PDP leader questions Speaker on allowing 3 resolutions on statehood

PDP’s leader of the House in the Jammu and Kashmir Assembly, Waheed Ur Rehman Para, has written a letter to Speaker Abdul Rahim Rather, questioning allowing three private members’ resolutions on restoration of statehood in the concluding phase of the Budget session that is scheduled to commence on Monday after a 12-day recess.

He also demanded reinstating his Martyrs’ Day resolution to push for a public holiday on July 13 in the memory of 22 men who fell to the bullets of the Dogra king’s soldiers outside the Srinagar central jail on that day in 1931.

The holiday was scrapped by the Lieutenant Governor-led administration following the August 2019 abrogation of Article 370 of the Constitution and bifurcation of the erstwhile state into Union Territories.

A total of 14 private members’ resolutions, including three seeking restoration of statehood, will be moved in the Assembly during the Budget session’s final phase from April 7 to April 9.

The maiden Budget session of the Assembly post the abrogation of Article 370 commenced in Jammu on March 3, having a total of 21 sittings, according to the revised calendar.

“I write to express deep concern over the absence of the Martyrs’ Day resolution from the bulletin…. I understand that private member resolutions are subjected to a ballot process, and the exclusion of my Martyrs’ Day (July 13) resolution may have a procedural explanation.

“However, as a matter of principle, democracy must not be held hostage to technicalities — especially when the majority of members in our House expressed their support for this resolution," Para has said in his three-page letter to the speaker.

He has said the procedural rules cannot be “weaponised to suppress the political significance" of the historic event of July 13.

The People’s Democratic Party (PDP) leader has urged the speaker to exercise his discretionary powers and “rectify this glaring omission just as the special status resolution was unexpectedly introduced in November 2024, despite its absence from the order of business".

On November 6, the Assembly passed a resolution asking the BJP-led Centre to work out a constitutional mechanism for restoring the special status of the erstwhile state.

Seeking a clarification on several procedural concerns, Para has said the Rules of Procedure, under the section “Repetition of Resolution", clearly state that when a resolution has been moved, no resolution or amendment “raising substantially the same question shall be moved within one year from the date of the moving of the earlier resolution".

The bulletin issued by the Assembly Secretariat on March 26 includes three resolutions on restoration of statehood, which is a clear violation of the rule, he has said, adding that the Assembly already passed a resolution for the restoration of the special status on November 6, less than a year ago.

According to the bulletin issued by Manoj Kumar Pandit, Secretary, Jammu and Kashmir Legislative Assembly Secretariat, seven private members’ resolutions each, the relative precedence whereof has been determined by ballot on March 25, would be taken up in the House on April 7 and April 9.

Ruling National Conference (NC) members will move a total of 10 resolutions, including two related to the demand for the restoration of statehood, two independent members’ resolutions including one on statehood restoration, and the Bharatiya Janata Party (BJP) and PDP members would move one resolution each.

“While that resolution (of November 6) fell short of the ideal demand for the full restoration of Articles 370 and 35A, it was still a stronger (step) forward than the cabinet’s resolution on statehood alone.

“Given that special status is inherently tied to and inseparable from statehood, doesn’t any new resolution exclusively focused on statehood qualify as a ‘substantially similar question’ and therefore, must not be admitted owing to the procedural rule?" Para has asked the Speaker in his letter.

The PDP leader has said he also finds it questionable that not one but three statehood resolutions — all nearly identical and technically ineligible until November 6, 2025 — have been included on the same day (April 7).

“Another resolution that calls for provision of quality healthcare across the state also defeats the purpose of introducing resolutions, which is to build consensus in the House…. This raises a critical question: Is there an intentional attempt to inundate the system with hollow, redundant resolutions that divert time and attention from more pressing and substantive issues?" he has asked.

More importantly, Para has said the introduction of these new statehood resolutions weakens and sidelines the previously-passed special status resolution. “By allowing multiple statehood resolutions, a misleading perception is created — suggesting that the demand for statehood is unanimous while effectively sidelining the Assembly’s resolution on special status. Could this be a conscious attempt to shift the goalpost, divert the discourse away from Articles 370 and 35A, and establish a concerning precedent?" he has asked.

Para has said that while balloting is outlined in the business rules, it should only be necessary when the number of admitted resolutions exceeds the available slots.

“I write out of a deep commitment to upholding legislative integrity and democratic representation. The exclusion of the Martyrs’ Day resolution and these procedural concerns need to be meticulously explained and thoroughly understood so that our faith in the legitimacy of these processes remains unimpeachable," he has said.

J & K