Faced with an unrelenting Left, the Congress today appealed to the Opposition to keep the Patent Bill above partisan politics and facilitate its passage in the larger interests of the country.Party spokesman Anand Sharma said: ‘‘There has been some disagreement in the Lok Sabha on the introduction of Patent Bill. There are certain international obligations which have to honoured. We do hope that whatever differences are there would be resolved and the Bill would be taken up tomorrow and passed in the current session.’’Asked if there was a deal between the Government and the Left parties, which have been very vocal against patent laws, Sharma said: ‘‘The UPA has consulted all parties. There have been discussions with leaders of various political parties, including the Left, and the process is likely to be completed by tomorrow.’’Sharma had a tough time explaining that the stand against the imposition of President’s rule in Bihar adopted by Railway Minister Laloo Prasad Yadav amounted to a violation of the principle of collective responsibility. He said a minister could express his views, but ‘‘once a decision is taken by the Cabinet, he is bound by it.’’ He said a minister is bound by even a decision taken by the Cabinet in his absence.Replying to another question, Sharma said: ‘‘We are conscious of the arithmetic in Lok Sabha — we have the ability to carry our allies together.’’Responding to a volley of questions on the PM’s statement on the Narendra Modi issue, Sharma said it was made in the context of the denial of US visa to the Gujarat CM. He said no political meaning should be read into it.‘‘We have repeatedly castigated the Gujarat government headed by Modi on riots,’’ he said. However, the PM’s statement was in the context of the denial of US visa to a constitutional authority.When a reporter pointed to the contradiction in the ‘‘clean chit’’ allegedly given by the PM in his statement and the Congress’ own position on Modi’s role in the riots, Sharma said anybody having an understanding of the law would understand this. Anyone chargesheeted by a court of law cannot hold a constitutional office, he added.
