Govt pushes ahead with its agenda in Parliament as Opposition's protest continues
Parliamentary Affairs Minister Kiren Rijiju had said on Monday that the government will be compelled to push for Parliament's approval for its legislative agenda if the Opposition continued to obstruct its smooth functioning with its protests.
Lok Sabha passed 'The Readjustment of Representation of Scheduled Tribes in Assembly Constituencies of the State of Goa Bill, 2025' with a voice vote, the first draft legislation approved by the House in Parliament's Monsoon session which began on July 21.
Law Minister Arjun Ram Meghwal moved for its consideration and passage amid the din in the House due to the Opposition's protest.
The bill, which seeks to grant STs reservation in the state assembly, was introduced in the House on this day in 2024 and had been pending since.
After the passage of the bill, Sandhya Ray, who was in the chair, adjourned the proceedings for the day as protests by opposition MPs continued unabated.
Rajya Sabha saw its first adjournment around 11.45 am, when it was adjourned till 2 pm.
When Rajya Sabha met at 2 pm, Opposition MPs were on their feet demanding a discussion on the special intensive revision.
Amid ruckus, Harivansh, who was in the Chair, took up two statutory resolutions, including one for extending the President's rule in Manipur for another six months.
He said it was a constitutional obligation, and told the members that the House has passed only one Bill in the session so far.
The Chair also disallowed any remarks made by opposition leaders on issues other than the resolution that was being taken.
Opposition MPs continued to raise slogans on the electoral roll revision issue, as a couple of members also tried to participate in the discussion on the resolution for extending President's Rule in Manipur beyond August 13.
The resolution to extend the President's rule in Manipur, and the other one of the Finance Ministry to amend the Second Schedule to the Customs Tariff Act, 1975, were passed by voice vote.
The Chair then adjourned the House for the day as protests continued.
Barring discussions on Operation Sindoor in both Houses, Parliament has seen little transaction of its normal business since the Monsoon session began on July 21.
This article was generated from an automated news agency feed without modifications to text.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Hindustan Times
3 minutes ago
- Hindustan Times
SC to hear plea on J&K statehood on August 8
NEW DELHI The Supreme Court will take up on Friday an application seeking restoration of statehood for Jammu and Kashmir in a timebound manner. On Tuesday, the application was mentioned by senior advocate Gopal Sankaranarayanan appearing for the two applicants, academic Zahoor Ahmad Bhat and social activist Khurshaid Ahmad Malik. (Getty Images/iStockphoto) The hearing in the top court came amid speculation of possible restoration of statehood to J&K after a tweet posted by chief minister Omar Abdullah on Monday sharing his 'gut feeling' that he is 'optimistic' about 'something positive' for the Union territory during Parliament's ongoing monsoon session. On August 5, 2019 the state was bifurcated into two Union territories following the abrogation of Article 370 by Parliament. On Tuesday, the application was mentioned by senior advocate Gopal Sankaranarayanan appearing for the two applicants, academic Zahoor Ahmad Bhat and social activist Khurshaid Ahmad Malik, who had in October 2024 approached the top court to consider restoration of statehood within a specific time frame, preferably within two months. Appearing before a bench headed by chief justice of India (CJI) Bhushan R Gavai, the senior advocate said that the matter is showing on the list of business for August 8 and requested that the same should not be deleted. The CJI allowed the request by passing a short order, 'Not to be deleted'. A five-judge Constitution bench of the top court had on December 11, 2023 unanimously upheld the revocation of Article 370 and directed state elections to be conducted by September 2024. The application has been filed in the previously concluded 'In Re: Article 370 of the Constitution' case. Following elections held in three phases from September 18 to October 1 last year, a new government was formed by the National Conference-Congress alliance. National Conference vice-president Omar Abdullah was sworn in as chief minister. The verdict by the Constitution bench called the abrogation the 'culmination of the process of integration' of the erstwhile state into the Union of India. It held the abrogation to be a perfectly valid exercise of power by the President, ruling that Article 370 was always meant to be a temporary provision. However, on the issue of restoration of statehood, the court chose not to give a ruling on whether the reorganisation of the state into two Union territories was constitutionally permissible. It pointed to the Centre's statement that statehood of J&K would be restored eventually. The judgment emphasised that the same should be done 'at the earliest'. The application filed through advocate Soyaib Qureshi said, 'The non-restoration of the status of statehood of Jammu & Kashmir in a timebound manner violates the idea of federalism which forms a part of the basic structure of the Constitution of India.' It further stated that the prolonged Union territory status is unwarranted and calls for prompt action in accordance with the assurance given by the Centre in earlier proceedings.
