Congress slams ED transfer to subject Kharge summons throughout House session

Naidu’s remarks had come amid protests by the Congress over ED’s summons to Mallikarjun Kharge, the Leader of Opposition in Rajya Sabha, within the National Herald case.

In an announcement, Ramesh stated: “…in such matters, issuing of summons by ED or any law-enforcing agencies to any MP, much less the Leader of Opposition, when Parliament is in session, is an outright affront to the sacred institution of Parliament and Parliamentarians. Under the circumstances, in keeping with the sanctity of Parliament and Parliamentarians and its time-honoured conventions, it is high time that presiding officers of both Houses may deliberate and ensure that such gross affronts on Parliament and MPs does not recur.”

Without mentioning any explicit occasion, Naidu had stated, “There is a wrong notion among the members that they have a privilege from action by agencies while the session is on.”

Referring to Naidu’s statement, Ramesh, Congress’s chief whip in Rajya Sabha, stated, “There is no dispute whatsoever on the well-established position that privileges are not available in criminal cases, which was upheld by the Supreme Court in K Ananda Nambiar and R Umanath vs Chief Secretary to Govt of Madras. The point of contention is not on this aspect.”

Ramesh stated Kharge was not an accused within the National Herald case and the ED had summoned him on August 4 searching for his “invariable presence” on the premises of Young Indian Limited for the aim of conducting a search in his presence and recording his assertion.

“In this context, consideration can also be drawn to Rule 229 of the Rules of Procedure and Conduct of Business in Lok Sabha and Rule 222A of the Rules of Procedure and Conduct of Business within the Council of States (Rajya Sabha), provisions of which require that each time a Member of Parliament is arrested on a legal cost or for a legal offense or is sentenced to imprisonment by a courtroom or is detained underneath an govt order, the committing decide, Justice of the Peace or govt authority, an intimation on this regard needs to be instantly despatched to Speaker Lok Sabha or Chairman Rajya Sabha because the case could also be.”

Ramesh acknowledged: “The legislative intent behind these provisions is that the House has a right to be informed as to why a Member is not able to attend sitting of the House, reason being no obstruction is caused to a Member of Parliament in performance of his /her Parliamentary duties unless and until there are sufficient reasons meaning causing their detention under a criminal case.”

But Kharge’s case, Ramesh acknowledged, was totally different.

Ramesh stated the ED despatched a summons to Kharge on August 3 requiring his presence on the workplace of Young India. Kharge, he stated, replied saying that Parliament session was underway and he, being the Leader of Opposition, had prior commitments. Kharge, Ramesh acknowledged, instructed ED that the licensed consultant was in Delhi and he would seem on August 4, and that he could be blissful to satisfy them on any day when Parliament isn’t in session.

“This request was not acceded to by the Enforcement Directorate and was insisted upon that his presence was necessary at the National Herald building at 12:30 hrs that day,” Ramesh stated. He identified that Kharge was within the premises of Young Indian workplace from 1 pm to eight.20 pm on August 4, throughout which the search was carried out and his assertion was recorded.

“The entire process took eight-and-half hours…. This exercise could very well have been conducted in the presence of counsel authorized by LOP for the purpose. ED did not accede to this request and insisted on his presence. This was done with the sole purpose of harassing LOP and the Congress…”