SEARCH

News » National

Updated: March 10, 2010 12:28 IST

Lalu, Mulayam rule out no-trust motion for now

PTI
print   ·   T  T  
Samajwadi Party chief Mulayam Singh Yadav, RJD chief Lalu Prasad Yadav and JD (U) chief Sharad Yadav after a meeting with Prime Minister Manmohan Singh over Women's Bill. Mr. Prasad and Mulayam Singh Yadav have ruled out plans for a no-trust vote.
PTI
Samajwadi Party chief Mulayam Singh Yadav, RJD chief Lalu Prasad Yadav and JD (U) chief Sharad Yadav after a meeting with Prime Minister Manmohan Singh over Women's Bill. Mr. Prasad and Mulayam Singh Yadav have ruled out plans for a no-trust vote.

Mulayam Singh Yadav and Lalu Prasad, the two strong opponents of the Women’s Bill, on Wednesday said they were “as of now” not considering the issue of bringing a no-confidence motion in Lok Sabha, saying they did not have the numbers for it.

“Nothing as of now, we need to decide it among ourselves first and then only we can bring it (a no-confidence motion). We don’t have enough MPs of our own,” Mr. Yadav, whose Samajwadi Party has 21 members in the Lok Sabha, said.

On whether he was planning to carry out his threat to withdraw outside support to the UPA, the SP supremo said, “There is no question of meeting the President now.” He did not elaborate.

On the issue of no-trust motion, Mr. Prasad, whose RJD has four members in the Lok Sabha, said, “There is no such decision. It is wrong information.

“We have only four MPs and, therefore, where is the question of no-confidence motion?” he asked.

He, however, said that his party has sought a meeting with President Pratibha Patil but has not been allotted time as yet.

More In: National | News

Tamil Nadu

Andhra Pradesh

Other States

Kerala

Karnataka

Telangana


O
P
E
N

close

Recent Article in National

Under Section 13 (criminal misconduct by a public servant), the punishment was raised from one year to four years and the maximum to 10 years and fine.

No scope for reform of convicted official: SC

Any suspicion of leniency from the court would compromise the public’s faith in judiciary: SC »