Rajasthan Opposition Leader Slams Assembly Secretariat for Restricting MLA Question Rights
Leader of Opposition Tikaram Jully launched a sharp criticism against the Rajasthan Assembly Secretariat on Friday. He targeted internal communications issued to MLAs that he claims restrict legislators' fundamental right to ask questions. Jully called this move an insult to democracy. He also labeled it a clear misinterpretation of established Assembly rules.
Formal Letter Seeks Speaker's Intervention
Jully wrote a formal letter to Speaker Vasudev Devnani. He sought immediate clarification and intervention regarding bulletins issued on January 7 and January 9. In his letter, Jully alleged these documents impose arbitrary and unprecedented curbs on elected members. He argued they undermine the core function of legislative oversight.
Jully highlighted several specific restrictions introduced by the bulletins. One key restriction bars questions related to public matters older than five years. This applies even in cases where the government took no action on an issue. Another instruction limits questions to specific locations. MLAs can only ask about villages, tehsils, or areas within their own constituency.
Objections to Geographic and Temporal Limits
Jully strongly objected to these geographic limitations. He stated they effectively prevent members from raising district-level or state-level issues. In his letter, Jully presented a clear constitutional argument. He asserted that an MLA, once elected, represents the entire state of Rajasthan.
He emphasized that under the official Rules of Procedure, an MLA is entitled to raise issues concerning any district, tehsil, or village in the state. Curtailing this right, he argued, directly weakens the legislature's ability to hold the executive accountable. It silences the voices of the people across Rajasthan.
Questioning the Legal Basis of Directives
Jully cited a specific bulletin dated January 13, 2025. This bulletin was issued by the Assembly Secretariat under Rule 37(2). It lists twenty-five conditions for the admissibility of questions. However, Jully pointed out that this official bulletin does not mention the restrictive conditions he flagged.
This discrepancy led him to question the legal basis for the Secretariat's recent directives. He demanded to know under what authority these additional restrictions were created. Jully also raised broader procedural concerns.
Impact on Zero Hour and Attention Motions
He expressed worry that the bulletins weaken members' ability to use important parliamentary tools. These include Zero Hour matters and attention motions. These tools are crucial for raising urgent public-interest issues. Jully argued that members must retain the ability to seek clarifications. This is especially vital when ministers provide incomplete replies or fail to respond altogether.
Congress Support and Constitutional Argument
Congress Chief Whip Rafeek Khan publicly backed Jully's objections. Khan stated a powerful principle. "Asking questions in the Assembly is a constitutional right, not a favour," he said. Khan labeled the Secretariat's directives a clear violation of the Rules of Procedure and Conduct of Business.
He provided a comparative perspective, noting that even the Lok Sabha has not imposed such sweeping restrictions on its members. Khan made a direct appeal to the Speaker. He urged the immediate withdrawal of these instructions. His final call was to protect the rights of MLAs and, by extension, fully protect the voices of the people they represent in the democratic process.
