‘Speaker let everyone but us speak….what if not partiality?’: Mallikarjun Kharge

[related-post]

Are you suggesting the Speaker is biased?
Today, we gave notice for discussing Lalit Modi. That was converted into IPL. We requested to speak on the Punjab terror attack. Everybody was allowed, but we were not allowed. What does it show, if not partiality?

What was your notice on?
Our adjournment motion was on Lalit Modi. And it mentions Sushma Swaraj and Vasundhara Raje and about Lalit Modi’s money laundering… But it was converted into an IPL issue… We never mentioned it.

The Speaker said you were not allowed because you were standing in the well.
Then why did she allow others? It is not the issue  — the House is not in order — whether we stand. I was not standing in the well, I was in my seat. She could have allowed me to speak… I was told the House was not in order. Then how were others allowed to speak? So we all should think… whether the decisions are one-sided.

Have you lodged a written protest with the Speaker?
Yes… that we wanted to raise this (terror attack issue). I have said that early this morning I got a call from the parliamentary affairs minister about the attack. He said the government will make a statement in the House after collecting all the facts because the encounter is going on. He wanted this to be brought to our notice. It is not proper to give a statement when the encounter is on. So I kept quiet and did not raise the issue. In the interest of the country sometimes you have to… When the parliamentary affairs minister himself requested us and told us these are the facts, is it not his duty as well that of the Speaker that they take care that we get a chance to speak?