SIR continues to rock Rajya Sabha, proceedings adjourned till 2 pm
Soon after listed official papers were laid on the table of the House, slogan shouting Opposition MPs moved into aisles and well of the House raising the issue of SIR, leading to proceedings being adjourned till 2 pm.
Deputy Chairman Harivansh rejected 29 notices that invoked Rule 267, which allows suspension of listed business to discuss matters being raised in them.
Without indicating the subject, he said the notices were received on five different subjects.
As many as 11 notices, he said, did not contain a motion drawn in proper terms to obtain a decision of the House.
'Remaining 18 notices seek discussion on a matter which is sub judice and these notices also do not contain proper motion as per the requirement of Rule 267," he said, adding he had last week stated that there are restrictions on discussing matters that are before the courts.
The Supreme Court is hearing petitions filed against SIR.
'The sub judice principle was included in rules of procedure for avoiding any undue influence of any discussion in Parliament on a case pending in a court," he said.
He went on to state that Rule 238(5) prohibits discussion on a person in high authority except on a substantive motion. 'Additionally there are precedence and relevant ruling to say that Rule 267 can be used to raise issues which are rarest of rare in nature. Since none of the notices are in adherence to the requirements of the rules, I am not admitting any of the notices." Opposition MPs reacted to the ruling with slogan shouting and moving into ailes and well of the House.
As opposition MPs shouted slogans over what they allege as 'vote chori' (electoral theft) being done through SIR, Harivansh asked listed Zero Hour, where matters of public importance are raised by members, to be taken up.
He said Zero Hour and Question Hour are member's time.
In the current Monsoon Session of Parliament, Rajya Sabha had the opportunity to take up 210 Zero Hour mentions, 210 starred questions and 210 special mentions so far, he said.
'However, due to continuous disruptions, we have been able to take up only 14 starred questions, five Zero Hour submissions and 17 special mentions. Because of the disruptions, we have lost 62 hours and 25 minutes of the session so far," he said, asking Zero Hour to be taken up.
With opposition MPs unrelenting, Harivansh adjourned the proceedings till 2 pm.
Earlier, Harivansh said some members raised objections to certain observations by the chair regarding rule 267 at the last sitting on August 8. 'I wish to clarify that it was not intended to offend any honorable member. I leave it to the wisdom of honorable members to comply with the rules and directions imparted by the Chair on this subject and that the precious time of the House is not lost." PTI ANZ DRR
view comments
First Published:
August 11, 2025, 12:30 IST
Disclaimer: Comments reflect users' views, not News18's. Please keep discussions respectful and constructive. Abusive, defamatory, or illegal comments will be removed. News18 may disable any comment at its discretion. By posting, you agree to our Terms of Use and Privacy Policy.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Deccan Herald
10 minutes ago
- Deccan Herald
Modi govt pushes for space debate amid logjam over Bihar SIR protests
Hello readers, the Monsoon Session of Parliament will resume today after a brief break but there are no signs of a thaw between the government and the Opposition with the former now listing a special discussion in Lok Sabha on India's space programme after declining the demand for a debate on Special Intensive Revision (SIR) of electoral rolls. Meanwhile, NDA announced Maharashtra Governor C P Radhakrishnan as its candidate for VP election. Track all the latest Parliament updates here, only with DH!
