NEW DELHI: In an unusual development, Trinamool Congress MPs had sought an appointment with President Droupadi Murmu to apprise her about the welfare initiatives taken by the West Bengal government. However, the Rashtrapati Bhavan turned down their request, citing “paucity of time”, as per sources.This comes after a political row erupted over allegations of protocol lapses during Murmu’s visit on March 7 to West Bengal. The President had on Saturday expressed displeasure over the change of venue of the Santal conference, which she attended in the state, and the absence of West Bengal chief minister Mamata Banerjee and her ministers during her visit.
Israel Iran War
According to a source, a senior TMC leader wrote to President Murmu on March 9 submitting that a delegation of AITC comprising members of Lok Sabha and Rajya Sabha and the ministers of West Bengal want to meet her at a time convenient to her to share with her the many initiatives by the state govt for the inclusive development of all sections of society and special measures taken for upliftment and improvement of quality of like of SC, ST and OBC communities. In the letter, the TMC leader, as per sources, had requested that the President give an appointment for this week itself for a 12-15-member delegation to meet her.However, Rashtrapati Bhavan sent a communication informing the TMC that its request was considered but could not be acceded to due to “paucity of time”, the source claimed and added that the TMC has yet again written to the President’s office, requesting time next week.Besides this, TMC chief whip MP Nadimul Haque has written to Rajya Sabha Chairman C P Radhakrishnan seeking expunction of what he has alleged to be “factually incorrect details” raised during zero hour on Wednesday by BJP MP Baburam Nishad on concern over alleged protocol violation during the visit of the President to West Bengal.The TMC MP has cited the rule book on the conduct of business to highlight certain rules applicable to members while speaking in the House. For instance, he has cited Rule 238 (v), which states that a member, while speaking, shall not reflect upon the conduct of persons in high authority unless the discussion is based on a substantive motion drawn in proper terms.Haque also referred to Rule 238 (vi), which states that members shall not use the President’s name for the purpose of influencing the debate.He also added that “making a misleading statement deliberately may be treated as a breach of privilege and contempt of the House”.
