was adjourned for 10 minutes. When the house re-assembled ministers Tulsi Silawat, Jeetu Patwari and Sajjan Singh Verma alleged that BJP was trying to create an environment of fear in the state.
A totally defensive LoP Gopal Bhargava told the speaker “We are ready for discussion on this’. But Congress MLAs entered the well and raised slogans against the BJP. The houses was adjourned again this time for 15 minutes.
After the house re-assembled Congress MLAs accused BJP of trying to “practicing the ideology of Nathuram Gode”. PWD minister Sajjan Singh verma said that no one from any political party should make such threatening statements. “In the state capital threat has been made to shed the blood of the chief minister. If this is not an issue what it is”?
Bhargava said “Today question hour has been disrupted by the ruling party. Usually we are accused of it. We are ready for every discussion and throughout the day.”
The issue of the appointment of University Vice-chancellor took the turn of a major controversy between the state Governor Anandi Ben Patel and the state government. The matter went to the high court. However in a major setback to the state government the Indore bench of MP High Court ruled that under section 52 of Madhya Pradesh Vishwavidyalaya Adhiniyam 1973, Chancellor is not under obligation to give consent to names forwarded by the government for vice-chancellor’s post. Judgment was delivered by a division bench comprising Justice SC Sharma and Justice Virendra Singh, on a writ filed by retired principal SL Garg challenging the process adopted by the government for appointment of Bal Krishna Sharam as vice-chancellor of Vikram University. He had stated that the government was not consulted by the Chancellor for the appointment of VC.
Upholding Sharma’s appointment the court noted that the Chancellor is required to consult the state government for appointment of VC under Section 52 but the consultation does not mean consent of the government.
After invoking Section 52 at Vikram University in February the government forwarded panel of three persons including Garg to Chancellor Anandiben Patel recommending that one of them be appointed as VC. However the chancellor stated that she did not find any of them suitable for VC’s post and forwarded a panel of four persons to the government and asked it to consider them. The government again returned the same panel of three persons with the message that it wants that one of them be made the VC. Taking the entire communiqué as completion of consultation with the government the Chancellor appointed one of the four candidate recommend by her as VC.
Later Garg, who was named in state government’s panel of probable VC, moved the court. Government’s counsel informed the court that the Law Department has categorically stated that the VC has to be appointed after the Chancellor gives consent with respect of the names proposed by the government. The court observed: “It is really unfortunate that Law Department has given such an opinion. The Chancellor is certainly not under any obligation to give consent to the names forwarded by the state government. The Chancellor can certainly form an opinion that no one is suitable for appointment as VC from the list submitted by the state government.” The court also said that the Chancellor is supreme authority under the Adhiniyam of 1973 and the supremacy of Chancellor as far as affairs of university is concerned, cannot be ruled out. “The Chancellor did consult the state government by forwarding the names. The state government has not given any negative opinion in respect of names forwarded by Chancellor and the Chancellor has thereafter, appointed the seniormost professor by way of stop-gap arrangement as Vice Chancellor.” The court ruled while disposing the writ appeal. (IPA Service)
Autocratic Ways Of Modi Govt Crippling Democracy 