New Delhi, March 18 (IANS) Prime Minister Narendra Modi’s statement on the Maha Kumbh led to an uproar in the Lok Sabha on Tuesday, with the opposition demanding a discussion on his remarks. However, this demand is not in line with parliamentary rules, particularly Rule 372 of the Rules of Procedure and Conduct of Business in Lok Sabha. The rule explicitly states that no questions shall be asked when a minister makes a statement on a matter of public importance.
Understanding Rule 372
The relevant provision, Rule 372: Minister’s Statement, states:
“A Minister may, with the consent of the Speaker, make a statement in the House on a matter of public importance. There shall be no debate on such a statement at the time it is made.”
This rule is designed to ensure that ministers, including the Prime Minister, can convey important information without immediate interruption or debate. It prevents disruptions and maintains the decorum of parliamentary proceedings.
Opposition’s Demand: Political Strategy or Genuine Concern?
Despite the clear provision of Rule 372, the opposition insisted on discussing PM Modi’s statement on the Maha Kumbh. This raises an important question — was their demand rooted in a genuine need for discussion, or was it a political tactic to create disruption?
If the opposition had serious concerns about the Prime Minister’s remarks, they had other procedural avenues to raise the issue, such as calling for a separate discussion under relevant rules or submitting a notice for debate. However, their immediate demand for a debate in direct contradiction to Rule 372 suggests an attempt to stall proceedings rather than a genuine parliamentary concern.
Frequent disruptions vs. Parliamentary discipline
The repeated adjournments caused by opposition protests indicate a pattern where political interests often override adherence to rules. While a healthy democracy thrives on discussion and debate, disregarding established parliamentary procedures weakens the credibility of legislative processes.
Instead of disrupting proceedings, the opposition could have engaged in a constructive approach, respecting the parliamentary framework while still voicing their concerns. Parliament is meant for informed debate, not for repeated adjournments caused by disregarding the very rules that govern it.
–IANS
brt/uk
