Thiruvananthapuram: Opposition leader and speaker locked the horn once again in assembly of the last refusal to eliminate allegations of financial fraud leveled against opposition leaders by MLA P V Anwar.
Anwar actually raised allegations of financial fraud against V d Satheani during the discussion of the bill at home on Wednesday.
Because the speaker was not in the chair at that time, it was answered that the objection submitted by the opposition to the allegations of Anwar would be seen and there was a decision to be announced later.
It was the Kabu which on Wednesday lifted the point of order to the allegations raised by Anwar, without providing a written notification.
Speaker M B Rajesh on Thursday gave opposition leaders the opportunity to clarify the stand.
Quoting Rules 285, the speaker said there was no slanderous or burdensome allegation that would be carried out by members of anyone unless members have given the previous intimacy, adding that oral information is also a form of information and “if the speaker is satisfied, that oral information is enough”.
The information received by the speaker needs to be forwarded only to the minister, he ruled.
However, opposition leaders questioned the ruling of the speaker by citing the same rule provisions 285.
He said the rules apply to all members of the house.
Sathean said there was no truth on Anwar’s allegations that he had enjoyed some cases of money chain fraud in the early 90’s.
He said the government was free to carry out any investigations and called unfounded allegations.
Although the demand repeatedly by opposition leaders, the speaker refused to reveal the allegations raised by Anwar from assembly records.
When the speaker refused to succumbed, the former opposition leader Ramesh Chennithala said if the previous verdict was what stopped the speaker from extending the statement, then the speaker would rule out the previous verdict.
Shortly after the fight on the allegations, the opposition carried out the second walkout of the house that protested the government’s rejection to discuss more than 650 amendments to the recommended opposition members in the university’s legal bill (amendment).