Uproar in Assembly over Mukul’s remark against media
SHILLONG: Meghalaya Speaker Abu Taher Mondal today rejected an adjournment motion moved by UDP legislator Paul Lyngdoh seeking to discuss the sweeping remarks made by Chief Minister Mukul Sangma accusing media houses as being mouthpiece of the militants and favouring only ‘paid news’.
Chief Minister Mukul Sangma asserted that moving the motion would go against the privileges enjoyed by the members of the House based on the mandate of the Constitution.
Immediately after the Question Hour, the Speaker announced that Lyngdoh had moved the adjournment motion, but added that he received this only at 9.55 am and not one hour before the sitting of the day which is mandatory.
It was under Rule 56 of the ‘Rule of Conduct of Business’ of the Meghalaya Legislative Assembly that Lyngdoh moved the motion of adjournment to facilitate a discussion on the remarks made by the Chief Minister on media in Assembly recently and subsequently protested by the Meghalaya Editors and Publishers Association.
The Chief Minister among other remarks made in Assembly on March 10 said that the media organizations are acting as the publicity houses of militant organizations and the media is also engaging in paid news.
While rejecting the motion, the Speaker referred to the constitutional provisions under article 194 which stated about the powers and privileges of the members of the legislatures,
“Subject to the provisions of the constitution and to the rules and standing orders regulating the procedure of legislature, there shall be freedom of speech in the legislature of every state,” the Speaker said quoting the rule. He also said that “no member of the legislature of the state shall be liable to any proceedings in any court in respect of anything said or any vote given by him in the legislature or any committee thereof and no person shall be so liable in respect of the publication by or under the authority of a house of such the legislature of any report, paper, votes or proceedings”.
The Speaker also said that as per rule 57 sub-rule 7 of Meghalaya Legislative Assembly, motion should not raise a question of privilege.
However, Paul Lyngdoh said that the rule 57 sub rule 7 has nothing to do with the question of privilege.
“It it a matter of public importance and I thought that it would be in the fitness of things that Chief Minister who is the Leader of this House clarifies the statement that he had made on the floor of this House”, Lyngdoh said.
He also referred to rule 55 which said that a statement may be made by a Chief Minister on a matter of public importance with the consent of the Speaker so that at least there is some clarity on the very contentious issue as the remarks that have caused unnecessary heartburn amongst the members of the fourth estate.
The Parliamentary Affairs Minister Prestone Tynsong, said that while the adjournment motion is not necessary, the mover of the motion can have the options of either taking up a zero hour notice or a call attention motion to get a reply from the Chief Minister.
The Chief Minister, while terming the adjournment motion as unprecedented, said that the move goes against the privilege of the members of the House and freedom of speech as per the constitution and also based on the rules of the Meghalaya Legislative Assembly.
He also said a member moving a motion against another member in this context is unprecedented.
The Chief Minister said that if there is an attempt to actually gag any member of the House, it amounts to breach of privilege. “I have the right to actually move a breach of privileges of this motion. If there are any unparliamentarily words used by any member of this House, it is the Chair who will decide to expunge the words which are parliamentary,”Sangma said.
The Chief Minister also added that he did not use any un-parliamentary words.
After the views aired by the Chief Minister, the Speaker also echoed the same by stating that the remarks against the media are not un-parliamentary.
On the plan of the Government to make a law to regulate media as stated by him on March 10, the Chief Minister said that Government had been accommodative of inviting the views of all while framing laws in the past.
“The legislative measure does not mean that we want to gag anybody; we are only intending to actually come up with, if there is a need of a legislative measure to regulate. Is this an attempt to gag somebody or now I am attempted to be gagged by somebody, the Chief Minister is attempted to be gagged”, Sangma asserted.
Paul Lyngdoh reiterated that bringing the adjournment motion in no way raises the question of privilege.
While admitting that the members of the House have unlimited freedom of speech on matters concerning the people of the state Lyngdoh said, “I would like to point out here, is the use of certain words which have been found to be, for example Media acts as though as they are the publicity house of terrorist organization and it is only paid news that they want to carry”.
Lyngdoh said that if adjournment motion is not admitted, the Chief Minister can clarify on these remarks as there is a clarity needed on the intention of Chief Minister