Privilege Motion Row in Tripura Assembly
Agartala: The Budget session of the Tripura Legislative Assembly continued to be marred by controversy on Thursday, as disputes over breach of privilege motions dominated proceedings. Leader of the Opposition (LoP) Jitendra Choudhury wrote a letter to Speaker Biswa Bandhu Sen, alleging procedural irregularities in the submission of a privilege notice by Parliamentary Affairs Minister Ratan Lal Nath. The LoP demanded the cancellation of Nath’s notice, citing non-compliance with Assembly rules, a move that has intensified tensions in the House.
Origins of the Dispute
The unrest began on March 25 during the Budget session when CPIM MLAs staged a walkout, protesting what they described as a ‘racial’ attack by Minister Ratan Lal Nath against Choudhury. In response, the LoP submitted a breach of privilege notice against Nath over the alleged slur. The situation escalated further on Wednesday, March 26—the fourth day of the 7th session of the 13th Assembly—when Choudhury’s notice was rejected.
The Speaker cited a prior notice from Nath, explaining that Assembly rules permit only one breach of privilege motion per session. Consequently, Nath’s notice was accepted, and Choudhury’s was dismissed, prompting outrage from the CPIM, which announced a boycott of the remaining Budget session.
| Also Read: Tripura Assembly Budget session: CPIM to boycott remaining days, CM appeals to Oppn to attend sessions |
Choudhury’s Letter Highlights Procedural Lapses
“Assembly rules prohibit accepting more than one breach of privilege motion per session. Consequently, the first notice was accepted, and the second was rejected.”
On Thursday, Choudhury penned a detailed letter to the Speaker, later shared with the media, challenging the validity of Nath’s notice. He outlined the sequence of events, writing, “On the fourth day of its 7th session in the 13th term on March 26, during the zero hour, You (the Speaker) informed the House that two such notices had been received on March 25.
The first came from the personal secretary of Parliamentary Minister Shri Ratan Lal Nath via the Speaker’s personal secretary, while the second was submitted by Leader of the Opposition Shri Jitendra Choudhury through the Assembly Secretary’s office.
However, Assembly rules prohibit accepting more than one breach of privilege motion per session. Consequently, the first notice was accepted, and the second was rejected.”
Citing Assembly Rules
Choudhury bolstered his argument by invoking Section 174 of the Rules of Procedure and Conduct of Business in the Tripura Legislative Assembly, stating, “However, Section 174 of the Rules of Procedure and Conduct of Business in the Tripura Legislative Assembly, a member wishing to raise a question of breach of privilege shall give notice in writing to the Secretary before the Commencement of the sitting on the day question is proposed to be raised.
If the complaint is founded upon a document, the original or copy there of, shall accompany the notice.” He further elaborated, “It is clear here that such a notice must be submitted through the Assembly Secretary. This implies that any notice of this nature must be documented in the Receipts & Despatch Section of the Assembly Secretary’s office.”
Demand for Rectification
Pointing to procedural flaws, Choudhury argued that Nath’s notice, routed through the Speaker’s personal secretary rather than the Assembly Secretary, violated established norms. He wrote, “Now, upon examining the matter under discussion, it becomes evident that the notice of breach of privilege you accepted yesterday was not accepted in accordance with the established rules.
This renders it completely invalid and subject to immediate cancellation.” In his concluding plea, he urged, “In this context, I draw your attention to this issue and earnestly request you to promptly declare the motion accepted yesterday as canceled and, in accordance with the proper rules, accept the motion I have submitted, thereby upholding the sanctity of this esteemed Assembly.”
