Thiruvananthapuram, With the Keralam Assembly facing a mountain of legislative business on the concluding day on Thursday, the clock was ticking not just for the House but also for members hoping to return to their constituencies.
There were 39 submissions to be dealt with and 1,811 amendments to the Saral Bill. With so much business remaining, Speaker Thiruvanchoor Radhakrishnan suggested a way to save time.
Members could be treated as having presented their submissions, while ministers would table written replies and make them available to the members on the same day.
The Speaker said several members had told him personally that they had already booked tickets. With the session drawing to a close, many wanted to leave for their constituencies.
A lengthy sitting could upset their plans, he indicated, making it necessary for the House to find a practical way to complete its business.
The proposal was to allow members to raise their submissions without reading them out in full and have the ministers' replies tabled instead.
The replies would be given to the members on the same day, allowing them to share the responses with the media.
{{/usCountry}}The replies would be given to the members on the same day, allowing them to share the responses with the media.
{{/usCountry}}Chief Minister V D Satheesan supported the suggestion, recalling that the Assembly had followed a similar procedure on earlier occasions.
He proposed that ministers submit their written replies within an hour, warning that the proceedings could otherwise continue well beyond 4 pm.
Leader of the Opposition Pinarayi Vijayan agreed, saying that the House had a precedent for such an arrangement.
But the discussion took an unexpected turn when senior legislator G Sudhakaran questioned the suggestion that the Assembly should finish at a particular hour.
"Under which rule can you say that the Assembly must conclude at a particular time?" he asked, arguing that there was no fixed deadline for the House to end its proceedings.
Sudhakaran recalled an Assembly that had continued its legislative work through the night, with proceedings lasting until 3 am under the leadership of K R Gowri Amma.
He made it clear that he was not opposing the proposed arrangement. His objection was to the idea that the House should be expected to conclude at a fixed time.
The Speaker, who described Sudhakaran as a senior colleague, said the House would conclude when its agenda was completed.
There was no fixed rule that it must end at 3 pm, 4 pm, 8 pm or midnight, he said, recalling earlier occasions when the Assembly had sat until 5 am.
However, he argued that a faster procedure could help the House complete its work without unnecessary delay.
The Speaker also expressed concern about members moving around the House and the need for greater discipline in its proceedings.
The Assembly belonged to everyone, he said, and its business had to be conducted peacefully and in accordance with the rules.
Satheesan later clarified that Sudhakaran had not opposed the proposal.
His point, the Chief Minister said, was that there should be no insistence on a fixed closing time.
Since there was a consensus on the procedure, the House could move forward.
The Speaker accepted the clarification and agreed to read out the names of the members whose submissions would be treated as presented, ensuring that their names appeared in the official record.
The House thus agreed to the faster procedure, with the written replies to be provided to the members on the same day.
This article was generated from an automated news agency feed without modifications to text.