The Speaker of Goa Legislative Assembly has set a limit to information that can be asked by MLAs in the House. MLAs have now to restrict their queries to matters of only the last five years. Hence, the MLAs will not be able to raise questions on issues that happened more than five years ago. The Opposition MLAs allege that their questions are not replied to properly; in fact, they are not allowed to raise questions, and there are restrictions on the number of questions that can be tabled.
Now, since the Opposition cannot seek information on matters which are beyond five years, it may think that their right to ask questions and raise issues are being curtailed. The government is impassive about this. In the past, the government was cautious to avoid any criticism, but now things are going wayward. But that is not the basic issue. The question here is, how and why did the Speaker think of putting a limit of five years?
The reasoning behind this move isn’t satisfactory. According to the Speaker, it becomes difficult to gather information, if questions pertaining to very old issues are asked. This troubles the departmental staff. It was the departmental staff who requested the Speaker to restrict questions upto five years. And this request has been fulfilled. But the question here is not about staff of various departments being troubled, but the rights and privileges of the MLAs. The staff will, in any way, be burdened if questions from any period are being asked. If the question asked within the five-year limit is quite voluminous, and requires a huge amount of information to be given, even that is going to burden or trouble the staff. This is not right. Secondly, if there is a burden or trouble in giving answers to questions, it is the government’s lookout, and not of the Speaker. Hence, the government should solve the issue. Not the Speaker. Consequently, the Speaker’s decision should also be examined. The Speaker’s latest order is as per Assembly Business Rules no. 307, and he should take the help of Rule 37 (21) to explain its meaning. Therefore, it is necessary to look at both the rules first.
Rule 37 of the Rules of Procedure and Conduct of Business of Legislative Assembly defines what kind of information cannot be asked. The Sub Section 21 states ‘it shall not ordinarily ask information on matters of past history’. This is acceptable to all. Hence, no one has objected to it. The rules have been prevailing since the existence of the Goa Legislative Assembly. A similar rule applies to the Lok Sabha and Rajya Sabha. Till date, no one has ever thought of defining the exact period for the term ‘past history’, because it is “understood”. No one has ever thought of troubling the government by raising age-old issues. One can say that the MLAs asking questions have a sense of their responsibility. Then, why did the Speaker decide to restrict questions to the past five years? And how did he do it? Under which rules? As the right to change rules rests with the House and not the Speaker alone. Thoughts expressed or orders given by the Speaker in the Assembly, become interpretations and rules. But, can the Speaker interpret rules in such a manner outside the Assembly, is a question. He interpreted the meaning of past history according to Rule 307. Interpretation and removal of difficulties: If any doubt arises as to the interpretation of any of the provisions of these rules, the decision of the Speaker shall be final. This means, the Speaker has the right to interpret a rule and give clarification. But someone has to raise a question first. No one has asked or raised questions about past history, citing explanations about the exact duration. Then, where is the need to give clarification? Secondly, the rule is for the House, if any doubt is raised about a rule, it is necessary to be raise it in the Assembly. But clarification cannot be given in a manner where it entirely changes the rule. It requires the consent of the House. In the present situation, it entirely changes the rule, hence it requires the approval of the House. The speaker has used the rule and has to the rescue of the government. Whether the Speaker’s is right or wrong will be definitely discussed in the House as the decision has not gone down well with the Opposition.
One thing must be noted here: The Speaker’s ruling does not actually change the rule, it merely interprets the rule.
