Opposition create ruckus in Rajya Sabha over Bihar SIR, House adjourned until 2 pm
The Opposition members once again created an uproar demanding a discussion on the issue, leading to the adjournment of the House till 2 pm.
On the second day of the session's final week, proceedings were once again disrupted. The stalemate between the ruling party and the Opposition over the voter list revision issue has consistently hampered the functioning of the House, with all legislative business, including the passage of bills, taking place amid disorder. While the Opposition continues to demand a discussion on the voter list matter, the ruling party has declined, citing constitutional provisions.
After laying legislative documents on the table of the House in the morning, Deputy Chairman Harivansh said he had received 20 notices under Rule 267 for discussions on four different subjects. He stated that none of these notices were in accordance with the rules and therefore could not be accepted.
As soon as he said this, Opposition members stood up and began shouting while moving toward the Chair. As Zero Hour began, Harivansh invited BJP member Kanad Purkayastha to raise his issue.
Meanwhile, the Opposition's uproar intensified. Leader of Opposition Mallikarjun Kharge said that members should be informed about what exactly they need to submit in writing so that their notice under Rule 267 can be accepted.
The Deputy Chairman said that Zero Hour and Question Hour are very important proceedings during which members raise issues of national interest. He appealed to the protesting members to return to their seats and allow the House to function.
During the proceedings, it was brought to the Deputy Chairman's attention that some members were wearing badges inside the House. He remarked that members should refrain from doing so, as it is not in accordance with the rules.
Observing the disorderly atmosphere in the House, the Deputy Chairman adjourned the proceedings till 2 pm.
UNI RBE AAB
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
News18
31 minutes ago
- News18
From Psephology To Apology: Will Election Expert's Data Deletion Blunt Rahul Gandhi's Attack On ECI?
Last Updated: The BJP is out to portray Gandhi as having relied on Sanjay Kumar's data, leading him to launch a nationwide campaign of alleged 'vote theft' A 'sincere apology" and the deletion of social media posts suggesting a significant dip in the number of voters in two assembly constituencies compared to the Lok Sabha election held just months apart seem to have hit at the heart of Congress's attack on the Election Commission regarding Maharashtra. Psephologist and co-director of Lokniti-CSDS Prof Sanjay Kumar made the startling claim two days earlier. However, on Tuesday morning, he posted on X, 'I sincerely apologize for the tweets posted regarding Maharashtra elections. Error occurred while comparing data of 2024 LS and 2024 AS. The data in row was misread by our Data team. The tweet has since been removed. I had no intention of dispersing any form of misinformation." I sincerely apologize for the tweets posted regarding Maharashtra occurred while comparing data of 2024 LS and 2024 AS. The data in row was misread by our Data tweet has since been removed.I had no intention of dispersing any form of misinformation.— Sanjay Kumar (@sanjaycsds) August 19, 2025 This admission came on the heels of Rahul Gandhi's Vote Adhikar Yatra in Bihar, where the Congress leader launched a fierce attack on the Election Commission. The Bharatiya Janata Party was in no mood to let go, with BJP's IT cell chief Amit Malviya lashing out at Kumar's apology, calling him a 'protégé of Yogendra Yadav". Malviya posted angrily, 'Incidentally, when was the last time this protégé of Yogendra Yadav ever got anything right? In all his projections in the run-up to every single election, the BJP is supposedly losing—and when the reverse happens, he turns up on TV justifying how the BJP won. Convenient." Rahul's 'vote chori' campaign Speaking at a recent Bihar rally, leader of opposition in the Lok Sabha Rahul Gandhi said, 'In Maharashtra, all the opinion polls were predicting that INDIA bloc would form the government, but in the election results, the BJP-led alliance formed the government. The BJP got the votes of 1 crore new voters." Gandhi further stated, 'In the entire country, vote theft is going on. In the name of SIR, they want to add new voters and steal the votes. In Bihar, we will not allow Vote Chori." With CSDS's Sanjay Kumar's turnaround, Congress and Rahul Gandhi may find it tough to promote the narrative of 'vote chori" against India's poll body. Sources indicate there was no unanimity from powerful INDIA constituents when the idea of seeking the removal of Chief Election Officer Gyanesh Kumar was floated. Rahul Gandhi and the Congress may find it harder to push it through due to Tuesday's revelation. BJP's counter Among the issues Rahul Gandhi highlighted in the press conference were duplicate entries of individuals, dozens of voters from a small house, to addresses with 'house number zero". He used EC's constituency-level data to support his claim, which the poll body dismissed. However, if politics is about perception, BJP is out to portray Gandhi as having relied on Kumar's data, leading him to launch a nationwide campaign of alleged vote theft, which now stands deleted. In his now-deleted post on Maharashtra elections, Sanjay Kumar had claimed that in the assembly constituency Ramtek, the number of voters in 2024 was 4,66,203 in the Lok Sabha polls and 2,86,931 in the assembly polls. In his second claim, Kumar suggested that in the assembly constituency Devlali, the number of voters in the Lok Sabha was 4,56,072, and during assembly elections, it came down to 2,88,141. While both posts are deleted, Malviya used screenshots to target Rahul Gandhi, stating, 'The very institution whose data Rahul Gandhi leaned on to defame the voters of Maharashtra has now admitted that its figures were wrong—not just on Maharashtra, but even on SIR." The very institution whose data Rahul Gandhi leaned on to defame the voters of Maharashtra has now admitted that its figures were wrong — not just on Maharashtra, but even on does this leave Rahul Gandhi and the Congress, which brazenly targeted the Election… — Amit Malviya (@amitmalviya) August 19, 2025 top videos View all Over the weekend, holding a press conference to respond to Rahul Gandhi's charges, CEC Gyanesh Kumar said, 'If no declaration under oath is given within 7 days, claims will be considered baseless and invalid…" adding that those making unsubstantiated allegations, hinting towards Gandhi, should apologise to the nation. With Sanjay Kumar's U-turn, is that an option for Gandhi? view comments Location : New Delhi, India, India First Published: August 19, 2025, 22:47 IST News politics From Psephology To Apology: Will Election Expert's Data Deletion Blunt Rahul Gandhi's Attack On ECI? 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. Loading comments...
