Opposition's no-confidence motion against Vice President Jagdeep Dhankhar rejected, 14 days notice should have been given
New Delhi. The no-confidence motion notice brought by the opposition against the country's Vice President and Rajya Sabha Chairman Jagdeep Dhankhar has been rejected. The reason behind this is that the notice of no-confidence motion should have been brought at least 14 days in advance, which did not happen. Therefore, the Chairman of Rajya Sabha has rejected this proposal of the opposition on technical grounds. With this, the bet of opposition parties has failed. According to sources, Deputy Chairman Harivansh, while giving the verdict, said that this motion was brought to create a narrative against the person holding the second highest constitutional post.
Read :- BJP's game of covering up its crimes by blaming others is very old… Akhilesh Yadav targeted
Deputy Chairman Harivansh, explaining the reasons for the rejection, said that 14 days' notice, which is mandatory for moving such a motion, was not given. He said that the name of Chairman Jagdeep Dhankhar was also not written correctly.
Last week, there was a fierce round of allegations and counter-allegations between the ruling party and the opposition in the Rajya Sabha on the issue of the motion to remove Vice President Jagdeep Dhankhar from the post, due to which the proceedings of the Upper House were halted throughout the day on Friday after a huge uproar. Was postponed for. Before the proceedings were adjourned, Dhankhar had accused the opposition of campaigning against him day and night, saying he was a farmer's son and would never become 'weak'. He had said, “A campaign is being run against the Speaker throughout the day. This campaign is not against me, it is a campaign against the class to which I belong.
He said that I am personally saddened by the fact that the main opposition party has projected this as a campaign against the Speaker. They have the right to bring a motion against me. This is their constitutional right but they are deviating from the constitutional provisions.
Comments are closed.