Rebel JD(U) leaders Sharad Yadav and Ali Anwar have been asked to appear before the Rajya Sabha chairman Venkaiah Naidu, regarding the Nitish Kumar camp’s petition seeking their disqualification under the Anti-Defection Law.
The RS secretariat, sent a notice to the concerned lawmakers, which read “the chairman, under sub-rule (7) of the Members of Rajya Sabha (disqualification on ground of defection) Rules, 1985, would hear them in person on October 30 before taking a decision on the matter.”
Responding to these orders, various opposition parties are questioning the Rajya Sabha secretariat’s notices to dissident JDU members Sharad Yadav and Ali Anwar to appear before the chairman. Since the break up of the JD(U) and RJD-Congress, few of the JD(U) leaders including Sharad Yadav and Ali Anwar, rebelled against the party, criticising the decision of Bihar Chief Minister Nitish Kumar joining hands with BJP.
From the time Nitish made an alliance with bJP and formed the new government in Bihar, the JD(U) has been divided into two factions, one led by Nitish Kumar and the other led by Sharad Yadav. The Sharad Yadav faction claims to be the real JD(U) and also said that they will continue their alliance with RJD and Congres.
Taking into account this behaviour of the JD(U) leaders, the Kumar faction had filed a petition seeking the disqualification of Sharad Yadav and Ali Anwar for going against the party. The party had many a time warned the rebel leaders to not to join the opposition but Sharad Yadav faction paid no heed to it.
A few days back to expedite the disqualification, Nitish Kumar had demanded that the decision of the lawmakers’ disqualification should not be delayed by sending it to the parliamentary panel.
Responding to this demand of the Bihar Chief Minister and the recent notice of the Rajya Sabha secretariat, Congress deputy leader in Rajya Sabha Anand Sharma said on Friday said that “The chairman, instead of taking up the matter himself should, as per the tradition, refer the petition against Yadav and Anwar to the privileges and ethics committees for scrutiny.”
Meanwhile, the Sharad Yadav camp on Thursday, claiming itself to be the real JD(U) had sent a copy of the 3,000-page affidavit it filed before the EC with signatures of 19 presidents of JDU state units.
Even the CPM leader Sitaram Yechury, who has served in the RS privileges and ethics committees for 10 years disapproved of the notice and decision of not sending the matter for scrutiny. Giving an example of a previous case, he said that “Even during disqualification of Vijay Mallya, the issue had been referred to the ethics committee and said the issue for scrutiny should be Yadav’s conduct in the House, not internal issues of JDU outside.”
NCP leader Tariq Anwar also criticised the petition filed by Nitish Kumar factions, saying that Sharad Yadav is among one of the senior most MP’s and he was even awarded the Best Parliamentarian Award. He further added that “Just because the Nitish Kumar camp wants to unleash political vendetta against Sharad Yadav, (it) can’t be a reason for disqualifying Sharad ji under the anti-defection law.”
It is being speculated that the notice has set the date as 30 Oct for Sharad Yadav and Ali Anwar to appear, as it is most likely that they want to get over with the matter, before the Winter session of the Parliament, which begins next month.
Earlier last month. responding to the petition filed by the Kumar faction, Sharad Yadav wrote to the Rajya Sabha Chairman, Venkaiah Naidu that the petition filed by Nitish is not only baseless but also non-maintainable. His 202-page reply to the Chairman read that the petition filed by JD(U) did not fulfil relevant provisions of the anti-defection law and that the petition cannot be proceeded under the Tenth Schedule, when the core dispute for the party and its symbol is sub judice, pending before the Election Commission.
The Yadav faction had claimed for the symbol of JD(U) in EC, saying they were the real JD(U), however, their petition was rejected as it did not fulfil all the criteria required and were suggested to refile the petition with proper documentation.