‘Stifled’ Nirupam resigns, Shekhawat yet to accept

The Rajya Sabha secretariat said Nirupam’s resignation could not be accepted today due to technical reasons. ‘‘It has to follow a procedure. The Chairman has sent it to the Secretary-General and acceptance will follow,’’ sources said. A three-page note attached to the resignation letter could be the reason for delay, they added. Once accepted, the resignation and the note has to tabled in the House, which could be problematic as both would go on record. Though Nirupam does not mention BJP leader Pramod Mahajan’s name, it’s amply clear who he is referring to. The MP wrote that his problems with the party began when he wanted to raise a question on corruption in which he had pointed out the involvement of a ‘‘former minister and Rajya Sabha member’’.

‘‘I was asked to withdraw my question and since I defied my leader’s order, I had no moral right to continue as member of the House,’’ Nirupam said in a release, which was the text of his intended ‘‘last speech’’ in the House. Shekhawat did not permit the former Sena MP to make the speech today.

Nirupam and CPI(M)’s Jibon Roy had raised the issue of the sale of two crore shares of Reliance Infocomm to three fake companies owned by people allegedly close to former telecom minister Mahajan. The question came up in the Rajya Sabha on Tuesday.

‘‘When people who indulge in blatant corruption take cover of Parliament when they are going to be exposed, parliamentary democracy begins to look like a hollow system,’’ he wrote. ‘‘My worry is that when a union minister becomes symbol of corruption and moves are made to stifle the voices questioning his conduct, it puts a big question mark on the accountability of the government towards Parliament.’’

The MP went so far as to question Thackeray’s ‘‘crusade against corruption’’. ‘‘I did not sit on dharnas since I wanted to make use of my rights as an MP to expose corrupt people who occupy high positions in government.’’ Nirupam also called upon fellow MPs to ‘‘continue his crusade against corruption’’. His fight, he said, ‘‘was about the misuse of power by people to benefit some others and his personal right to speak (sic) issues of public interest inside the House’’.