Home »  News »  India

Shiv Sena MP says saffron flag to be hoisted atop Red Fort, causes uproar in Lok Sabha

Tuesday, 10 June 2014 - 6:49pm IST | Place: New Delhi | Agency: PTI
  • dna Research & Archives

Lok Sabha witnessed ruckus on Tuesday after a Shiv Sena member remarked that saffron flag would be hoisted atop the Red Fort leading to a brief adjournment. Opposition members protested when Prataprao Ganpatrao Jadhav (SS) said they would unfurl saffron flag on the Red Fort in Delhi.

Jadhav was speaking on the Motion of Thanks on the President's address to Parliament.

Opposing the remark, members from Congress, Trinamool Congress and Left parties urged the Speaker to remove it from the records.

Arjun Charan Sethi, who was in the Chair, assured the agitating members that he would examine the record and remove if there was anything objectionable.

However, the assurance failed to pacify the agitating members leading to adjournment of the House for a brief time.

Amid the ruckus, Leader of the Congress in the Lok Sabha Mallikarjun Kharge said it was not right to mention that saffron flag would be hoisted on the Red Fort and not the tricolour.

Members from Trinamool Congress, RJD and Congress trooped into the Well shouting slogans demanding that the remark be removed.

When the House reassembled at 4.35 PM after the brief adjournment, Shiv Sena leader and Union Minister Anant Geete clarified the party's position on the issue, saying party Supremo late Bal Thackeray has categorically stated that "we would always respect our Constitution and tricolour".

He said the party which was in power Maharashtra has never shown any disrespect to the Constitution and tricolour.

Geete said a Shiv Sena government will continue to unfurl the tricolour. "We will continue to do so. There is no compromise on this issue," he said.

Referring to the prevailing custom in Courts where Muslims take oath placing their hands on Holy Quran and Hindus on Bhagavad Gita, he said "a true secular" should take oath in court placing his hand on the Constitution.




Jump to comments