& çâÌæÚUæð´ ·¤è ¥ôÚU Îð¹Ùæ ÁæÚUè ÚU¹ð´ ¥ÍæüÌ ¥ÂÙð ÜÿØ ÂÚU ŠØæÙ ÚU¹ð´Ð ãæÚU Ù ×æÙð´, €UØô´ç·¤ ·¤æ× ·¤ÚUÙð âð ¥æÂ·¤ô ©gðàØ ·¤è Âýæç# ãôÌè ãñ ¥õÚU ÁèßÙ ·¤æ ¹æÜèÂÙ ÎêÚU ãôÌæ ãñÐ ÖÜð ãè ÁèßÙ ×ð´ ç·¤ÌÙè Öè ·¤çÆÙæ§ü €UØô´ Ù ¥æ°, çÁ™ææâæ ¥õÚU ©ˆâæã ÕÙæ° ÚU¹ð´Ð ŠØæÙ ÚU¹ð´, ÜÿØ ã×ðàææ ¥æÂ·Ô¤ Âæâ ãôÌð ãñ´ çÁ‹ãð´ ÂæÙð ·Ô¤ çÜ° ÂýØæâ ¥æÂ ·¤Öè Öè àæéM¤ ·¤ÚU â·¤Ìð ãñ´Ð

Changes in JS Rules of Procedure suggested

Non-Minister MPs should head all standing bodies
Non-mlnlster MPs should head all parliamentary standing committees, suggested the first report of the Jatiya Sangsad Standing Committee on JS Rules of Procedure.
Chairman of the 12-member standing committee Speaker Humayun Rashid Chowdhury placed the report In the House at 8:45 pm last night.
The report was placed with a 'note of dissent' by three BNP legislators — Deputy Leader of the Opposition AQM Badrud-doza Chowdhury. Opposition Chief Whip Khondakar Delwar Hussain and MK Anwar, who is also a member of the Standing Committee on JS Rules of Procedure.
In its first report, the committee suggested some changes in the Rule 247 of the Rules of Procedure. Main changes recommended by the committee include that the chairman and members of the standing committees would be nominated by the House, but no minister could become head of any of those committees. One would no more remain chairman of a committee if he/she becomes a
minister.
Other changes suggested are: Minister or state minister or deputy minister of a ministry concerned would become an ex-officio member of the standing committee concerned provided he/she is an MP. In case of a non-MP minister of state minister or deputy minister, he/she would be able to attend and participate in the functioning of the standing committee concerned. but would have to re-
frain from casting vote.
Leader of the House would nominate any member of the Cabinet for any standing committee provided that the there is no minister designated for the ministry concerned. In such case, the nominated minister would become a member of the standing committee provided he/she is an MP. If not, the person nominated would not become a member, though can attend participate in the functioning of the standing committee concerned.
The report, however, suggested that as per Rule 246 of the JS Rules of Proceeding there would be a highest number of 10 members including chairman in each of the stanaing commit-
In the preface of the report, it was said that recommendations were made for consideration of the parliament after scrutinising in details the JS Rules of Procedure as per Rule 265 (1).
The Standing Committee on the JS Rules of Procedure, formed on July 24 last year, in its first meeting on August 4.
1996, in principle, took a decision to amend Rule 247 and subsequently formed a subcommittee for that purpose. Following three meetings of the sub committee and eight meetings of the standing committee, the report was finally made ready dn May 8 last. ‘
Placing the report in the House last night, the Speaker said that he would not entertain any discussion on the report • Ignt then, but the MPs could suggest further amendments anddiscuss the report later.
At that stage, a treasury Bench lawmaker, Suranjit Sengupta, gave some views on the report after taking the floor on a point of order. But following protest from the Deputy Leader of the Opposition, the Chair immediately declared Suran-jit's deliberation as "not a point of order."
In their note of dissent, the three Opposition lawmakers raised some objections about the suggested changes in the JS Rules of Procedure. They described in details that how the ruling party's "shifting of stand’ from already decided minutes of committee meetings. They said that though the committee in its October 31. 1996 meeting approved an amendment seeking inclusion of members in standing committees in proportion to the party strength in parliament, it did not endorse the same later. They also said that "we walked out from the committee meeting protesting non-response from their part."
They termed the ruling party's decision as "undemocratic, out of rules and unprecedented” and held the ruling party responsible for creating barriers to the proper functioning of the parliament and also in formation of the standing commit-