The Haryana State Legislative Assembly on Friday passed a resolution “not to accept” and “ignore” the notice issued to Vidhan Sabha Speaker Gian Chand Gupta by the Punjab and Haryana High Court on a petition filed by INLD MLA Abhay Singh Chautala. The matter pertains to the ongoing Budget session's proceedings conducted on February 21 when Gupta “named” Abhay and barred him from participating in Vidhan Sabha proceedings on February 22 and 23 for his “unparliamentary behaviour” and “interrupting the House proceedings”. The Ellenabad MLA had challenged the Speaker's decision in the High Court on February 23. Moving the resolution on the floor of the House on Friday, Parliamentary Affairs Minister Kanwar Pal said: “On February 21, Abhay had interrupted the House proceedings and violated rules. Speaker named him for two days. Abhay filed a petition challenging it in the High Court regarding which the Secretariat received a notice. It is against Article 212 of the Constitution. There are several judgments as per which the courts can not intervene in the proceedings of the Legislative Assembly.” “I propose that the HC notice should not be accepted because it is an intervention in the functioning of the Assembly. So, this notice should be ignored and a reply should not be submitted,” Pal said. The Speaker also cited several Supreme Court judgments and sought the House's approval for passing the resolution. Eventually, the resolution was passed in the House amid objections raised by Abhay and a few Congress legislators. Leader of Opposition Bhupinder Singh Hooda also raised objection, saying “there was no need to move such a resolution in the House” and “rather the government could submit its reply to the HC notice”. The matter will now come up for hearing on March 23. Abhay, through his counsel Sandeep Goyat, had contended that the Speaker did not bring a motion regarding the suspension and has, therefore, not acted in accordance with the Rules of Procedures and Conduct of Business in the Haryana Legislative Assembly. He also alleged that the Speaker’s action in this matter was "malafide, unconstitutional, unjust, and unfair". “As per Rule 104-A and 104-B, the Speaker cannot pass the order of suspension for more than the remainder of the day of the session and cannot pass the same without bringing the motion on the floor of the House,” the petition said. However, the Speaker, in Friday’s proceedings cited Article 212 of the Constitution before passing the resolution. “Article 212 says court not to inquire into proceedings of the Legislature. (1) The validity of any proceedings in the Legislature of a State shall not be called in question on the ground of any alleged irregularity of procedure. (2) No officer or member of the Legislature of a State in whom powers are vested by or under this Constitution for regulating procedure or the conduct of business, or for maintaining order, in the Legislature shall be subject to the jurisdiction of any court in respect of the exercise by him of those powers,” Gupta added. On some concerns raised by opposition members, the Speaker said, "This resolution is not against anyone". The Speaker further said, "We respect the judiciary and we will abide by its decision (in Abhay's matter)". Speaking on the resolution, Chautala said the Speaker can only suspend members for one sitting and if he has to suspend for a longer duration then a motion has to be brought in the House which was not done in his case. "I went to court as rules were not followed for my suspension. I could not have been suspended for two days," said Chautala. The Speaker told the INLD leader that he had been named for two days and not suspended from the House. "There is a difference between being named and suspended". Before the resolution was put to vote, Leader of Opposition Bhupinder Singh Hooda said there was no need to bring a resolution and added "reply should be given before the court".
