By PTI
NEW DELHI: Opposition members in the Lok Sabha have moved 98 amendments to the Motion of Thanks on the president’s address, while those in the Rajya Sabha have moved 80 amendments.
Sources said a total of 232 amendments have been received by the Lok Sabha Secretariat and 13 Opposition members have moved 98 amendments to the Motion of Thanks on the president’s address. These include some on the Pegasus snooping controversy, they added.
The amendments on the Pegasus issue were not admitted in the Upper House of Parliament, where such notices were disallowed by the secretariat since the matter is sub-judice, the sources said. In the Rajya Sabha, 19 notices for amendments were not moved as the three members proposing them were not present in the Upper House when the motion was taken up.
The sources also said the notices given by Opposition members Elamaram Kareem (CPI-M) and KC Venugopal (Congress) for amendments on the Pegasus issue were not accepted by the Rajya Sabha Secretariat.
The secretary had received 99 notices by 14 Opposition members and since three were not present when the motion was taken up, a total of 80 amendments on the Motion of Thanks were moved on various issues by 11 members in the Upper House.
Kareem has also written to Rajya Sabha Chairman M Venkaiah Naidu for giving a ruling that under what grounds his amendments were not admitted or disallowed.
“It is quite unfortunate and condemnable that such a decision has been taken, violating the basic right of a member of Parliament,” the Left leader said in his letter, adding that as a representative of people, he has to raise their concerns on the floor of the House.
He said this action could create an impression among people that the Rajya Sabha Secretariat deliberately excluded the amendments that deal with incidents that could expose the Centre. “The unilateral action is completely undemocratic and unethical,” Kareem said.
He claimed that similar amendments moved in the Lok Sabha were admitted and said the Upper House cannot escape its responsibility to maintain transparency in revealing the reason for disallowing his amendments.
