Chandigarh, Feb. 27 -- Day 5 of the ongoing budget session saw the Haryana assembly break out into a verbal duel over the admissibility of a resolution pertaining tothe Viksit Bharat-Guarantee for Rozgar and Ajeevika Mission (Gramin) Scheme brought under Rule 84 of the Rules of Procedure and Conduct of Business of the state legislature. Congress MLA from Rohtak Bharat Bhushan Batra questioned under what provision the resolution had been moved, arguing that since an Act had already been passed by Parliament, the state assembly had no authority to discuss it. Batra contended that Rule 84 did not permit any amendment when such a resolution was moved and maintained that the matter could not be taken up under the rule. Batra later told HT that Rule 84 pertained to discussing a policy, situation, statement or any other matter. "The Viksit Bharat-G RAM G Act is a central law. It is not a policy, situation or statement,'' he maintained. He was supported by Congress MLA from Jhajjar Geeta Bhukkal, who said that once an Act had been passed by the Parliament, the state assembly did not have the right to discuss it under Rule 84. The objections raised by the Congress benches stemmed from the substitution made by the assembly secretariat in the wording of the resolution - from discussion on "extension of employment guarantee from 100 days to 125 days" under the Viksit Bharat-G RAM G scheme to "the confusion prevailing" regarding the provisions of the scheme. Assembly speaker Harvinder Kalyan, however, maintained that the resolution can be admitted and discussed under Rule 84. Justifying the substitution in phrasing of resolution, Kalyan cited Rule 75-A, which allows the speaker to amend any notice containing words, phrases or expressions that were argumentative, unparliamentary, ironical, irrelevant, verbose or otherwise inappropriate. The speaker clarified that the assembly was competent to discuss any matter, especially if a situation arose from a central law that caused public confusion. BJP MLA from Indri Ram Kumar Kashyap then presented the resolution while claiming that even Congress MLAs had many misgivings about the scheme, triggering loud objections from the Congress benches. "One of the Congress MLAs, Jarnail Singh, had said during discussion on the governor's address that MNREGA has been shut down. The fact is that the scheme has not been discontinued but improved,'' Kashyap said. Batra, however, insisted that the resolution could not be brought under Rule 84. Following this, the Congress members staged a walkout, boycotting the proceedings. Chief minister Nayab Singh Saini accused Congress MLAs of spreading misinformation when the name of MGNREGA was changed by the Parliament. He claimed that while earlier employment was guaranteed for 100 days, it had now been extended to 125 days. Parliamentary affairs minister Mahipal Dhanda accused the Congress MLAs of creating unnecessary controversy over the issue and spreading misinformation among the public, while revenue minister Vipul Goel said the Opposition's statements reflected frustration and attempts to mislead people. Later, deputy leader of the Congress Legislature Party Aftab Ahmed and chief whip Bharat Bhushan Batra, in a joint statement, said the proposal listed under Rule 84 cannot be altered or amended in such a fundamental way from its original form. "The interpretation of the rules is paramount and governs the proceedings of the House. When a proposal is not maintainable under the rules, discussion on it is also not legally permissible. For this reason, the Congress Legislative Party boycotted the introduction of the motion. They clarified that this boycott was not an attempt to avoid discussion, but a decision taken to uphold parliamentary traditions and the dignity of the rule book,'' the duo said. They clarified that Congress MLAs were not shying away from discussion on the issue. However, discussion should be conducted within the framework of the rules or during the motion of thanks on the governor's address, they said....