Categories
Legislative Assembly Disrupted for Second Day Amid Uproar Over Waqf Bill Discussion
JAMMU, April 8: For the second consecutive day, the Jammu and Kashmir Legislative Assembly was marred by chaos, with no official business transacted, as members from both the ruling National Conference-led alliance and opposition parties, including the PDP, People’s Conference, and Awami Ittehad Party (AIP), staged protests demanding a discussion on the Waqf Bill recently passed by Parliament. Speaker Abdul Rahim Rather once again declined the request, citing procedural constraints.
The day’s proceedings were repeatedly adjourned due to continued sloganeering and heated exchanges. The first adjournment came at 10:20 AM for half an hour. When the House reconvened at 11:13 AM, the disorder persisted, prompting another adjournment at 11:22 AM. The session resumed briefly at 1:06 PM before being adjourned for the day at 1:25 PM, with no legislative work, including Question Hour or Private Member’s Bills, conducted.
Tensions escalated immediately after the Assembly convened at 10 AM, as members of the NC, Congress, and their allies initiated protests from their seats and later moved toward the Well of the House. Some MLAs climbed onto benches while demanding discussion on the bill. Meanwhile, BJP legislators remained largely silent, though some voiced support for the Speaker’s rulings.
People’s Conference leader Sajjad Lone and PDP members, including Fayyaz Mir and Waheed ur Rehman Parra, supported the demand for a discussion while also criticizing the NC. Lone took a jibe at the NC, referencing photographs of CM Omar Abdullah and Union Minister Kirren Rijiju at Srinagar’s Tulip Garden, accusing them of political theatrics. A war of words ensued between Lone and NC MLA Salman Sagar, further fueling the disruption.
Speaker Abdul Rahim Rather reiterated his earlier ruling, stating that the Assembly could not deliberate on legislation passed by Parliament, as per Rule 58 (ix) of the Assembly procedures. “The matter is sub judice, and I stand by my previous decision,” Rather said, asserting that the House lacked jurisdiction over parliamentary enactments.
However, Deputy Chief Minister Surinder Choudhary, along with Ministers Sakina Itoo and Javed Dar, voiced support for the discussion, stating that the issue was of public and governmental concern. Choudhary emphasized that elected representatives must respond to public sentiment and called the Waqf Bill a matter of significant relevance.
Despite the Speaker’s firm stance, several members, including NC’s Nazir Gurezi and Saifullah Mir, argued that the bill was not sub judice, as no formal notice had been issued by the court. Congress MLA Nizam-ud-Din Bhat urged the Speaker to exercise discretion in light of the bill’s religious and emotional importance. The Speaker responded that discretion cannot override clearly defined rules.
BJP MLA Sham Lal Sharma supported the Speaker’s position and challenged the protesting MLAs to bring a no-confidence motion if they questioned the Chair’s authority. Meanwhile, Sajjad Lone sarcastically suggested that the Speaker step aside temporarily to allow discussion under a different presiding officer.
Repeated chants filled the chamber, with NC legislators demanding repeal of the bill and BJP members countering with slogans like “No Scope for Discussion” and “End the Drama.” At one point, PDP MLA Waheed ur Rehman Parra attempted to storm the Well with a resolution in hand, leading to a directive from the Speaker to have him evicted—an attempt that was resisted by Sajjad Lone.
Several NC leaders, including Mubarak Gul, Salman Sagar, and Tanvir Sadiq, urged the Speaker to consider the religious sentiments involved and allow the House to debate the matter. Gul emphasized that similar protests had occurred across the country and that ignoring them would be a disservice to public representation.
Outside the chamber, Speaker Rather told the media that his decision to disallow the adjournment motion was in strict adherence to legislative rules. “Whether it’s a minister or an opposition member making the demand, my ruling is based solely on the rule book,” he said. “Changing the ruling would be inappropriate and against the Assembly’s procedures.”
He further expressed concern that the continued disruption was preventing the House from addressing vital public issues. “The last three days were dedicated to private members’ resolutions, bills, and important questions of public interest. Blocking proceedings is a loss not just for the legislators, but for the public who elected them,” Rather concluded.
The Speaker maintained that Rule 58 (ix) makes it clear that state legislatures cannot deliberate on central laws. “Revocation of such legislation lies within the purview of Parliament or the judiciary, not this House,” he said.
Also Read : Gartner Predicts Active Satellites Will Monitor Majority of Earth’s Surface Assets by 2028
