your party and you specifically had come out and you had said that there are three reasons why the bill should not be introduced. The government has made it clear that it wants to bring this in this very session of the parliament. Why does the Ahmad party now think that this ordinance should not be converted into the bill and that should be presented in the parliament bill should not be introduced because the introduction of this bill is legally impermissible because of three reasons and now I'll add 1/4 reason. Also, three reasons are as follows Point number one. You cannot change a Supreme Court's judgement without changing the basis of the judgement. Merely because you are brought in an ordinance doesn't mean that the Supreme Court's judgement can be overturned to overturn it or to change the basis. But the government hasn't changed the basis Number one. Number two. You can only make laws to give effect to the articles of the Constitution. You cannot bring in laws that substantively change the sense of the articles of the Constitution, which the government is attempting to do through this legislation. Point number three The matter is sub judice. The matter is pending before court. Why can't the government wait for the outcome of the Supreme Court's Constitution Constitution bench to decide the constitutional validity of this ordinance of the bill and 0.4 and most importantly, now that once you have a no confidence motion admitted by the Los Saba speaker, no business is permitted to be transacted after the admission of this no confidence motion until the no confidence motion is set aside and disposed of. And that has been the parliamentary precedent all throughout. Because of these four reasons, the introduction of this Delhi bill is impermissible. Matter is sub judice. You are changing the Supreme Court judgement without changing the basis and you are not bringing a law to give effect to articles of constitution. You are
