Paswan, Sharad play safe, backtrack on anti-Laloo remarks

Asserting that they were asking for Laloo’s resignation in the wake of Central Bureau of Investigation (CBI) chargesheeting him in the fodder scam, they told reporters separately that they were “misquoted and misunderstood by a section of the print media”.

Sharad said he had stated that the issue would be “resolved” at the July 25 steering committee meeting of the Front. “May be the word resolve was mistaken for resolution,” he explained.

Paswan, on the other hand, clarified he was making a general observation that Article 356 of Constitution, providing for imposition of President’s Rule in a state, should not be scrapped.

He said though the Dal did not favour use of Article 356, it was of the view that the provision should remain in Constitution to deal with extraordinary situations and that it should not be misused.

Asked to comment on reports attributed to him that the situation in Bihar was a fit case for imposition of President’s Rule, Paswan denied he had made such a remark. He also denied having stated that President’s Rule was imminent and inevitable in Bihar.

At the same time, he pointed out that the Chief Minister’s challenge to him to visit his constituency in Bihar smacked of a virtual threat. “This is absolutely undemocratic,” he said.