Mallikarjun Kharge, Congress president and leader of the Opposition in the Rajya Sabha, on Thursday challenged the decision of Chairman Jagdeep Dhankhar to expunge certain references from his speech, pointing out that one of the phrases had been used by Atal Bihari Vajpayee when the late BJP stalwart was a parliamentarian.

Kharge said the term expunged by the Chair on Wednesday was very much part of the parliamentary proceedings when Vajpayee used it against P.V. Narasimha Rao. Congress veteran Rao was Prime Minister from 1991 to 1996.

Kharge wrote a separate letter to Dhankhar to allege that the rights of the members were not being protected by his repeated directives for the authentication of points raised during speeches.

Speaking on the motion of thanks to the President’s addresses, Kharge criticised the Prime Minister for not acting against party MPs over hate speeches being made by them. He used a term against the Prime Minister’s inaction and Dhankhar said the expression did not suit the stature of the Leader of the Opposition. Referring to the Prime Minister, Dhankhar said there were certain positions for which “we have to have great regards”.

Kharge took objection to the decision to expunge the terms and said: “If you had concerns, you could have asked me separately. I used a word….”

Dhankhar immediately asked Kharge not to utter the term that had been expunged. Kharge referred to its use in the past.

“The term was used by Vajpayee against Narasimha Rao. The term is still there in Parliament records,” Kharge said.

“When our chief whip comes to my defence, you make comments on his conduct. You say he has not read the rules. He is well-read, Sir,” Kharge said.

Dhankhar said that the ultimate defender was the Chairman.

“That is not happening. You are expunging,” Kharge said.

During his speech on Wednesday, the Chairman had asked him to authenticate through documents the points he was making. Kharge on Thursday wrote a letter to Dhankhar against the demand for authentication of the points made by members.

His letter quoted Rule 238A of the Procedure and Conduct of Business in the Council of States that stipulates that the “Chairman may at any time prohibit any member from making any such allegation if he is of the opinion that such allegation is derogatory to the dignity of the Council or that no public interest is served by making such allegation”.

The term allegation refers to a matter of fact on which a judicial decision is pending or refers to making a personal charge against a member.

“The institution of Parliament of India is a platform to fix the accountability of the executive. This necessitates that the policies and the decisions of the government are discussed, dissected and debated on the floor of the House. Any criticism of policies and decisions of the government and their fallouts cannot be construed as allegations against any individual member of the House,” Kharge wrote.

Besides, any criticism of the government, its policies and their impact can never be equated with the “dignity of the Council”, he wrote.

The leader of the Opposition has said Article 105 of the Constitution guarantees freedom of speech to members of Parliament.

“In consonance with the Constitutional guarantee and rules of the House, a member is only required to authenticate any document that he lays on the table of the House. There is no convention or provision for the authentication of points made in a speech on the floor of the House. Any direction or rule of the House cannot subvert the Constitutional guarantee of the freedom of speech,” Kharge wrote.

He pointed out that there was no personal charge in any of his submissions. He contended that it would be an inversion of the system of governance if Opposition members are expected to carry out a complete investigation, gather evidence and then raise the matter on the floor of the House.

“The arrangement, as I understand, is that the opposition member or any private member, raises issue on basis of inputs from media, reports in the public domain, or even confidential personal information. The member after due diligence draws the attention of the House to such issues and it is incumbent upon the government to investigate the matter and take appropriate action in consonance with the law of the land,” he wrote.

Kharge urged the Chairman to defend the members’ rights and privileges on the floor of the House.

Rahul’s speech

Demanding restoration of the edited portions of Rahul Gandhi’s speech, Congress leader Adhir Chowdhury wrote to Speaker Om Birla, saying: “On February 7, Rahul Gandhi in his speech mentioned certain facts about the ongoing issues about the Hindenburg report, and the alleged involvement of the Adani Group of companies in manipulation of the stock market. He also posed some questions to the Prime Minister on the issue. In the incorrected debates published by the Secretary General, a major portion of his speech was removed in such a way that the whole speech becomes unintelligible.”

The letter added: “The founding fathers of our Constitution while giving us the Constitution empowered the elected members to speak in Parliament without fear or favour. The Constitution guarantees that there shall be freedom of speech in Parliament. The freedom of speech that is available to the Members of Parliament under Article 105(1) is wider in amplitude than the Right of Freedom of speech and expression guaranteed under article 19(1)(a).”

He said Rahul’s speech should be published in totality as it serves a great public purpose.