Kerala Assembly: Opposition boycotts proceedings

Thiruvananthapuram: The Opposition staged noisy protests in the Kerala Assembly, and later boycotted legislative business on Wednesday.

The House saw noisy exchanges and slogan shouting between the Opposition and ruling Front members during consideration of a notice given by the Opposition to move an adjournment motion. The motion sought to discuss the recorded observation of Thrissur Vigilance Court on Tuesday that Oommen Chandy had signed the file relating to the palmolein deal as the then Finance Minister. (A case dating back to the nineties relating to corruption in the deal is before the Court).

The Opposition members drowned Chief Minister Oommen Chandy’s reply to the notice for moving adjournment motion in the din created by their protest. In retort, ruling front members started making noise as Opposition Leader V. S. Achuthanandan rose to speak on the refusal of Speaker N. Sakthan to allow the motion.

Mr. Achuthanandan announced that the Opposition will continue its protests in the well of the House. As the Opposition stood in the well shouting slogans, the Speaker canceled submissions and rushed through some of the listed business including vote on account and appropriation bills. The Finance Bill was introduced before the House was adjourned for a brief while to allow the Speaker to hold discussions with the Opposition.

When the House resumed the sitting, the Chief Minister moved a motion to cancel tomorrow’s sitting and take up the legislative business slated for Thursday on Wednesday itself, and the House adopted the motion. The Opposition Leader announced that the Opposition was boycotting rest of the sitting in protest against the refusal to take up the adjournment motion.

Responding to the notice, the Chief Minister said that he could not be made an accused in the palmolein case though the Vigilance and Anti-corruption Bureau had investigated the case during LDF rule. He was only made a witness in the case.

Mr. Chandy said that he was glad that the vigilance court had dropped two officials as accused in the case. He had sought to withdrawal the case because the officials were being wrongly implicated. The court decision had freed him from a guilty feeling.

The Opposition Leader said that the Court observation was a serious matter.  Mr. Chandy had signed the file favouring the deal that caused a loss to the government. The Chief Minister was facing a series of allegations—bar bribery, solar scam, Pattoor encroachment, palmolein deal, titanium case and swindling of land involving his gun man Salim Raj.  However, Mr. Chandy was saying that he would continue in office bearing all the shame.

Opposing the motion being taken up, Home Minister Ramesh Chennithala said that there was a difference between judgment of a court and observation. Only a judgment was legally binding on the government.

He noted that the Vigilance Court in Thiruvananthapuram had earlier observed (before the case was transferred to Thrissur Court) that there was no material evidence against Mr. Chandy. If any evidence was forthcoming, then he could be arraigned.

He recalled that though further investigation of the case had been ordered by the Court, the investigators had concluded that there was no evidence against Mr. Chandy. Though Mr. Achuthanandan had gone on appeal, the Supreme Court had dismissed his petition.

Mr. Raju Abraham, who had given notice for the motion, said that the Court had now found that Mr. Chandy was aware of the deal and had no disagreement with it. If there was nothing against him, why had Mr. Chandy tried twice to withdraw the case? That was because Mr. Chandy was afraid that he would be implicated in the case. It was also notable that the Youth Congress had threatened the Vigilance Judge.