Avinash Azad
Several members of the Jammu and Kashmir Legislative Assembly on Wednesday objected to letters written by Chief Secretary (CS) Atal Dulloo and Law Secretary (LS) Achal Sethi, advising the Assembly Secretariat not to take up the resolution seeking restoration of the Union Territory’s statehood on the ground that the matter was sub judice.
The issue was raised during the ongoing Assembly session, with legislators questioning the authority of bureaucrats to comment on the admissibility of a resolution moved by the elected government. The letters were reportedly sent after Chief Minister, Omar Abdullah introduced the statehood resolution and Speaker Abdul Rahim Rather admitted it for discussion.
Congress MLA, Irfan Hafeez Lone, speaking during Zero hour, described the communications as a serious breach of legislative privilege and questioned how a public servant could independently advise the Speaker on whether a resolution could be taken up. “This is a matter of serious concern. The Speaker, and not a government officer, has the authority to decide whether a resolution can be discussed in the House,” Lone said. He also demanded that the matter be referred to the Privileges Committee for action.
Congress MLA, Nizamuddin Bhat, said the communications undermined the “prestige, dignity and powers” of the Assembly. He questioned how bureaucrats could challenge the authority of the legislature without consulting the elected government.
National Conference MLA, Sajjad Shafi, representing Uri, said the Chief Secretary had no authority to dictate which resolution should or should not be brought before the House.
“The Chief Secretary is nobody to write such a letter. It is for the legislators to decide,” Shafi said.
People’s Democratic Party MLA, Waheed-ur-Rehman Para, also criticised the intervention, arguing that the legislature alone had the authority to move and debate resolutions. Para subsequently submitted a privilege motion against the Chief Secretary and the Law Secretary, urging the Speaker to examine their communications under the applicable rules.
People’s Conference chairman and Handwara MLA, Sajjad Gani Lone, termed the episode an affront to the elected institution. He questioned whether the Chief Secretary could override the collective authority of the Assembly.
“If you are powerful, then take action against the Chief Secretary, who undermined the House. Show power there and not here,” Lone said, addressing the ruling alliance.
Awami Ittehad Party MLA, Sheikh Khursheed, described the episode as an encroachment on democratic principles, saying an elected Assembly could not function under the “shadow or veto” of unelected bureaucrats.
National Conference MLA, Tanvir Sadiq, also criticised the communications, saying the issue was not limited to any one political party but concerned accountability to the people and the need for restoration of Jammu and Kashmir’s statehood.
Responding to the objections, National Conference MLA, Mubarak Gul, who served as Acting Speaker for part of Wednesday’s proceedings, said the opinions expressed by the Chief Secretary and the Law Secretary were not binding on the House. The clarification effectively reaffirmed that the Assembly would determine its own proceedings and that the bureaucrats’ communications could not prevent the House from debating or adopting a resolution.
The BJP, however, defended the officials’ position. Leader of Opposition (LoP), Sunil Sharma, said, “The communications showed that the resolution had been considered illegal and unconstitutional by the Law Department.” BJP MLA, Balwant Singh Mankotia, also argued that legislators were bound by the Law Secretary’s opinion. The Assembly had earlier passed Chief Minister Omar Abdullah’s resolution seeking the urgent restoration of full statehood to Jammu and Kashmir amid protests and a walkout by BJP members.
