Document Fragment View

Matching Fragments

12.05 hrs. RE : NOTICE OF MOTION FOR ADJOURNMENT Filing of charge-sheet in the Ayodhya case Title:Regarding notices of motion for adjournment on the issue of filing of charge-sheet by CBI in Ayodhya case (The Speaker disallowed the notices and gave his ruling).

MR. SPEAKER: Now, we go to Adjournment Motion notice and as decided yesterday in the Business Advisory Committee, Shri Priya Ranjan Dasmunsi is to speak.

SHRI PRIYA RANJAN DASMUNSI (RAIGANJ): Mr. Speaker Sir, I thank you very much. The Adjournment Motion notice that I submitted on behalf of our Party and several other colleagues from respective Opposition Parties reads as follows:

"It is not in order to put to a Minister a question for which another Minister is more directly-responsible, or ask one Minister to influence the action of another. "

  Sir, the motion is related to CBI being misused or interfered by the Union Government in its Executive action. I draw your kind attention to the proceedings of 7.12.1999 just to narrate the hon. Prime Minister’s own statement. I quote:

"Mr. Speaker, Sir, pending Ayodhya cases can be classified into two categories.
The first category is of cases relating to the title dispute. There are five such cases, two of which have remained pending since over 49 years.
"Shri Arun Jaitley, hon. Law Minister has sent me just now a letter, in response to this, which is as under :
‘The Government has received notice of Adjournment Motion filed by several Members of this House on the alleged abuse of power by the CBI and the Government in relation to the charge-sheet in the Ayodhya case.
Besides dealing with a subject matter, which is sub judice, the CBI has not diluted any case, dropped any charge against any accused person. Section 120-B was never a charge in the Raebareli charge-sheet and the question of dropping it does not arise.’ "

Even when the Prime Minister responded on 7th December, 1999 to the debate, giving full details of account of the case and the charge-sheet and all these things, that did not prejudice the inquiry, Mr. Speaker, Sir, and that is why, possibly, you had allowed it. When Shri Advani replied on December 6, 1999 to an intervention of Shri G.M. Banatwalla – I can quote the proceedings profusely – and gave full account of the case and the status, that did not prejudice the inquiry. The reply to me was given on 29th November in an Unstarred Question regarding the status of the case pertaining to Ayodhya and the Government replied that the case is very simple; these are the two charge-sheets filed in the court; prima facie charges have been framed by the court; and that the following are the accused. Even on that day, Mr. Speaker, Sir, when we interacted and the Prime Minister came to respond, that also did not prejudice the inquiry.