New Delhi:

The government’s claims of rules being followed during voting on farm bills in Rajya Sabha on September 20 and its version of events, has a deep discrepancy with television footage of the proceedings accessed by NDTV. The voice vote has been hugely controversial. The opposition alleged that the government lacked numbers, which would have become clear if a physical voting was held. They also accused Deputy Chairman Harivansh Singh, who was presiding over the proceedings, of colluding with the government.

Mr Singh and the government have claimed that the opposition demands for physical voting were negated as the members were not in their seats while making the demand.

The footage reviewed by NDTV shows that at least two of the three MPs — KK Ragesh and Trichy Siva — who moved motion to send the controversial bills to a select committee, were in their seats when they demanded a division of votes.

In addition, rules were broken while extending the session timing on request of Parliamentary Affairs Minister Pralhad Joshi. A session can be extended only with agreement of both government and the opposition.

But in this case, the Rajya Sabha footage clearly showed that around 1.03 pm, Leader of the Opposition Ghulam Nabi Azad said, “Opposition parties are saying that time should not be extended today and tomorrow the minister can reply…”

DMK MP Trichy Siva, a member of parliament for the last two decades, told NDTV, “Usually, the house is extended after taking consensus of the house”.

But the extension was made “just looking at the treasury benches… despite members from 12 opposition parties on their feet asking for adjournment. This is in clear violation of Rajya Sabha Rule 37,” he said.

Calling Parliamentary Affairs Minister’s request to extend the house till the passing of the bills a “normal practice”, law minister Ravi Shankar Prasad later said, “The sense of the house is not gathered by majority and minority”.

Rule 252(4)(a) of Procedure And Conduct Of Business In The Council Of States state: “If the opinion of the Chairman as to the decision of a question is challenged and he does not adopt the course provided for in sub- rule (3) he shall order a “Division” to be held.”

The footage from Rajya Sabha also showed at 1.10 pm, when the Deputy Chairman took Trichy Siva’s motion for sending the bills to a select committee, he was in his seat and demanded division of votes. But the motion was negated through voice vote.

When Kerala’s CPM member KK Ragesh’s amendment was taken up next at 1.11 pm, he was also in his seat and demanded division of votes, shows the footage. But again, the motion was negated through voice vote.

Speaking to NDTV, Mr Ragesh said the government allegation that members not in their seats while demanding division was a “blatant lie”.

Accusing Rajya Sabha Deputy Chairman Harivansh Singh of colluding with the government, the opposition had passed a no-confidence motion against him, which was negated by the Upper House Chairman Venkaiah Naidu.

The Deputy Chairman in a statement today denied the opposition’s allegations with an “incident report” detailing minute by minute account of what happened inside the house.He also enclosed video footage of relevant portions — during motions by CPM’s KK Ragesh and DMK’s Tiruchy Siva.

“The statutory resolution disapproving the ordinance and the amendment for the reference of the bill to select committee moved by Sri KK Ragesh were negatived by voice vote by the house at 1.07 pm as Sri Ragesh was in the Well of the house and not on his seat in the gallery at that point of time. This can be seen from the video as after calling him to move his resolution and amendment, I looked at the gallery, but he was not there,” his note read.

Regarding Tiruchy Siva’s motion for sending the bills to a select committee, taken up at 1.10 pm when he was in his seat and demanded division of votes, Mr Singh’s note, citing the chaos at the time, read: “You will appreciate, that as per rules and practice, in order to have a division, two things are essential. Firstly there should be a demand for division and equally important that there should be order in the house.”