Objecting to the replacement of BJP MLA Kalidas Kolambkar as the pro-tem Speaker with NCP’s Dilip Walse Patil, Fadnavis claimed such a replacement has happened for the first time in the country, as the Sena-NCP-Congress alliance was scared of losing the floor test.
“Once appointed, pro-tem Speaker continues till the regular Speaker gets elected. But pro-tem Speaker was changed and this happened for the first time in the history of India. At every step, our Constitution is being insulted by this government,” he said.
Fadnavis also alleged that the session was not being conducted as per norms. “On November 27, when Assembly session was held, it started with Vande Mataram and concluded with National Anthem. It meant that the session was adjourned sine die,” he said. “For a new session, a summon needs to be issued through the Governor. BJP legislators received the message at 1 am on Saturday. Was it done to ensure that BJP legislators do not reach the session for the trust vote?” he added.
Fadnavis claimed that the oath-taking ceremony of Uddhav Thackeray and six other ministers was not in line with the rules. “Uddhav Thackeray and his council of ministers, while taking oath at Shivaji Park, did not conform to the prescribed proforma. Some took the oath in name of late Bal Thackeray, others in the name of Sonia Gandhi and Sharad Pawar, which was against the rules. Therefore, the oath taken by CM and his ministers is invalid.”
He alleged that as per norms, trust vote is followed by the Speaker’s election. “This was followed in letter and spirit after the 2014 Assembly elections. By skipping the Speaker’s election, the government has shown disregard for constitutional rules,” said Fadnavis.
“They were afraid their government will collapse if regular Speaker is there… That’s why we walked out. We are going to write to the Governor saying the business was not transacted in line with the Constitution,” he said.
Terming the proceedings as “murder of democracy”, Fadnavis said: “In the US, when Barrack Obama had taken oath, which did not comform to the prescribed proforma, it was termed invalid. He had to take the oath again.”