National

'Deliberate Design To Throttle Opposition Voice': Adhir Chowdhury On Being Suspended From LS, Says Will Approach Court If Needed

Days after being suspended from the Lok Sabha over "unruly behaviour" Congress leader Adhir Ranjan Chowdhury said that the move was "a deliberate design by the ruling party to throttle the voice of the opposition." 

Getting your Trinity Audio player ready...
Congress leader Adhir Ranjan Chowdhury
info_icon

A day after being suspended from the Lok Sabha over "unruly behaviour" Congress leader Adhir Ranjan Chowdhury said that the move was "a deliberate design by the ruling party to throttle the voice of the opposition." Parliamentary Affairs Minister Pralhad Joshi moved a resolution for Chowdhury's suspension, saying he disturbed the House whenever Prime Minister Narendra Modi and ministers spoke or a debate was going on. The resolution was passed by a voice vote.

Speaking at a press conference today, the Congress leader said, "This is a new phenomenon we have never before experienced in our career in Parliament...This will undermine the spirit of parliamentary democracy...." He further said that his remarks (during the no-confidence debate) were "not intended to hurt anyone."

During the no-confidence motion debate, Chowdhury said, “When Dhritarashtra was blind, Draupadi was humiliated (by means of cheerharan). Today as well, the king is sitting blind…There's no difference between Hastinapur and Manipur." His remarks however, were removed from the court's records.

Chowdhury has denied insulting the prime minister. "Modi ji is sitting 'nirav' on Manipur issue, which means sitting silent. 'Nirav' means to be silent. My intention was not to insult PM Modi," the Congress leader in Lok Sabha clarified.

"PM Modi did not feel that he was insulted, his darbaris (courtiers) felt so and brought this proposal against me. I came to know that (the matter) has been referred to the privileges committee and I have been suspended till then," he said.

The Congress leader further said that he would approach the Supreme Court if need, adding that, “I cannot contradict the direction of the Chair but if I find that this kind of situation could be resolved by the Court, I may also try this.”