![\"'A](\"https:\/\/static.toiimg.com\/thumb\/msid-132459245,imgsize-173224,width-400,height-225,resizemode-4\/lok-sabha.jpg\" "\\"The")
<\/div>\n<\/div>\n<\/div>\nNEW DELHI: A joint parliamentary committee (JPC) examining a bill on the removal of prime ministers and chief ministers on Friday decided to defer the adoption of its draft report even as voting was underway on the panel’s five recommendations.The development came ahead of the Monsoon session of Parliament, scheduled to run from July 20 to August 13.The JPC on the 130th Amendment Bill had made five recommendations in its draft report, which was circulated to members recently.As the committee voted on each recommendation separately, members decided that further consultations with stakeholders and more discussions among themselves were required before adopting the report.AIMIM<\/a>‘s Asaduddin Owaisi and NCP (SP) MP Supriya Sule had submitted their dissent notes but withdrew them after the panel decided at the last minute to defer the adoption of the draft report.“The joint parliamentary committee unanimously said that we needed more consultations with stakeholders,” PTI quoted JPC chairperson and BJP MP Aparajita Sarangi as saying.“This is a national cause. There should be unanimity in thought and expression,” Sarangi added, urging all parties to come together for a bill that is “good for the nation.”According to panel members, voting on two recommendations had already been completed, and discussions were underway on the third when the decision was taken to defer the adoption of the draft report.Interestingly, a few members from the ruling BJP had also voted against the first two recommendations. However, the recommendations were adopted with majority votes.The panel had recommended that the prime minister, Union ministers and chief ministers be suspended, rather than permanently removed from office, if they are detained for 30 consecutive days on charges of serious offences, pending the outcome of legal proceedings.It also proposed an automatic reversal clause if such persons are acquitted or if prosecution does not proceed within a specified period.The committee further proposed that the term “serious criminal offences”, as mentioned in the statement of objects and reasons of the bill, be defined as “…serious criminal offences which are punishable with imprisonment for a term which may extend to five years or more.”In August last year, Union home minister Amit Shah introduced three bills in the Lok Sabha seeking the removal of the prime minister, chief ministers, and ministers arrested on serious criminal charges and detained for 30 days, drawing strong protests from the Opposition.Since the bills involve amendments to the Constitution, they would require the support of two-thirds of the House members present and voting.According to the bill, the Government of Union Territories Act, 1963 (20 of 1963), currently has no provision for the removal of a chief minister or minister arrested and detained in custody on account of serious criminal charges.Hence, the bill proposes amending Section 45 of the Government of Union Territories Act, 1963, to provide a legal framework for the removal of a chief minister or minister in such cases.If the recommendations are accepted, the Union Home Ministry would approach the Union Cabinet with the proposed amendments and later introduce official amendments in the Lok Sabha.<\/div>\n