Until Monday night, the Naveen Patnaik-led BJD MPs — currently in Delhi for Parliament’s Monsoon Session — had ‘no communication from Bhubaneswar’ on their party’s stand on two crucial issues raised by the Opposition — the no-confidence motion against the BJP-led NDA government and the contentious Delhi Services Bill.
Late on Tuesday, just hours before the GNCDT Amendment Act, 1991, was to be introduced in the Lok Sabha, party sources said the BJD will vote against the no-confidence motion and for the Delhi Services Bill.
The anticipation was proved right, given the BJD’s past record of enabling the Narendra Modi-led government to come out of a tight spot in the Rajya Sabha where the NDA does not have the numbers. In 2019, when the government repealed Article 370, the BJD had supported the revocation.
On Tuesday, after MoS Home Nityanand Rai introduced the Delhi Services Bill on behalf of Home Minister Amit Shah, Congress MP from West Bengal and leader of the party in the House Adhir Ranjan Choudhury opposed it, saying the bill “vindicates the outrageous infringement of this government on the territory of states. It is designed for digging a big graveyard for cooperative federalism”.
He was followed by RSP MP NK Premachandran, AIMIM MP Assaduddin Owaisi, Trinamool MP Prof Sougata Roy, Congress MPs Gaurav Gogoi and Shashi Tharoor, and DMK MP TR Baalu, all of whom challenged the Bill’s introduction on various grounds, including legislative competence.
Then came the turn of BJD MP Pinaki Misra who supported the introduction of the Bill. Almost playing lawyer for the NDA government, Misra said: “Honourable Speaker Sir, there are some very, very erudite Members of Parliament here who know the law well. I am surprised that when legislative competence is being discussed under Rule 72 proviso that there is no advertence all to the actual Supreme Court judgement or the order which the Supreme Court has passed.
“The speaking order of seven pages that the Supreme Court has passed in the writ petition filed by the State of Delhi against the Union of India. Kindly see what the Supreme Court in para 95 has said. It concludes about legislative competence. Please understand, the court says ‘however, if Parliament enacts a law granting executive power on any subject which is in the domain of NCTD , the executive power of the LG shall be modified to the extent as modified in that law’. The government has brought a law now pursuant to the Supreme Court empowering it. So, how can you challenge legislative competence?”
The BJD MP stressed that while one can vote against the Bill, it cannot be challenged on a point of law.
It was Amit Shah who spoke next. “Under Article 249, this House has been given power to bring any law on Delhi. Constitution has given the House the power to pass any law regarding the state of Delhi. The Supreme Court judgment has clarified that Parliament can bring any law regarding the state of Delhi. All objection is political. Please permit me to bring this Bill.”
The BJP alone has 93 MPs in the Rajya Sabha and therefore, the support of BJD with nine MPs in the Upper House becomes crucial. The BJP also has the support of the YSRCP’s nine MPs, which takes it closer to the finishing mark of 119 — assuming that all the members of the Upper House are present and voting. The INDIA bloc — along with TRS which is not part of the camp — has 107 MPs minus AAP MP Sanjay Singh who has been suspended for the entire session and will not be able to vote.
Though the BJD has maintained that it is equidistant from both the BJP and Congress, party supremo Naveen Patnaik has been a minister in late Atal Bihari Vajpayee’s cabinet from 1998 to 2000. Odisha’s longest-serving chief minister has rebuffed any possibilities of BJD being part of a new political front, following speculations after his meeting with Bihar Chief Minister Nitish Kumar. Interestingly, the Odisha chief minister’s statement came after a meeting with PM Narendra Modi. The BJD sees no adverse political fallout in Odisha due to its support for the Union government.
Comments
0 comment