Image showing the Parliament in session. For representational purposes.
Credit: PTI Photo
New Delhi: With the Opposition preparing to corner the government over the Maha Kumbh stampede, the Parliament is headed for a stormy Budget Session, starting Friday with the customary Presidential Address to a joint sitting of Lok Sabha and Rajya Sabha followed by the presentation of Budget a day later.
The government is planning to bring 16 Bills in the two-leg session, including the contentious Waqf (Amendment) Bill, 2024 and a new Bill The Immigration and Foreigners Bill, 2025, which some Opposition leaders have described as a "weapon of mass distraction" amid little details available on the proposed legislation.
The first leg of the session will end on February 13 after a debate on the Motion of Thanks to the President's Address and a general discussion on the Budget, while the second part starts on March 10 and ends on April 4 during which there will be discussions on budget allocation for at least four ministries each in Lok Sabha and Rajya Sabha and Bills taken up for passing.
The Opposition has made its intentions clear at the all-party meeting by demanding a discussion on Maha Kumbh tragedy, federalism, controversial UGC draft guidelines, gradual decline in MPs getting opportunities to use Parliamentary tools and raising complaints about the functioning of the Parliamentary panel on Waqf (Amendment) Bill.
“Leaders raised some issues and demanded discussion on those issues. The Business Advisory Committee will decide which issues will be taken up,” Parliamentary Affairs Minister Kiren Rijiju said after the three-hour-long meeting.
Opposition leaders demanded that stand-alone discussions should be held on issues and that the government cannot hide behind the argument that issues could be raised during the debate on the Motion of Thanks.
A number of Opposition leaders referred to the stampede in Maha Kumbh in Prayagraj and demanded a standalone discussion on the tragedy with Samajwadi Party's Ramgopal Yadav claiming that the VIPs were the top priority for the administration while common pilgrims were low in hierarchy.
Yadav said there was no transparency in dealing with the situation and were kept in the dark on the death toll for several hours. Several leaders raised similar concerns. He also demanded a discussion on the quota regime.
Sources said NDA allies JD(U), TDP and LJP (Ramvilas) demanded that their MPs should get more time during debates while complaining about seating arrangement in Lok Sabha along with some Opposition MPs. JD(U)’s Sanjay Jha also demanded that the government should not rush through ‘One Nation, One Election’ Bills and demanded that the Joint Parliamentary Committee (JPC) examining it should get further extension.
Congress' Gaurav Gogoi raised the issue of the “undemocratic” manner in which the JPC on Waqf (Amendment) Bill functioned. Trinamool Congress' Sudip Bandyopadhyay demanded a discussion on states politically opposed to the BJP being deprived of funds and a statement by the Prime Minister or the External Affairs Minister on Bangladesh among other things.
CPI(M)’s John Brittas, sources said, raised concerns over 29 BJP and other NDA MPs representing two Standing Committees each, which claimed would have an adverse impact on its functioning. He also said Parliamentary tools like Short Duration Discussions have halved under the present government compared to 59 such debates held during AB Vajpayee regime.
The draft guidelines issued by the UGC that deals with appointment of Vice Chancellors among others were raised by several MPs, including RJD’s Manoj K Jha, who also wanted a discussion on income inequality.
Fauzia Khan of NCP (Sharadchandra Pawar) lamented that the new Parliament building is not a gender sensitive structure for women. She also asked why the ruling MPs disrupted Parliament during the previous session besides asking why ministers were not replying to Special Mentions as was the practice.
CPI's P Sandhosh Kumar raised the issue of providing legal sanctity to Minimum Support Price besides seeking urgent reform for Wildlife Protection Act to make it more effective and in tune with present-day realities, striking a balance between protecting wildlife and addressing human interests.