Delhi assembly speaker Ram Niwas Goel Tuesday disallowed a discussion on the conduct of former L-G Najeeb Jung. Goel, who holds a constitutional office himself, wrote in his ruling that he was “bound to protect the dignity of the office of the L-G”.
Why did you not allow a discussion on the conduct of the former L-G as requested by MLA Saurabh Bharadwaj?
When a person has resigned from the post, why should there be a discussion about him in the House? The time of the House is too precious.
In the past, there have been discussions on the actions or files with the L-G. Should this have been allowed?
Discussions on files and decisions may be allowed in the future, too. There can be no personal discussion on the L-G.
Would the same apply to discussions on the Prime Minister or Union ministers?
A distinction needs to be made between elected representatives and constitutional posts. Elected members do not hold constitutional posts.
There cannot be a discussion on the President or the L-G. Even when members say something about the PM or a Union minister, their names should not be uttered in the House… If some member gets carried away and uses their name, we delete it from the proceedings.
Will you allow a discussion on the incumbent L-G?
Ideally there can be no discussion on the L-G. But if there are special circumstances under which it is required, it may be considered.