News18
33 minutes ago
- News18
Justice For Sarla Bhatt Step Towards Resolving Pain Of Kashmiri Hindus, But More Needs To Be Done
Last Updated: The way forward for resettling Kashmiri Hindus and addressing their pain requires earnest effort from both sides. The J&K government, L-G, and Centre should engage them in dialogue A nurse at a medical institute in Srinagar, Sarla Bhatt was gangraped and murdered on April 14, 1990. Her body was found on the roadside in Lal Bazar Road area. Nearly 35 years later, there is hope that her soul and her family will finally find closure. But this brutal act was not an isolated incident. In this case, the police did not return Bhatt's clothes to her family. As a nurse at a medical institute in Srinagar's Saura, she witnessed terror activities making her a target. BACKGROUND The period from 1980 to 1990 was marked by ethnic cleansing of Hindus and Sikh women and men. Even children were not spared, resulting in the mass exodus of hundreds of thousands of people from their ancestral homeland. This was not a sudden event of 1990, but began much earlier as Ratan Sharda notes in his book, Conflict Resolution – The RSS Way. The first visible signs appeared on April 7, 1986, when newspapers warned that a large number of Hindus might migrate out of Kashmir Valley. The RSS was one of the earliest to raise the alarm. On April 24, 1986, the then Union home minister PV Narasimha Rao admitted to the grim situation in the Rajya Sabha. State elections were held under the Congress-NC alliance in March 1987, with Farooq Abdullah becoming chief minister with 66 seats and backed by Rajiv Gandhi. Governor Jagmohan, an appointee of Rajiv Gandhi, wrote in his book My Frozen Turbulence in Kashmir: 'Any suggestion or warning [to Rajiv Gandhi] was either smiled away or lulled with false assurance. Rajiv's man in the Valley, Dr. Farooq Abdullah, was empty both in beliefs and action. And it was this emptiness that was as disastrous as the indifference of the ruling clique at New Delhi." On August 23, 1988, another question was raised in the Rajya Sabha about Kashmiri Hindus moving to various states. Despite the worsening situation, Rajiv Gandhi and Farooq Abdullah still held power. Then home minister Buta Singh cynically stated that Kashmiri Pandits, like other Indians, were moving in search of better economic prospects. Between July and December 1989, 70 terrorists were released with the blessings of the NC-Congress government, becoming fully active again. By the time the state government was dismissed, the situation had deteriorated beyond control. On August 1, 1991, minister of state for home MM Jacob informed the Lok Sabha that by June 1991, over 72,000 Hindu families had migrated from Kashmir Valley to Jammu and Delhi. Assuming a family size of five to 10 members, this number could be anywhere between 3,60,000 to 7,20,000 with actual numbers possibly higher. Jagmohan was reappointed as governor on January 19, 1990, but by then, J&K was already lost to terrorists and the large exodus of Kashmiri Hindus had occurred amid loudspeaker announcements of 'Raliv, Chaliv, Galiv (Convert, Go or Die)". With limited power and few trustworthy officers, he could do little within 12 hours. In the following years, governments kept separatists appeased with regular payments, and even a self-declared killer was entertained at the Prime Minister's home. Naturally, Kashmiri Hindus never received justice. The Supreme Court did not entertain their complaints, deeming them time-barred, a day when humanity lost. As with the 1984 Sikh massacre, the Narendra Modi-led government took it upon itself to deliver justice. Notorious terrorists and separatists are now in jail. The nullification of articles 370 and 35A, along with intelligent policies, has brought near normalcy to Jammu and Kashmir after four decades. It is hoped that one day, Kashmiri Hindus will return to their land and homes. But several issues need attention. POSSIBLE PATH OF PEACEFUL RECONCILIATION During so-called secular regimes, bringing normalcy to the Valley meant only talking to dominant Sunni Kashmiri Muslims. Other Muslims and Hindus were not included in discussions, nor were their views considered. There was an over-reliance on the Kashmiri bureaucracy in policymaking and governance. Kashmiri Hindus believe that the situation has not changed significantly. The process of filing domicile certificates and obtaining voting rights was made so complex that it required intervention from organisations like the Jammu Kashmir Study Centre to simplify it. Consequently, Kashmiri Hindus did not participate wholeheartedly, leading to low voter turnout. The BJP government did not seem to effectively address this critical process. On the issue of returning to the Valley, Kashmiri Hindus have not spoken with one voice. Some wish to return to their ancestral homes with full security provided by the government, while others prefer secured colonies exclusively for them with government security. There are varied opinions on their return, and it appears the government has not engaged them in dialogue as it does with Muslims of the Valley. The way forward for resettling Kashmiri Hindus and addressing their pain requires earnest effort from both sides. The Jammu and Kashmir government, lieutenant governor, and Centre should engage Kashmiri Hindus in dialogue even if it involves multiple meetings. The bureaucracy in Jammu and the Valley must be sensitive to the pain and fears of Kashmiri Hindus. The native population, who have paid the highest price for standing by their dharma, should not be overlooked. Kashmiri Hindu leaders must rise above their egos and individualism to reach a consensus on their expectations from the state and Centre. Criticising policies without offering solutions is unproductive. They have undergone unforgettable and unforgivable trauma, but with the central government's commitment and strength to resolve the Jammu and Kashmir issue, it is incumbent upon them to respond constructively and offer solutions for a secure and prosperous future. Efforts for justice for Sarla Bhatt are another step towards resolving the pain of Kashmiri Hindus, and further steps must be taken with equal resolve. (Views expressed in the above piece are personal and solely those of the authors. They do not necessarily reflect News18's views) Click here to add News18 as your preferred news source on Google. tags : jammu and kashmir kashmiri pandits view comments Location : New Delhi, India, India First Published: August 18, 2025, 10:03 IST News opinion Opinion | Justice For Sarla Bhatt Step Towards Resolving Pain Of Kashmiri Hindus, But More Needs To Be Done Disclaimer: Comments reflect users' views, not News18's. Please keep discussions respectful and constructive. Abusive, defamatory, or illegal comments will be removed. News18 may disable any comment at its discretion. By posting, you agree to our Terms of Use and Privacy Policy.
