Srinagar : A controversy has erupted in Jammu and Kashmir over a letter sent by Chief Secretary Atal Dulloo and Law Secretary Achal Sethi to the Assembly Secretariat, objecting to the admission of a resolution seeking restoration of statehood.
The issue has now escalated into a breach of privilege motion against the two senior bureaucrats, with lawmakers questioning whether government officials can intervene in the legislative business of the elected House.
The privilege motion was moved by Peoples Democratic Party MLA Waheed ur Rehman Parra on Wednesday after the letter, sent ahead of the discussion on the statehood resolution, triggered objections from several political parties.
The officials had argued that the issue of restoration of statehood was sub judice before the Supreme Court and, therefore, the resolution should not be admitted by the Assembly.
Assembly Speaker Abdul Rahim Rather termed the communication unprecedented, saying there was no precedent for bureaucrats writing to the Assembly Secretariat seeking to stop legislative business.
Chief Minister Omar Abdullah, who also holds the Law portfolio, said he had no knowledge of the communication before being informed by the Speaker.
“Speaker sir, I’m the Law Minister and Chief Minister but I have no knowledge of my bureaucracy sending an opinion to you on my resolution. I do not know on whose instructions it was sent,” Abdullah told the Assembly.
The controversy has also drawn criticism from former J&K finance minister Haseeb Drabu, who questioned the authority of civil servants to directly communicate with the Speaker on legislative business.
“Nothing authorises a secretary to instruct the Speaker on a resolution. Control of business is the Speaker’s first privilege. An officer who writes past the minister to the Chair is not advising government. He is entering the House,” Drabu wrote in a piece published in a local daily.
Drabu further argued that bureaucrats’ role was to advise ministers and implement government decisions, rather than directly approach the presiding officer of the legislature.
“That point favours the Speaker. Civil servants advise ministers and implement lawful decisions. They have no right of audience with the Speaker. Period. With or without the Law Minister’s knowledge.”
The issue has divided political opinion in the Assembly. While BJP members supported the objections raised by the bureaucrats, members of the Congress, National Conference, PDP and Peoples Conference questioned what they described as bureaucratic interference in the functioning of the legislature.
The controversy centres on a broader constitutional question: whether senior officials of the administration can question or seek to prevent legislative business initiated by elected members, particularly when the communication is made directly to the Assembly Secretariat.
The breach of privilege motion now puts the conduct of the two senior officials before the Assembly, with the matter potentially being examined under the House’s rules governing legislative privilege.