Hindustan Times
3 minutes ago
- Hindustan Times
Govt, opposition spar over CISF deployment in House
NEW DELHI: The Opposition and government on Tuesday traded barbs in the Rajya Sabha over deployment of Central Industrial Security Force (CISF) personnel designated as marshals in Parliament, stalling proceedings in the Upper House during the ongoing monsoon session. Govt, opposition spar over CISF deployment in House While Congress president and leader of opposition in Rajya Sabha Mallikarjun Kharge alleged that the marshals were drawn from the CISF and police force, deputy chairman Harivansh asserted that they were not CISF personnel but 'Parliament Security Service'. Harivansh also criticised the Opposition leader for releasing his letter to the Chair to the media. '… Such communication between constitutional functionaries must remain confidential,' he added. Kharge had last week raised the issue of CISF personnel being deputed as marshals in the Upper House and shot off a letter to the deputy chairman, objecting to their presence. 'We are astonished and shocked at the manner in which CISF personnel are made to run into the well of the House when the members are exercising their democratic right of protest… We expect that in future CISF personnel will not come trooping in the well of the House when members are raising important issues of public concern,' Kharge wrote in the letter dated August 1. He read out the content of the letter in the House on Tuesday as well. Harivansh said the House witnessed several disruptions over the course of the week and added that despite repeated appeals by the Chair, several members violated the provisions of Rule 235 and Rule 238, disrupting the House. 'We members should self-introspect whether such actions enhance the dignity and decorum of the House,' he said. However, the Opposition did not relent. Kharge said: 'If CISF or any paramilitary force has been called inside the house to silence our voice, it is highly objectionable and violates the core values of democracy… We are protesting democratically, and this is our right.' Kharge made a reference to late BJP leaders, Arun Jaitley and Sushma Swaraj, who had referred to disruptions as part of democratic process. DMK member Tiruchi Siva recalled that even after Bhagat Singh threw a bomb in the Central Legislative Assembly, Vitthal Bhai Patel did not allow security forces to enter the house. Hitting at Kharge, parliamentary affairs minister Kiren Rijiju said the leader of Opposition had attempted to 'mislead' the house. 'Only marshals can enter the House. That day there were only marshals. LoP is misleading and putting forth wrong facts. When a misleading letter is written or a wrong fact is presented, what action needs to be taken?' Rijiju questioned. On the charge of CISF personnel being deployed, Rijiju said, 'They have to be brought from somewhere.. either they have to go through some exams or can be on deputation. It has been explained by the Chair that all those have been from the parliament security staff and part of it.' Leader of the House JP Nadda also criticised the Opposition for disrupting the proceedings of the house. '…I have been in the opposition for over 40 years and I would say take tuition from me on how to work as the opposition… it has only been 10 years…You'll be there for another 30 to 40 years,' he said, taking a swipe at the Opposition. People aware of the matter said that for the first time this session, CISF has been posted across Parliament without any assistance from the Parliamentary Security Service (PSS). The duties of PSS have been transferred to CISF, which includes the role of marshals inside Parliament. PSS was an inhouse security unit within Parliament. They were not people from police or any other paramilitary forces but were posted permanently within the complex. Until last year, the perimeter of Parliament complex was guarded by Central Reserve Police Force and Delhi police. But following a security breach of 2023, a security survey was conducted and the Parliament security was handed to CISF, which took over the security arrangements at the complex in January 2024. 'In the previous three sessions (after CISF's induction), PSS officials were posted along with CISF personnel and were assisting them at every corner... after more than a year, the entire security including marshal duties were handed to CISF this time. For Marshal duty, a separate CISF team has been set up within the complex. They enter the house only when they are called inside by the Speaker or the authorities. PSS personnel are not involved in any security related work anymore,' an official aware of the matter said.
Hans India
an hour ago
- Hans India
SC refers plea seeking ban on convicted MPs/MLAs to CJI
New Delhi: The Supreme Court on Tuesday took note of a Public Interest Litigation (PIL) seeking permanent disqualification of Members of Parliament (MPs) and Members of Legislative Assemblies (MLAs) upon conviction in criminal cases and directed that the matter be placed before the Chief Justice of India (CJI) BR Gavai for listing before an appropriate larger Bench. The PIL, filed by Advocate Ashwini Kumar Upadhyay, challenges the constitutional validity of provisions under Section 8 of the Representation of the People Act, 1951, which currently bar convicted legislators from contesting elections only for six years after completing their sentence. Senior Advocate Vijay Hansaria mentioned the matter before a Bench of Justice Surya Kant and Justice Joymalya Bagchi, urging for an early hearing. 'This is a matter of grave concern. Orders have been passed from time to time. The February 10 order requires that it be listed before a three-judge bench,' Hansaria submitted. The Bench acknowledged the urgency and referred to paragraphs 4 and 5 of the February 10, 2025, order passed by a Bench led by Justice Dipankar Datta, directing that the matter be placed before the CJI for further directions. The plea is now expected to be heard finally on October 20, subject to the CJI's listing. In February 2025, the Union government opposed the plea, arguing that a lifetime disqualification of elected representatives was a matter purely within the domain of Parliament and not for the judiciary to decide. The Centre, through the Legislative Department, maintained that while the court may declare a provision unconstitutional under its power of judicial review, it cannot rewrite legislation to substitute "lifetime" for "six years" as suggested by the petitioner. 'The relief sought effectively asks the Court to read 'lifetime' instead of 'six years' in all sub-sections of Section 8. This is unknown to judicial review and constitutional law,' the Centre submitted. The government emphasized that Parliament has the discretion to decide what duration of disqualification is appropriate, keeping in view principles of proportionality and reasonableness. 'It is one thing to say that Parliament has the power to impose a lifetime ban, and another to say that it must necessarily exercise that power in all cases,' it said.
