Following the two-day impasse over the Babri Masjid demolition case in Lok Sabha, the Government and the Opposition agreed to discuss the ‘‘admissibility’’ of the adjournment motion tomorrow at noon. The discussion, to be held without a time-limit, would focus on the reason behind the Opposition’s demand for an adjournment motion over CBI’s dropping of charges against L.K. Advani, Murli Manohar Joshi and others in the case. SPEAKER OF THE DAY Making a statement in the Lok Sabha, Railway Minister Nitish Kumar took pains to explain how well the Railways had handled the three major accidents in the past two months. Stressing that the Railways were operating ‘‘amid many adverse extraneous factors,’’ he said the number of accidents had gone down compared to previous years. ‘‘All out efforts are being made to prevent accidents at all costs,’’ he said. Some vital decisions had been taken to enhance passenger safety, he added without giving details. He painstakingly gave details of major accidents — the Frontier Mail fire on May 15 (killing 36), derailment of a holiday special on Konkan Railway on June 22 (killing 52), and the derailment of Golconda Express on July 2, (killing 21). The inquiry in the accidents was still. About the Frontier Mail fire, he said the Commissioner Railway Safety had failed to reach a conclusion and was awaiting the forensic report. The Konkan Rail derailment, he said, was termed as a ‘‘failure of right side slope of cutting resulting in obstruction of the track’’. The Golconda Express accident, he said, was because of ‘‘late application of brakes’’ by the driver. Speaker Manohar Joshi would decide after the discussion whether to permit the adjournment motion or whether the Opposition should bring the matter under some other rule. The debate would be replied by the Law Minister Arun Jaitley tomorrow. The decision was taken at the meeting of the Business Advisory Committee (BAC) where it was also agreed that a discussion on the Taj heritage corridor issue would be held tomorrow. Also on agenda is a statement by Prime Minister A.B. Vajpayee on his foreign visits, including the one to China. Earlier in the day, the Lok Sabha witnessed a replay of yesterday’s events — Opposition members trooped into the well of the House as soon as a discussion on the Jammu killings was over and made it clear that they would not allow the House to function. In face of persistent slogans demanding the resignation of Advani and Joshi, the Speaker adjourned the House before lunch and the deputy Speaker adjourned it once again within five minutes of reassembling after lunch. In the Rajya Sabha too, a solution emerged at the end of the day when Chairman Bhairon Singh Shekhawat bowed to the Opposition pressures and said members could speak on the issue without touching the ‘‘sub-judice’’ part of it. The debate has been listed for tomorrow. Shekhawat however disallowed a motion moved by the Congress-led Opposition for discussions on the role of the CBI in dropping charges. The Rajya Sabha was also adjourned twice when the Opposition insisted on the debate-first stand. After the BAC meeting in the evening, Parliamentary Affairs Minister Sushma Swaraj said the Opposition was ‘‘amicable,’’ but fell short of saying that the crisis had blown over. ‘‘The Opposition has said they would abide by whatever the Speaker rules,’’ she said, but added that ‘‘it is still too premature’’ to say that the issue is settled. On the Government’s stand at the meeting, attended by all parties, Sushma said: ‘‘We are prepared for a debate but not adjournment motion because that is only in case of a failure of the Government.’’ About the Government’s stand on the Opposition demanding Prime Minister’s statement on the issue, Sushma said that ‘‘no party had made this demand at BAC meeting.’’ The Congress said they have been demanding that their reasons for the adjournment motion be heard. Party chief whip Priya Ranjan Dasmunsi said: ‘‘Tomorrow after the question hour the discussion on the admissibility of the adjournment motion would begin. In case the Speaker does not admit the adjournment motion we would think of other methods like a discussion under rule 184 or 193 which entails no voting.’’ Dasmunsi also insisted that the Congress was not going back on its stand. ‘‘When we decided to take up the matter of the misuse of CBI, we wanted the adjournment motion or a discussion in some other way.’’
