3 Reasons Why Bihar Roll Revision Can't Be Discussed In Parliament: Sources
There will be no discussion on Bihar voter list revision in Parliament despite the Opposition's demand, the government has indicated, underscoring a reason cited by former Speaker Balaram Jakhar, sources have said.
The Opposition, which has been sticking to its demand for a discussion on Bihar's SIR, had raised the issue again today, and the row had delayed the discussion on Operation Sindoor.
The Opposition wanted a concrete assurance from the government that it would discuss the Special Intensive Revision of Bihar's electoral rolls immediately after the special discussion on Operation Sindoor ends.
At the time, the government had accused the Opposition of cheating.
Later, at 2 pm, Parliamentary Affairs Minister Kiren Rijiju said if the rules allow and the Speaker is ready and it is decided in the Business Advisory Committee, the government was ready to discuss any topic.
Because the government did not directly say it would discuss the issue of Bihar SIR, or refuse it, the Opposition found the assurance sufficient and the discussion on Operation Sindoor started in the Lok Sabha.
Government sources, however, made it clear that the voter list revision -- being run by the Election Commission in Bihar -- cannot be discussed in Parliament.
About this, three arguments are being considered by the government, sources said.
The first is that the campaign being run by the Central Election Commission is not an election reform. Rather, it is an administrative step and the Election Commission has been taking such steps from time to time.
The second reason is that even if a discussion is held in both the houses of Parliament on the intensive revision of the voter list, there is no one to answer the questions that the Opposition could raise.
The Election Commission cannot come to the House to present its side, sources pointed out. And although the Law Ministry is the nodal ministry for the Election Commission, it generally looks after only administrative work, and does not interfere in policy matters.
The third reason the government gave is that there are many such institutions which do not have a mechanism to present their side before the Parliament. In such situations, there cannot be a discussion about those institutions, sources said.
Government sources recounted an earlier instance when there had been a demand to discuss the functioning of the Election Commission.
In 1986, then Speaker Balram Jakhar had said comprehensive election reforms can be discussed in Parliament, but it is not possible to discuss administrative processes and decisions.
The government is now of the view that the Bihar voter list revision cannot be discussed due to these reasons.
The Opposition, however, is very aggressive on this issue and wait is on for the government's formal arguments.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
&w=3840&q=100)
First Post
an hour ago
- First Post
Trump's tariffs prove India right, expose lie of trade threat used to broker Indo-Pak peace
Trump's imposition of tariffs on India directly contradicts his own claim of brokering peace through trade threats read more US President Donald Trump's decision to impose a 25 per cent tariff on Indian imports undercuts his own claim that India paused its military offensive against Pakistan during Operation Sindoor in exchange for favourable trade terms. What was once portrayed by Trump as a successful example of coercive diplomacy has now unravelled into contradiction, especially as India continues to deny any link between trade negotiations and the May 10 ceasefire. This inconsistency exposes the fragility of Trump's narrative and vindicates India's position that its military decisions were guided solely by national security imperatives — not foreign pressure. STORY CONTINUES BELOW THIS AD Operation Sindoor and the Trump narrative In the aftermath of the April 22 Pahalgam terror attack that claimed 26 civilian lives, India launched Operation Sindoor — a swift and forceful retaliation targeting nine terror camps deep inside Pakistani territory. The operation, according to Prime Minister Narendra Modi, was executed with 'decisive and calibrated precision,' striking Pakistan's airbases and infrastructure so severely that, in Modi's words, 'Pakistan's air bases are still in ICU.' Amid these developments, Trump repeatedly claimed he had convinced India to halt the operation by threatening to cut off trade unless hostilities stopped. In posts on Truth Social, he suggested he had extracted concessions by leveraging the threat of removing India from US trading preferences — a move, he asserted, which pushed India to the negotiating table and led to the May 10 ceasefire. India's rebuttal: No foreign hand in ceasefire Trump's claims were swiftly and repeatedly rejected by India. Prime Minister Modi, speaking in Parliament, flatly denied that any foreign leader — Trump included — had asked India to stop its military operations. 'No leader of any country asked India to stop Operation Sindoor,' PM Modi said, reinforcing India's autonomy in defence matters and insisting that the operation was halted only after achieving its objectives. Supporting this stance, External Affairs Minister S Jaishankar disclosed in both Houses of Parliament that no communication took place between Trump and Modi during the period in question. Further, the Ministry of External Affairs emphasised that the ceasefire decision came solely from direct contacts between the Indian and Pakistani DGMOs, with no reference to trade or US mediation. Trump's tariff outburst Trump's imposition of 25 per cent tariffs on Indian imports, announced on Wednesday, has inadvertently undercut his own boastful claims. The announcement came ironically on the same day Parliament wrapped up its debate on Operation Sindoor. This timing added a layer of dramatic