Tarun Karthick
Sri Vijaya Puram, 15 December 2024
In a strongly-worded letter addressed to the Additional Home Secretary of the Ministry of Home Affairs, Bishnu Pada Ray, Member of Parliament representing the Andaman and Nicobar Islands, has alleged that the Andaman and Nicobar Administration submitted incorrect, misleading, and suppressive replies to questions raised in Parliament. The MP has called for immediate intervention to ensure accountability and adherence to parliamentary norms.
Citing multiple discrepancies in the replies furnished by the Administration during the recent monsoon and winter sessions, Ray has accused officials of bypassing statutory provisions, withholding critical information, and providing responses that are far removed from the facts on record. He argued that these actions amount to a breach of the established rules of parliamentary procedure and reflect a disturbing lack of accountability among key administrative departments.
Ray further stated his intention to bring this matter to the attention of the Speaker of the Lok Sabha and called for necessary corrective measures, including disciplinary action against those responsible for disseminating false or incomplete information.
Discrepancies in Key Areas:
The MP highlighted several instances where the Andaman and Nicobar Administration’s replies failed to address the specific queries raised and, in some cases, contradicted ground realities.
1. Revenue Matters (Parliamentary Question No. 2402)
Questions Raised: The MP sought details on the statutory orders issued for the stoppage of Sub-Divisional Officers’ (SDOs) statutory functions in the Revenue Department under Section 40 of the A&N Islands Land Revenue and Land Reforms Regulation, 1966. He also requested year-wise and district-wise data on cases registered/applications received since 2020 and details on measures to address delays caused by officials failing to process cases promptly.
Reply by the Administration: The Administration claimed that 1,483 cases were registered/applications received. The applications are processed while ensuring land availability and adherence to the overall development plan, and following due diligence as per existing rule.
Counterpoints by the MP: Ray refuted the reply, stating that the Administration’s response lacked the year-wise and district-wise breakdown explicitly requested in the question. He also argued that citing the Master Plan as a reason for halting land processes was irrelevant and violated the provisions of the 1966 Regulation, which cannot be overridden by any administrative policy.
2. Jal Jeevan Mission (Parliamentary Question No. 2932)
Questions Raised: The MP sought clarity on villages such as Gandhinagar, Dashrathpur, and Sasthinagar, where either no water pipelines were laid, or pipelines existed but did not supply water. He also questioned the claim of 100% household water coverage under the Jal Jeevan Mission and asked whether responsibility would be fixed for submitting false reports.
Reply by the Administration: The Administration claimed that villages mentioned were fully covered with piped water supply. It stated that only households in encroached forest or unauthorized areas were excluded.
Counterpoints by the MP: Ray asserted that the ground realities contradicted the Administration’s claims. He highlighted that villages, including Calicut, Rangat, and Nicobar, lacked adequate water pipeline connections. The MP also criticized the exclusion of households on encroached land, arguing that water, being a fundamental right, cannot be denied even to such areas. He further pointed out inconsistencies in the Administration’s claim, citing that similar areas in urban Port Blair had access to basic amenities like water, electricity, and social security despite being on encroached land.
3. Information Technology (Parliamentary Question No. 2713)
Questions Raised: Ray asked whether the Government had received his earlier proposal for creating a separate Directorate of Information Technology in the Andaman and Nicobar Islands. He also sought details on actions taken, financial and technical support, and the implementation timeline for the proposal.
Reply by the Administration: The Administration stated that the matter fell under its purview and highlighted existing IT initiatives, such as the establishment of 95 Common Service Centres and DigiLocker services.
Counterpoints by the MP: Ray criticized the reply for failing to address the specific queries raised. He noted that the responses were generic, irrelevant, and did not provide any substantive details about his proposal for a separate IT Directorate.
4. Other Issues
Ray also flagged similar issues in responses regarding fertilizer distribution, road connectivity, and other parliamentary questions, describing the replies as misleading and incomplete.
Call for Action and Accountability:
Ray emphasized that providing inaccurate information to Parliament is a serious violation of the Rules of Procedure and Conduct of Business. He urged the Ministry of Home Affairs to intervene and ensure that all replies furnished to Parliament are factually accurate and transparent. The MP also called for disciplinary action against officials responsible for misleading the Parliament.
“The practice of providing suppressive and misleading information reflects poorly on the accountability of the Andaman and Nicobar Administration and undermines the trust placed in parliamentary processes,” Ray wrote in his letter.
He also demanded that the Administration rectify the erroneous replies and take steps to prevent such lapses in the future.