Share your story and shine at JK Monitor!🌟 Welcome to JK Monitor, where every story matters and every achievement is celebrated! We invite you to share the remarkable journey of your life and showcase your accomplishments to the world. Join our exclusive interviews that honor exceptional individuals just like you. JAMMU: The motion moved by Hon’ble MLA Shri R.S. Pathania seeking the removal of Jammu & Kashmir Legislative Assembly Speaker Shri Abdul Rahim Rather has raised a fundamental issue of parliamentary propriety, institutional neutrality and fidelity to law, said Girdhari Lal Raina, former MLC and spokesperson, BJP J&K.
“This is not merely a technical dispute over a 14-day notice. The Speaker occupies an office that demands the highest standard of impartiality. The authority of the Chair cannot be allowed to become a shield in proceedings concerning the Chair itself,” Raina said.
Raina noted that Shri Pathania submitted the removal notice on September 28, reportedly with the required support. While the Speaker has maintained that the resolution can be listed only after the prescribed 14-day period, Raina said the position must be tested strictly against the Jammu and Kashmir Reorganisation Act, 2019, and the applicable Rules of Procedure.
“Section 19 provides for 14 days’ notice of the intention to move a resolution for removal of the Speaker. But Section 20 is unequivocal: when a resolution for the removal of the Speaker is under consideration, the Speaker shall not preside over that sitting. This statutory safeguard cannot be diluted, circumvented or selectively interpreted,” Raina asserted.
Raina also invoked the principle of parliamentary morality and voluntary restraint, referring to the conduct of Lok Sabha Speaker Shri Om Birla during the removal controversy earlier this year. Reports stated that Speaker Birla voluntarily stayed away from the Chair after a removal notice was submitted, citing the moral propriety of not presiding while his removal was being sought.
“Whatever the precise legal position at the notice stage, the conduct of the Lok Sabha Speaker demonstrated an important principle: constitutional offices are sustained not only by legal powers but also by restraint, propriety and sensitivity to institutional perception,” Raina said. He stressed that the same principle deserves consideration in Jammu & Kashmir.
“The Speaker’s powers are substantial, but so is the responsibility attached to those powers. Rules exist to protect the institution, not to protect the incumbent. Any avoidable perception that the Chair is being used to influence proceedings involving the Speaker himself would damage the credibility of the Assembly.”
Referring to the recent controversy over the statehood resolution, Raina said it further underlined the need for consistent and transparent application of parliamentary procedure.
“The present controversy should have been resolved strictly within the constitutional and statutory framework, without prejudging the merits of the removal motion. But one principle must remain beyond ambiguity: the Speaker cannot be both the subject of a removal proceeding and the presiding authority over that proceeding once the resolution is under consideration.”
“The dignity of the Jammu & Kashmir Legislative Assembly demands that Section 20 and the applicable Rules be followed in letter and spirit. Institutional credibility must come before individual office,” Raina said.
