‘I can’t imagine casting aspersions on Speaker’

As I read from the report that appeared in The Indian Express, this statement of mine was taken as a

‘reflection’ on the impartiality of the Speaker. I sincerely believe it was only a

statement of ‘truth’ and a historical fact. I fail to understand how it can be construed as breach of parliamentary privilege.

I have worked in the Lok Sabha for more than 37 years, right from the time of Jawaharlal Nehru and Dadasaheb Mavalankar. I can even brag about having written the largest number of pages on parliamentary privilege, law and procedures. I cannot imagine doing or saying anything, which casts aspersions on the high office of the Speaker.

As a free citizen of the country and more so as a senior citizen who has no axe to grind, I have done my duty. I have a right to say what I configure to be ‘the truth’ in the national interest. This is what I have been doing for the last 16 years after taking voluntary retirement from the post of the Secretary-General.

Even at that time, I never compromised on truth

and honesty. I believe it is a very small price to pay, even in this particular case,

for having fearlessly spoken the truth.

I stand by every word I said at the television interview. My reference was to Mamata Banerjee that there was a personal angle to her reaction (in the House when she threw the papers at the chair when her notice was disallowed) as she could never forget the fact that she had defeated stalwarts at elections in West Bengal. It is always at the back of her mind.

Also, I would like to say that I was not asked to

substantiate on the point whether an issue can be raised in Parliament twice (as had the point behind the Speaker’s ruling on Mamata’s notice) within the same session. I

would have provided documentary evidence from my own books.

As for my rumoured political leaning, I did not take any position during the NDA-BJP period. I have, throughout my career, judged issues on their merit as a student of the Constitution.

A parliamentary privilege (motion) should never become an issue on which the House is divided along party lines. In privilege matters, the tradition has always been that of unanimous decision because of the honour and the prestige of the House involved. It is acceptable and convincing only when the whole House stands as one man.

Parliament is supreme and I have greatest respect for the institution of the Speaker and the Lok Sabha, but I must flag the rights and responsibilities of the free citizen of the country — the right to speak out what I consider to be true with responsibility of a non-partisan academic.

(As told to Santwana Bhattacharya)