Privilege Motion vs Privilege Motion in LS; BJP targets Scindia

March 1, 2016

New Delhi, Mar 1: With Congress gunning for HRD Minister Smriti Irani with a Privilege Motion, BJP today hit back in Lok Sabha by pressing for similar action against the opposition party's Chief Whip Jyotiraditya Scindia for "defamatory" remarks against Minister Bandaru Dattatreya.

BJP's Chief Whip Arjun Ram Meghwal accused Scindia of "misleading" the House on February 24 by alleging that Dattatreya had called Rohith Vemula, a Dalit student of Hyderabad University who committed suicide, "anti-national, casteist and extremist".

Meghwal said he and many other members, including Dattatreya, had given a notice of breach of privilege against Scindia.

He raised the issue amid uproarious scenes in the House as AIADMK members were demanding action against former Union Minister P Chidambaram's son Karti in the Aircel-Maxis issue.

At this, Congress members too rushed to the Well, demanding that the Speaker decide on their privilege motion.

Dattatreya accused Scindia of "defaming him and tarnishing" his image by attributing such comments to him that he never made about Vemula.

"My mother used to sell onions. I have always worked for OBCs, Dalits... I have made sacrifices for Dalits," he said, recalling his humble background and work for the downtrodden.

He said his letter to Irani, over which he has been attacked by Congress, made no mention of Vemula's name. "I never made such charge against him."

Congress members continued to protest with K C Venugopal showing the rule book to Speaker Sumitra Mahajan to which she shot back, saying "Don't show me the rule book. I know."

She repeatedly tried to pacify the members saying all the notices for privilege motion are under her consideration.

With AIADMK and Congress members continuing to protest, she adjourned the House.

The issue of privilege motion against Irani had created a brief uproar in the Lok Sabha yesterday before Finance Minister Arun Jaitely started presenting the Union Budget 2016-17 with opposition members seeking to know the status of their notices against Irani for "misleading" the House on the Rohith Vemula issue.

Comments

Add new comment

Coastaldigest.com reserves the right to delete or block any comments.
Coastaldigset.com is not responsible for its readers’ comments.
Comments that are abusive, incendiary or irrelevant are strictly prohibited.
Please use a genuine email ID and provide your name to avoid reject.

‘Pay the worker before his sweat dries’: Madras High Court cites Prophet Muhammad’s teaching while ordering settlement of dues

News Network

December 21,2025

Invoking the teachings of Prophet Muhammad—“pay the worker before his sweat dries”—the Madras High Court has directed a municipal corporation to settle long-pending legal dues owed to a former counsel. The court observed that this principle reflects basic fairness and applies equally to labour and service-related disputes.

Justice G. R. Swaminathan made the observation while hearing a petition filed by advocate P. Thirumalai, who claimed that the Madurai City Municipal Corporation failed to pay him legal fees amounting to ₹13.05 lakh. Earlier, the High Court had asked the corporation to consider his representation. However, a later order rejected a major portion of his claim, prompting the present petition.

The court allowed Thirumalai to approach the District Legal Services Authority (DLSA) and submit a list of cases in which he had appeared. It also directed the corporation to settle the verified fee bills within two months, without interest. The court noted that the petitioner had waited nearly 18 years before challenging the non-payment and that the corporation could not be fully blamed, as the fee bills were not submitted properly.

‘A Matter of Embarrassment’

Justice Swaminathan described it as a “matter of embarrassment” that the State has nearly a dozen Additional Advocate Generals. He observed that appointing too many law officers often leads to unnecessary allocation of work and frequent adjournments, as government counsel claim that senior officers are engaged elsewhere.

He expressed hope that such practices would end at least in the Madurai Bench of the High Court and added that Additional Advocate Generals should “turn a new leaf” from 2026 onwards.

‘Scandalously High Amounts’

While stating that the court cannot examine the exact fees paid to senior counsel or law officers, Justice Swaminathan stressed that good governance requires public funds to be used prudently. He expressed concern over the “scandalously high amounts” paid by government and quasi-government bodies to a few favoured law officers.

In contrast, the court noted that Thirumalai’s total claim was “a pittance” considering the large number of cases he had handled.

Background

Thirumalai served as the standing counsel for the Madurai City Municipal Corporation for more than 14 years, from 1992 to 2006. During this period, he represented the corporation in about 818 cases before the Madurai District Courts.

As the former counsel was unable to hire a clerk to obtain certified copies of judgments in all 818 cases, the court directed the District Legal Services Authority to collect the certified copies within two months. The court further ordered the corporation to bear the cost incurred by the DLSA and deduct that amount from the final settlement payable to the petitioner.

Comments