The Privileges Committee of Lok Sabha, which is examining the breach of privilege notice against Congress leader Rahul Gandhi, will be seeking further opinion on the matter, sources said. The panel, chaired by BJP MP Sunil Singh, includes several opposition members including K Suresh of Congress, TR Baalu of DMK and TMC’s Kalyan Banerjee “The committee will study in detail any past cases and precedents. We will also seek any legal opinion, if need be,” a source stated.
During the panel’s last meeting, BJP MP Nishikant Dubey was deposed before it and demanded that Rahul Gandhi’s membership of the House should be terminated for “making objectionable remarks” about Prime Minister Narendra Modi.
Dubey had told the panel that the debate was on the motion of thanks to President’s address, but Rahul Gandhi’s speech was largely about Gautam Adani and that the Congress leader had mentioned the industrialist at least 75 times. The BJP MP had said that three types of breach of privilege apply to Rahul Gandhi.
He cited Rule 352 (2) which states that a member can comment on a fellow parliamentarian only with prior notice. Dubey, according to sources, said this was breached by Rahul Gandhi by commenting on PM Modi. Dubey also cited Subramanian Swamy’s expulsion from Rajya Sabha in 1976. Referring to Gandhi’s speech, he said casting aspersions on the conduct of the PM is undermining democracy.
Dubey had written to the Lok Sabha Speaker alleging breach of privilege by Rahul Gandhi on February 8. The complaint came a day after Gandhi’s speech in Lok Sabha where he made certain allegations about Prime Minister Narendra Modi and alleged his association with Gautam Adani. A similar complaint was made to the Speaker by Parliamentary Affairs Minister Pralhad Joshi.
In his letter, Dubey had said Rahul Gandhi’s remarks were “misleading, derogatory, indecent, unparliamentary, undignified and incriminatory” to the dignity of the House and Prime Minister who is a member.
Dubey alleged that the Congress leader had made a statement which amounted to misleading the House in the absence of any documentary evidence besides being a reflection upon the Prime Minister.
