<p>The Congress and the JD(S) members resumed their dharna as soon as the House met. They demanded that House discuss under Rule 60 the adjournment motion on the Lokayukta’s resignation and the related aspects. <br /><br />But the Treasury benches stuck to their argument that the discussion should be under Rule 69 as they could also participate in it. <br /><br />Leader of the Opposition Siddaramaiah alleged that Rs 2,500 crore has been looted in the Belekeri iron ore theft which needed to be discussed under Rule 60. <br /><br />“If the government has any self-respect left after gobbling Rs 2,500 crore, then the Chief Minister should resign. I have never seen such a shameless and adamant government than this. In the history of the State, no Lokayukta has resigned”, he said. <br />The Congress members began shouting - Lokayukta Bachao, BJP Hatao. To counter them, the BJP members pointed to the misuse of public money raised for flood relief by the KPCC. The treasury benchers heard saying, “Rokka Kodi, Rokka kodi (give money) for flood-hit people”. <br /><br />Chief Minister B S Yeddyurappa said his government was ready for a debate on the Lokayukta issue. He too wanted corruption to be rooted out. “We did not withdraw authority of the Lokayukta. He had placed three to four demands and all have been met”, he said. <br /><br />“In 2007-08, 47 lakh tons of ore was lifted from ports in the State without valid permits. Such things have been going from last 10 years. Let us put an end to such things by discussing it. You people want to create confusion rather than strengthening the Lokayukta,” Yeddyurappa said.<br /><br />The intense din in the House with the Treasury bench and Opposition members hurling charges at each other finally ended with the Speaker adjourning the House for the day.<br />DH News Service<br /><br />The insistence by the Congress to take up discussion under rule 60 (popularly called as adjournment motion) on the Lokayukta issue is a carefully crafted political strategy to put the BJP government in a catch- 22 situation. What do the rules say? <br /><br />Rule 60<br />* Only signatories can speak (in this case Cong) <br />* Govt need to give a specific reply on the issues raised <br />* Cong may put up demands like retaining Justice Hegde and meeting all his <br />demands. <br />* Ruling party would be forced express its views on demands<br />* Voting provision at the end of discussion<br /><br />Rule 69<br />* No restriction on number of members who can participate in discussion<br />* Govt reply can be general in nature<br />* No voting at the end of discussion<br /><br />CM blames it on Hegde<br />Chief Minister B S Yeddyurappa told the Assembly that the government had taken the decision to withdraw suo motu power from the Lokayukta when Justice N Santosh Hegde was the advocate general for Karnataka. <br />Leader of the Opposition S Siddaramaiah bristled at the statement and challenged the Chief Minister if he would accept all the suggestion made by an advocate general. Minister Bache Gowda said that suo motu power was withdrawn to protect then PWD minister from action in a cement scam. <br />When contacted, Lokayukta Hegde said he could not recall being consulted by the then government on denying Lokayukta suo motu powers.<br />“If there is a file in which I have given by views as Advocate General on withdrawing suo motu powers to the Lokayukta, then let them show it to me”, he said.<br />Justice Hegde was Advocate General between February 1984 and August 1988. According to sources in the law department, it was not the practice in the 1980s to consult the AG on drafting or amending any bill.</p>
<p>The Congress and the JD(S) members resumed their dharna as soon as the House met. They demanded that House discuss under Rule 60 the adjournment motion on the Lokayukta’s resignation and the related aspects. <br /><br />But the Treasury benches stuck to their argument that the discussion should be under Rule 69 as they could also participate in it. <br /><br />Leader of the Opposition Siddaramaiah alleged that Rs 2,500 crore has been looted in the Belekeri iron ore theft which needed to be discussed under Rule 60. <br /><br />“If the government has any self-respect left after gobbling Rs 2,500 crore, then the Chief Minister should resign. I have never seen such a shameless and adamant government than this. In the history of the State, no Lokayukta has resigned”, he said. <br />The Congress members began shouting - Lokayukta Bachao, BJP Hatao. To counter them, the BJP members pointed to the misuse of public money raised for flood relief by the KPCC. The treasury benchers heard saying, “Rokka Kodi, Rokka kodi (give money) for flood-hit people”. <br /><br />Chief Minister B S Yeddyurappa said his government was ready for a debate on the Lokayukta issue. He too wanted corruption to be rooted out. “We did not withdraw authority of the Lokayukta. He had placed three to four demands and all have been met”, he said. <br /><br />“In 2007-08, 47 lakh tons of ore was lifted from ports in the State without valid permits. Such things have been going from last 10 years. Let us put an end to such things by discussing it. You people want to create confusion rather than strengthening the Lokayukta,” Yeddyurappa said.<br /><br />The intense din in the House with the Treasury bench and Opposition members hurling charges at each other finally ended with the Speaker adjourning the House for the day.<br />DH News Service<br /><br />The insistence by the Congress to take up discussion under rule 60 (popularly called as adjournment motion) on the Lokayukta issue is a carefully crafted political strategy to put the BJP government in a catch- 22 situation. What do the rules say? <br /><br />Rule 60<br />* Only signatories can speak (in this case Cong) <br />* Govt need to give a specific reply on the issues raised <br />* Cong may put up demands like retaining Justice Hegde and meeting all his <br />demands. <br />* Ruling party would be forced express its views on demands<br />* Voting provision at the end of discussion<br /><br />Rule 69<br />* No restriction on number of members who can participate in discussion<br />* Govt reply can be general in nature<br />* No voting at the end of discussion<br /><br />CM blames it on Hegde<br />Chief Minister B S Yeddyurappa told the Assembly that the government had taken the decision to withdraw suo motu power from the Lokayukta when Justice N Santosh Hegde was the advocate general for Karnataka. <br />Leader of the Opposition S Siddaramaiah bristled at the statement and challenged the Chief Minister if he would accept all the suggestion made by an advocate general. Minister Bache Gowda said that suo motu power was withdrawn to protect then PWD minister from action in a cement scam. <br />When contacted, Lokayukta Hegde said he could not recall being consulted by the then government on denying Lokayukta suo motu powers.<br />“If there is a file in which I have given by views as Advocate General on withdrawing suo motu powers to the Lokayukta, then let them show it to me”, he said.<br />Justice Hegde was Advocate General between February 1984 and August 1988. According to sources in the law department, it was not the practice in the 1980s to consult the AG on drafting or amending any bill.</p>
