NEW DELHI, May 9 — The Union Government in a surprise move, tabled the controversial draft IMDT Bill catching the Opposition unawares, even as the Congress party staged a walkout in protest against the tabling of the Bill. Uncertainty over the creation of the Bodoland Territorial Council (BTC) was resolved, when the Union Government tabled two Bills proposing to amend the Sixth Schedules of the Constitution and the Article 332(6) of the Constitution. The contentious proposal to accord Schedule Tribe (Hills) to the Bodo living in the two hills districts of Karbi Anglong and North Cachar Hills has been kept in abeyance.
All the three Bills moved by Deputy Prime Minister LK Advani have been referred to the Parliamentary Standing Committee attached to the Ministry of Home Affairs. The Bills are likely to come up for discussion and passage in the monsoon session of Parliament if the Standing Committee clears it by then.
In a day of fast paced development that saw hectic activities in both the ruling party camp and the Opposition, the Central Government tried to keep the Congress party guessing till the last moment. The day that began on a relaxed note for the Congress party because the revised list of business for Friday, which is also the last day of business made no mention about tabling of the IMDT Bill as well as the two Constitution Amendment Bills.
Further inquiry revealed that the Union Government has sought permission of the Speaker of the Lok Sabha to table three Bills before the private members business gets underway. Today being the last day of the Parliament the Government was apparently hoping for a low turn out of MPs at the last leg of the Session.
Dumbstruck Assam Congress Party members held hectic confabulations all through the day talking to senior leaders of the party like Dr Manmohan Singh, deputy leader of the Congress party Shivraj Patil among others even as section of the members kept a close watch on the proceedings of the House. It was only late in the afternoon that the government circulated the three bills confirming the Congress party’s worst fears.
The Congress party tried to scuttle the move to table the IMDT Bill, when senior leader, Santosh Mohan Dev moved the Speaker through a protest note about the manner in which the Government bulldozing its way. On the other hand, the BJP leaders played it cool, with Parliamentary Affairs Minister Sushma Swaraj finally confirming to newsmen that in the afternoon that the Government was indeed moving the Bills today.
Meanwhile, the Congress party’s contention was that the Bills were sought to be tabled without following established procedure of business of the House. They held that the Government had not discussed it in the Business Advisory Committee (BAC), as neither did they mention about it in the list of business. They also protested that the Bills were not circulated before hand, as it customary.
Meanwhile, the Deputy Prime Minister first moved the draft IMDT Bill forcing a pandemonium in the House. Senior Congress members protested the manner in which the Bills were sought to be tabled citing procedural impropriety. Senior Congress member, Santosh Mohan Dev said it was the then Prime Minister, Indira Gandhi who brought to stage a walk out. The Parliamentary Affairs Minister countered by asserting that the Bills were tabled under Clause 19(b) of Parliament procedure.
The draft Bill proposed that the IMDT Act might be repealed from a date to be notified. The repealing legislation may also provide that all cases which have been referred to or are under consideration of the IMDT Act tribunal, may be tried afresh under the provisions of the Foreigners Act, 1946 and Rules made thereunder. All fresh cases may also be dealt with in accordance with the provisions of the Foreigners Act, 1946 and rules made thereunder. Appeals pending before the IMDT Appellate Tribunal against the order of the IMDT Tribunals will continue with these disposed of by the said appellate tribunals.
The High Court may be empowered to review the decision of the appellate tribunal by way of revision. Any consequential or incidental provision that may be necessary. It has been further proposed that an explanation may be added to the Section 2 of the Immigrants (Expulsion from Assam) Act, 1950 to the effect that the proviso shall not be applicable to any person who, on or after March 25, 1971, has migrated to India from any area forming part of Bangladesh. The said benefit shall not be available to those persons who have migrated from Bangladesh on or after March 25, 1971, the draft Bill has proposed.
Meanwhile, the introduction of two Constitutional Amendment Bills saw a loud protest by Dr Jayanta Rongpi, who sought the protection of the House saying that as a tribal area MP he had a grave responsibility but he was handicapped because he received the Bills just 10 minutes ago.
However, his apprehension were allayed by Advani who assured that the contentious clause on granting ST(H) status to the Bodos was not part of the two Bills being introduced. Further the Bills would be referred to the Standing Committee, it was further assured. The two Bills propose amendments to the Sixth Schedule of the Constitution and the Article 332(6) of the Constitution.
However, the second Cabinet sanction relating to modifying the Schedule Tribe Order 1950 to revise the list of the STs in respect of Assam was missing and kept in abeyance.