The Patna High Courts observation that the court can also recommend the imposition of Presidents rule in a state led to uproarious scenes in Parliament yesterday with members of the Rashtriya Janata Dal and the Samata Party exchanging blows in the Lok Sabha. Speaker P A Sangma threatened disciplinary action against the MPs involved.

The court made the observation on Tuesday evening while dealing with a petition alleging misappropriation of several crores of rupees earmarked for various rural development schemes in the Sahebgunj district of Bihar. Under Article 356, the governors recommendation is not conclusive. Even we can make such recommendations, said a division bench comprising chief justice B M Lal and Justice Shashank Kumar.

Expressing anguish over the unsavoury incidents in the Lok Sabha, Sangma said it was very unfortunate that the members had indulged in such acts. I do not know how to express my anguish, he remarked. I have watched the proceedings on closed circuit TV and I will watch it twice or thrice before taking any step, he said.

Trouble arose soon after the supplementary demands for grants were approved by the house. Ram Singh was in the chair and allowed RJD member Ram Kirpal Yadav to speak on the Bihar issue as he was not able to put forward his partys views during zero hour on the high court observation. RJD members opposed Nitish Kumar of the Samata Party from taking the floor, saying that he had not given a notice to speak on the issue.

Angry members from both sides rushed to the well after heated arguments with Anand Mohan (Samata) and Dinesh Yadav (RJD) virtually coming to blows. In the ensuing melee, senior members of the Congress, ruling benches and the BJP sought to control the situation by separating the agitated members. Finding the agitated members in a defiant mood, Ram Singh asked the security staff to control the situation, and later adjourned the house.

Ram Kirpal Yadav earlier criticised judicial activism, saying: This kind of encroachment will kill democracy in the country. He wanted to know under what rules the Patna high court had asked the CBI to take the armys assistance for arresting a person, and now how it could ask for the imposition of Presidents rule in the state.

P R Dasmunshi (Cong) said Article 356 did not provide for the high court and Supreme Court to direct the Prime Minister to dismiss an elected government and impose the Presidents rule. Judicial activism is encroaching upon the right of legislation. I condemn this, he said.

Nirmal Chatterjee (CPI-M) said it was a serious matter and wanted the speaker to convene a meeting of the leaders of all parties to take stock of the situation arising out of the high court pronouncement.

In the Rajya Sabha too, members expressed concern over the court observation.

Congress spokesman V N Gadgil later said the Patna high court should have avoided making oral observations, and instead should have given a judgment.