Time of India
an hour ago
- Time of India
Delhi's new school fee law puts parents in charge: Here's why it's not as simple as it sounds
Can new rules fix old problems in Delhi's private schools? What the 2025 education bill really means for parents NEW DELHI: The Delhi government has introduced the Delhi School Education (Transparency in Fixation and Regulation of Fees) Bill, 2025, aiming to regulate fees in all private schools across the city. Education Minister Ashish Sood stated that the law seeks to end arbitrary fee hikes and increase transparency by involving parents in the decision-making process. The bill, passed in the Monsoon Session of the Delhi Assembly, extends fee regulation to all 1,700 private schools, closing a loophole from the 1973 rules which covered only 300 schools. It introduces committees comprising parents, teachers, school management, and government representatives to oversee fee fixation and grievance redressal, as reported by PTI. Key provisions of the bill and penalties for violations According to the bill, fee proposals must be approved by school-level committees by July 15, district-level committees by July 30, and finalised by September. If no consensus is reached within 45 days, an appellate committee will intervene. Schools raising fees without government approval face fines ranging from Rs 1 lakh to Rs 10 lakh, with double penalties if excess fees are not refunded, as stated by the education minister in a PTI report. by Taboola by Taboola Sponsored Links Sponsored Links Promoted Links Promoted Links You May Like Could This NEW Collagen Blend Finally Reduce Your Cellulite? Vitauthority Learn More Undo The bill grants the Director of Education powers akin to a sub-divisional magistrate, enabling uniform enforcement and action against violations. This includes the authority to take suo motu action when necessary. Parental participation and grievance redressal mechanisms The law formalises parental involvement in fee fixation, giving them veto power over fee increases. Ashish Sood explained in an interview with The Times of India ( TOI ) that the bill addresses concerns about individual parents holding schools hostage by requiring at least 15% parental support to file complaints. He described this as a necessary balance to prevent institutional paralysis, as quoted by TOI . Sood highlighted that for the first time, parents have a clear channel to raise concerns not only about fees but also about infrastructure and school facilities. "Parents couldn't raise concerns about the lack of lab facilities, poor services, or absence of playgrounds. Now, for the first time, parents have been given that voice," he said. Opposition and parents' protests Despite these provisions, parent groups like the United Parents' Voice (UPV) have protested against the bill, alleging it was enacted without adequate public consultation. UPV staged a demonstration at Jantar Mantar, submitting a memorandum to the government demanding a rollback of unapproved fee hikes and independent audits by the Comptroller and Auditor General and forensic experts, as reported by PTI. Parents also criticised the bill's requirement for formal parental representation and the limit on individual complaints, claiming it restricts their ability to raise grievances. They called for monthly fee collection systems and transparency through government portals to ease financial burdens, and sought government-supervised elections for parent-teacher associations. Legal and financial implications Critics have argued that the bill limits recourse to civil courts for fee disputes. However, Sood pointed out to TOI that Delhi has 600 civil courts but questioned whether any fee-related disputes have reached them, arguing that the bill's three-tier grievance redressal system is adequate. The Director of Education can receive complaints directly and escalate unresolved issues further. The bill resets the fee structure from April 1, 2025, treating existing fees as proposed fees to be reviewed by the committees. If a hike is deemed excessive, it will be rolled back; if justified, it may be permitted. Schools that fail to comply with these processes face penalties. The 2025 bill represents a significant step towards regulating private school fees and involving parents in governance, aiming to address longstanding issues of arbitrary fee increases and lack of transparency. While the government maintains that the bill balances interests of all stakeholders, some parent groups remain sceptical, continuing to call for greater accountability and inclusive decision-making. TOI Education is on WhatsApp now. Follow us here . Ready to navigate global policies? Secure your overseas future. Get expert guidance now!