Indian Express
an hour ago
- Indian Express
Amid disruptions, Rajya Sabha Chair says expunged proceedings should not be shared on social media
As the Opposition's demand for a discussion on the Special Intensive Revision (SIR) exercise in Bihar continued to roil Parliament on Tuesday, the Rajya Sabha Chair said arrangements should be made to ensure that expunged proceedings of the House are not shared on social media. While Rajya Sabha was adjourned till lunch soon after it began proceedings in the morning, Lok Sabha first got adjourned till noon and then till 2 pm amid protests from the Opposition. As the Upper House reconvened after lunch, the Mines and Minerals Amendment Bill was tabled. Rajya Sabha Leader of Opposition Mallikarjun Kharge again raised the demand for a discussion on the SIR exercise. Ghanshyam Tiwari, who was chairing the House, said the issue was subjudice. Radha Mohan Das Agrawal of the BJP said whenever a discussion on any Bill comes up, the Rajya Sabha LoP 'does not speak on the Bill and instead goes directly to SIR'. 'You instruct that this will not go in the proceedings,' Agarwal said. He added that soon after the LoP speaks, his video gets shared on social media. 'My question is, if you have expunged something from proceedings in writing then how does it get shared on social media,' Agarwal added. Tiwari said anything that has been expunged should not be shared on social media. 'There should be an arrangement to ensure that proceedings which have been expunged should not be shared on social media. Either through Sansad TV or any other medium, it should not go on record — arrangements for that should be made,' he told the House. Earlier in the day in Rajya Sabha, deputy chairman Harivansh objected to some members wearing badges.
The Hindu
an hour ago
- The Hindu
Governors' power to withhold assent is outside the aid and advice of State Cabinets: Attorney General
Attorney General R. Venkataramani on Tuesday (August 19, 2025) submitted before a five-judge Bench headed by the Chief Justice of India B.R. Gavai that a Governor's power to withhold assent to a proposed State legislation is an act independent of the Council of Ministers. Mr. Venkataramani said a Governor, in such cases, acts outside the aid and advice of the Council, and even contrary to the mandate of the House/Council of Ministers. 'A power to withhold necessarily involves personal independent judgment, guided by settled principles of laws,' Mr. Venkataramani, who represented his Constitutional office of Attorney General of India, submitted. He referred to the post‑1970s Constitutional Amendments which had modified the President's duties but left the Governor's role largely untouched. 'The 42nd Amendment made Article 74(1) explicit that the President 'shall… act in accordance with' the Cabinet advice. But Article 163 (Governors) was not amended to match Article 74,' Mr. Venkataramani explained. He pointed out that a Governor cannot be expected to be bound by the advice of the House if the proposed State law was found to be unconstitutional. Interestingly, Mr. Venkataramani invoked Article 145(3) of the Constitution to note that the Division Bench of the Supreme Court headed by Justice J.B. Pardiwala ought to have referred the Tamil Nadu Governor to a Constitution Bench of a minimum of five judges. He submitted that he had urged the two-judge Bench for a reference to the Constitution Bench as the case concerning the powers and discretion of the Tamil Nadu Governor involved substantial questions of law. To this, Justice P.S. Narasimha reacted that it was not a mandate that every case involving a substantial question of law or constitutional interpretation ought to be referred to a Constitution Bench under Article 145(3). Justifying the Presidential Reference, Mr. Venkataramani said that in the absence of an ''authoritative pronouncement' or a 'conclusive authority' on an important question of Constitutional interpretation, it would have been only prudent for the Pardiwala Bench to have referred the Tamil Nadu case to a five-judge Bench. Justice Narasimha reminded Mr. Venkataramani that judges may opinionate polyvocally even on a Presidential Reference Bench.
