PAKISTAN OBSERVER
22nd May 1956
SPEAKER THROWS OUT EAST PAKISTAN
BUDGET ON POINT OF ORDER
ADJOOURNMENT OF HOUSE SINE DIE
BY A STAFF REPORTER
THE SPEAKER OF THE EAST PAKISTAN ASSEMBLY CREATED SENSATION YESTERDAY WHEN HE REFUSED PERMISSION TO THE EAST PAKISTAN FINANCE MINISTER, WHO IS ALSO THE CHIEF MINISTER TO PRESENT THE BUDGET BEFORE THE EAST PAKISTAN LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY.
The Speaker giving his ruling on a point of order raised by the Deputy Leader of the Awami League Parliamentary Party, Sheikh Mujibur Rahman, and the leader of the Ganatantri Dal Parliamentary Party, Mirza Gholam Hafiz, opposing the presentation of the budget on grounds of law and of breach of privileges of the House, said he would not be a party to the application of the guillotime after only two days of discussions during which only about 20 per cent of the 72 heads of budget demands could have been considered by the House.
The Speaker had earlier adjourned the House for half an hour “to collect his thoughts” before he could give a ruling. While giving his ruling, the Speaker recapitulated the arguments advanced by Mr. Mujibur Rahman and Gholam Hafiz and said that even apart from the questions of law raised by them; the Government had shown scant respect to the House by coming before it as late as May 22 While the Speaker was moving towards the concluding part of his ruling he became excited, and while the Leader of the House was at this stage trying to say something, the latter’s voice was drowned by shouting from the Opposition Benches and even part of the speaker’s ruling became in audiable. The entire house was completely confounded, however, when the speaker’s view was again cought as saying, “therefore, it is my considered opinion that there has been an infringement of the privileges of this house and then addressing the finance minister, concluded, and I refuse to permit you to present the budget before this house.
CONFUTION CONFOUND HOUSE
Confusion gripped the house immediately. There was another matter which soon worried both the government and opposition party members. What were they to do in the absence of a direction if the house had been adjourned the house sine dia but that in the turmoil he may not have been heard. Confusion, however, continued and till 11 p.m. Some members were still discussing the days exciting and unexpected succession of events. Earlier, immediately the speaker called upon the finance minister to present the budget, Mr. Mujibur Rahman stood on a point of order and opposed the legality of the presentation of the budget get on grounds that (1) the budget for the year 1055-56 which had been certified under section 92-A, (2) when the ministry was later restored, the budget was not present to the house, and (3) by calling the assembly at the last moment the government had denied the house reasonable time for discussion of the budget demands. Mr. Mujibur Rahman, in his 45 minute statement which he read out argued his grounds amidst shouts from the government benches that a point of order was not an opportunity for making a lengthy peroration.
DAL’S PERORATION
Mirza Gholam Hafiz, then rising on his point of order, argued that the budget certified during the pendency of section 92A was valid only until such time as rule under that section continued and (2) that whereas section 81A of the constitution act provided that the budget could be placed before the legislature by May 31, instead of March 31, it had been stated that the purpose of this provision was to enable urgent attention being given to the passing of the constitution of pak. Since, Mr.Hafiz argued the constitution had received the assent of the governor general on march 2 there was sufficient time before march 31, for the presentation of the budget and since the raison d’etre of the provision under section 81A was absent there was no cause why this should not have been done and therefore the privilege of the house that its sanction should be obtained before March 31, had been infringed against.
Both Mr. Mujibur Rahman and Mr. Hafiz further argued that since the Government had incurred expenditure illegally, it had also become functus officio.
LEGAL POSITION
The speaker then called upon members of the house to assist him to arrive at a decision and at his direction Mr. B. K. Das (congress), gave his interpretation of the legal position. He said that he would speak as a non-party man on this issue and said that the proper place for raising the question of legality of certain of the law was a court of law and not the floor of the house. He also did not think that the speaker could “arrogate” to himself the position of a judge. He also pointed out how, if the speaker found certain provisions of the law as illegal, and the matter then taken before a court thought otherwise, complications could arise. It was therefore his opinion that the house should take the provisions of the law as granted and proceed to arrive at a decision whether on that basis any infringement of any rights or privileges of the house had been infringed upon. Mr. Das also thought that a budget certified under section 92 A had to be replaced for sanction of the House When the ministry had been restored. He, however, did think that the ministry had been a remiss in so much as the Assembly had not been called upon earlier for discussion of the budget.
NO LAW INVOLVED
Replying from the government benches, Mr. Abdus Salam Khan for presentation of the budget, referring to the extension till May 31 of the time-limit said that only questions of propriety, rather than of law could be involved, once the constitution Assembly had passed legislation. He also said that after the ministry was restored. Legal opinion had been taken and the government had been advised that under the law it was not necessary to come the house with the budget for its sanction. On the question of delay, he argued that the ministry might be blamed, but there was no irregularity involved and he did not think how objection could be taken to the presentation of the budget. Mr. Hashimuddin Ahmad Agriculture Minister, thought that no privilege of the house had been violated and the assembly was no forum for the decision of legal issues raised in the points of order. Mr. Hamid thought that the points of order raised were really points of law and the Assembly had no jurisdiction to decide them. Mr. Dhirendra Nath Dutt also agreed that the interpretation of law and questions of legality could only be decided in a Court of Law.
A. I. R. BROADCAST
To add to the day’s sensations, while the debate on the points of order were still continuing, at about 8 p.m. Dewan Mahbub Ali of the Ganatantri Dal, brought to the notice of the Speaker that while the budget had not yet been placed before the House, All-India Radio had already broadcast the budget statement of East Pakistan. Mr. Hamid, However, pointed out that there was no evidence before the House on this point except what had been stated by a member and, therefore, the House could not take any notice of this. When another member tried to raise the question again, the Speaker remarked that there was no time for listening to stories. Earlier, the Chief Minister welcoming a discussion on the food situation in the province, the Speaker admitted an adjournment motion moved on the subject by Mr. Mujibur Rahman and fixed the time for its discussion at 6 p. m on May 25.
Although there was no division in the House on any issue yesterday, it was apparent that the members on the Government Benches far outnumbered the Opposition. Fifteen dissidents from the Awami League, 10 from the Congress and the UPP, 17 scheduled caste members and 117 United Front members sat in the Government Benches. The first indication as to the relative Party strengths came with the first business taken up, which was a point of order raised by Sheikh Mujibur Rahman on Whether the House had been properly summoned. The notice summoning the House mentioned East Bengal Legislature in assembly, he pointed out. This immediately gave an indication of weakness. While appealing to members not to unable over the issue of a name, the Speaker wanted that officers should in future be more careful. The House then proceeded to debate whether fresh oaths had to be taken by the members and the Speaker maintained that it was not. Now that the Assembly has been postponed sine die and the budget cannot be passed in the Assembly, a first class crisis as developed and many thought that the inevitable prospect was the imposition of Government’s Rule enabling him to authenticate the budget before May 31.