Chidambaram explains, Opposition stalls House

If I had known about it, I would have nipped it in the bud: Finance minister.

Repeated adjournments and noisy scenes, mostly by the Opposition Bharatiya Janata Party (BJP), held up proceedings in the Rajya Sabha over the impropriety of Finance Minister P Chidambaram's wife Nalini's appearance as a lawyer in an income tax case.

"If I had known about it (his wife's appearance), I would have nipped it in the bud," said Chidambaram in an explanation, pleading ignorance about the case, but having tasted blood, the BJP and the AIADMK were in no mood to accept the explanation.

The Opposition shouted slogans and sought his resignation. After three adjournments and passing the Bill against Domestic Violence without debating it, the House adjourned for the day at 4 pm.

It was clear at 11 am when the House met that this issue would dominate proceedings. First, Chairman Bhairon Singh Shekhawat ruled that there was no need for the finance minister to give a personal explanation, which was the demand of the BJP and the AIADMK, as the minister had not been given any notice of the matter.

Former Finance Minister Yashwant Sinha said when an issue relating to his election expenditure had been raised in the House, he had got no notice and he had come to the House to explain. He wanted the finance minister to be summoned to the House.

N Jothi, AIADMK member of Parliament, who had raised the issue in the House last week during a speech, said rules required only that the Chairman be intimated about a matter that required a personal explanation by a Minister. He said he had informed the Chair.

The Opposition also emphasised that the minister needed to explain how the Central Board of Direct Taxes (CBDT) clarified the issue even before the House had heard the clarification. The first adjournment of the House was over whether the finance minister required to make a personal explanation.

In the intervening period, during a meeting with Opposition leaders the Chairman allowed himself to be persuaded that the minister needed to come the House to make a personal explanation.

The finance minister appeared in the House when it reassembled at 2 pm to explain the issue but Opposition members challenged his brief statement demanding their right to seek clarification, which was their privilege as members of the House.

Sushma Swaraj (BJP) led the charge and claimed that there were many issues on which the House wanted answers. But citing precedent Shekhawat ruled that the minister could give an explanation as the allegation was personal in nature but that no clarification or debate would be allowed.

This sparked off acrimonious scenes with the Opposition members rushing to the well and resorting to slogan shouting. Much of the slogan shouting was against the Chair's ruling. "We want justice," shouted Opposition MPs. However, the Chairman refused to allow any debate on the matter.

As the Opposition held up proceedings, the finance minister sat in the House, waiting for the noise to die down, impassive in the face of the attack against him. Swaraj told the Chair: "If you allow clarifications, he can get away by saying everything and anything. He wants to abdicate his responsibility by saying he was not aware of it. But we want to ask him questions."

The Chair ignored the Opposition and continued with voting on the Bill to curb domestic violence. When it was passed, the House was adjourned again, shutting down for the day when it reassembled because it was clear it would not be allowed to run.

The same scenes are likely to be seen in the Lok Sabha tomorrow, as BJP leaders said the matter would raised in the Lower House.