irony, spotlighting the disconnect between Trump's claims and his actions. US court affidavit Compounding the confusion was a US court affidavit, submitted by Commerce Secretary Howard Lutnick on May 23, in which the Trump administration insisted that the ceasefire was achieved after Trump offered India and Pakistan favourable trading access to avert full-scale war. The affidavit, part of a legal defence of Trump's tariff powers, argued that limiting presidential authority could undermine critical diplomatic tools — like the alleged use of trade threats in the India-Pakistan case. This claim, now echoed in court documents, puts the Trump administration at odds with the Indian government's repeated rebuttals. As the Court of International Trade found Trump's use of the International Emergency Economic Powers Act (IEEPA) to levy global tariffs unlawful and arbitrary, the political logic of his India-Pakistan peace narrative also faces collapse. STORY CONTINUES BELOW THIS AD India's firm stand on sovereignty India's response has been clear and unwavering. Prime Minister Modi said that the decision to stop Operation Sindoor was made after objectives were met, not under foreign coercion. He further described how Pakistan pleaded for a ceasefire, with the DGMO reportedly telling India to please stop the attack as they can't take it anymore. This messaging stresses upon India's sovereignty and its resistance to any form of external mediation in its dealings with Pakistan. The Modi government's consistent rejection of Trump's claim reveals a broader strategic posture that India will not allow its national security or geopolitical decisions to be mischaracterised by any power, however influential. Tariffs as a tool of political theatre The sequence of events shows how Trump's tariff policy was not rooted in sound economic or diplomatic logic but rather in performative geopolitics. His 'Liberation Day' narrative introducing sweeping tariffs to strong-arm other nations appears designed more for domestic political gain than real diplomatic leverage. In India's case, it boomeranged. By imposing punishing tariffs despite claiming a deal was struck, Trump effectively disproved his own narrative. The contradiction is glaring: if India indeed complied under pressure, where is the 'good deal' that Trump promised? Instead, India received punitive trade actions, not rewards. Vindication for India Trump's tariff move against India has inadvertently vindicated New Delhi's position that the decision to cease hostilities with Pakistan was made independently, with no linkage to trade concessions. His conflicting narratives boasting about coercion on one hand and penalising India on the other reveal the transactional and often contradictory nature of his diplomacy. By refusing to be drawn into this narrative, India has preserved both its strategic autonomy and moral authority. As Prime Minister Modi and other ministers have reiterated, national interest and sovereignty and not foreign threats dictate India's military decisions.
Time of India
an hour ago
- Time of India
U.S. Senate Rejects Attempt To Blocks Arms Sale To Israel Despite Global & Domestic Rebellion
India-Pak War: PM Modi Breaks Silence On Trump Ceasefire Role; 'Called Me Multiple Times, But...' Prime Minister Narendra Modi firmly rejected Donald Trump's ceasefire claim, stating no world leader, including the U.S., asked India to halt Operation Sindoor. Modi emphasized that the operation was fully led and executed under Indian command. He confirmed receiving a call from U.S. Vice President JD Vance on May 9 but did not take it, as he was in an army meeting. Watch 351 views | 1 day ago
Hans India
an hour ago
- Hans India
After 2008 Mumbai attacks, then Home Minister spoke in RS: Nadda slams Oppn for walkout during HM Shah's reply
New Delhi: Leader of the Rajya Sabha and BJP president J.P. Nadda on Thursday criticised the Opposition for staging a walkout during Union Home Minister Amit Shah's reply to the debate on Operation Sindoor. He made this point just before the Upper House was adjourned for the second time during the day. Earlier, it was adjourned till noon when the House assembled at 11 a.m. and the Opposition created an uproar. Amid continued sloganeering by Opposition members, Nadda drew attention to parliamentary precedents. He recalled the UPA-era proceedings when the then Home Minister gave a speech in Rajya Sabha during a discussion on the 2008 Mumbai terror attacks and called out the Opposition's "double standards". "Yesterday, after a long discussion on Operation Sindoor, some of the Opposition parties staged a walkout when the Home Minister commenced his speech. I draw the attention of the House to the time in the aftermath of the terrorist attacks in Mumbai, 2008. It is a matter of record that discussions took place in both Houses on the statement made on behalf of the Ministry of Home Affairs," he said. He pointed out that during that time, the replies in the Lok Sabha were given by the then Home Minister and Prime Minister, while in the Rajya Sabha, the then Home Minister responded. "It was made clear during the BAC (Business Advisory Committee) meeting that it is the prerogative of the government to decide which Minister should speak and reply to the discussion in the House," Nadda said. Accusing the Opposition of hypocrisy, Nadda said, "The Opposition parties had demanded a discussion to elicit information from the government on Operation Sindoor. However, when the opportunity came, they chose to walk out without listening to the Home Minister." He added that the demand of the Opposition was "misplaced" and exposed a "double standard". The House was eventually adjourned again till 2:00 p.m. due to continued sloganeering. The Opposition had staged a walkout on Wednesday, insisting that Prime Minister Narendra Modi respond to the debate on Operation Sindoor.
