New Delhi: Union Home Minister Amit Shah Fierce attacks on opposition leaders on Wednesday Rahul Gandhi During a discussion in the Lok Sabha on the opposition resolution seeking the removal of Speaker Om Birla, he accused Congress leaders of poor attendance and spreading misinformation about not being allowed to speak in the House.Amit Shah said Rahul Gandhi’s absence from parliamentary proceedings coincided with several foreign visits and alleged that the Congress leader often travels abroad during key meetings such as budget discussions.
“Opposition leader Rahul Gandhi is a senior leader of the Congress party and is often active in public life. During the Lok Sabha session, there are major events and elections in the party, and senior leaders will naturally interact with the public and express their views. This is normal and this has happened to many leaders, not just Rahul ji. But the question is, if he is absent from the House, where is he? He traveled abroad and went to Germany, Vietnam, UK, Singapore, Malaysia and other countries in the winter of 2025 for a total of 60 days. It was pure coincidence that these trips coincided with the budget meetings. Whenever there is a budget discussion, he seems to be abroad. Then he complained that he was not allowed to speak. How could he speak from a foreign country? There are no video conferencing facilities here; otherwise, he could participate remotely… Should I also comment on the conduct of the opposition? For example, when the prime minister was sitting on the finance bench, some members of the opposition ran up to him and hugged him, which had never happened before. It has never happened that a member of the opposition party blew a kiss or winked at a member of the ruling party. To be honest, I don’t even want to talk about it. “Amit Shah said the former Lok Sabha data showed that Rahul Gandhi’s attendance has been below the national average.Speaking in the House, Amit Shah said, “In the 17th Lok Sabha, his attendance was 51 per cent. The national average attendance was 66 per cent. In the 16th Lok Sabha, his attendance was 52 per cent. The national average attendance was 80 per cent. In the 15th Lok Sabha, his attendance was 43 per cent. The national average attendance was 76 per cent.”He also accused Rahul Gandhi of failing to participate in several important parliamentary discussions during his early tenure.“…In the 16th Lok Sabha, Rahul Gandhi did not participate in the vote of thanks for the President’s speeches in 2014, 2015, 2017 or 2018. He also did not participate in any discussion on the Union Budget in the 16th Lok Sabha. In fact,… he did not participate in the discussion of any government bill. None of the 16th, 17th, 19th, 20th, and 21st sessions attended the chairman’s speech and discussion. In the 19th, 20th, 22nd and 23rd sessions, he did not participate in discussions on the federal budget and, except for one bill, did not participate in any other legislative discussions. In the 18th Lok Sabha, he did not participate in discussions on the federal budget… Forty years later, regrettably, his party moved a motion questioning the integrity of the Speaker, who has always maintained the dignity of the House. “An opposition resolution seeking the removal of Lok Sabha Speaker Om Birla was later defeated by a voice vote in the House, effectively defeating the no-confidence motion.Amit Shah termed the move against the Speaker as unprecedented in recent decades and said such actions harmed parliamentary traditions.“This is unusual. About forty years later, a motion of no confidence was moved against the Speaker of the Lok Sabha. This is unfortunate for parliamentary politics and the House,” Amit Shah said.The Home Minister defended the Speaker’s role, saying questioning the Speaker’s office would undermine the credibility of India’s democratic institutions.“I would like to inform the entire House that when the current Speaker was appointed, it was the leaders of both parties in the House who escorted him into office. This shows that both the ruling party and the opposition must provide a free and fair environment for the Speaker to perform his duties and support him in performing these duties.” Today, while dissent with the Speaker’s decision can be expressed, Lok Sabha rules consider the Speaker’s decision to be final. However, contrary to this tradition, the opposition parties raised questions about the speaker’s integrity. “Amit Shah also criticized Rahul Gandhi for demanding a debate based on his remarks at a press conference.“…He suddenly had an idea – to have a debate at his own press conference. This is not a market. This is the Lok Sabha… From your great grandfather to your grandmother to your father, India has had tall leaders. There was no debate in the Lok Sabha at anyone’s press conference. If he expected that his “great press conference” based on lies would be debated in the House, Om Birla did the House a favor by not letting its standards drop.“Responding to allegations that opposition leaders were not allowed to speak, Shah said the claims were misleading and pointed to the time allotted for MPs to speak.“The LoP is unhappy because he is not allowed to speak and the voice of the LoP is silenced. I want to ask him, who decides who has to speak? The Speaker? No, you have to decide this. But when there is an opportunity to speak, you will see it in Germany, the UK. Then he complained… MPs spoke in the 18th Lok Sabha for 157 hours and 55 minutes. How much did the LoP say? Why did you not speak? Which Speaker stopped you? Misinformation is being spread to defame the Lok Sabha. “The home minister said parliamentary rules gave the speaker powers to maintain order in the House, including the power to remove non-parliamentary language from official records.“The list of non-parliamentary words used in the House was not drawn up in a single term. It has evolved over time from the earliest days of the House, through the efforts of the many distinguished individuals who have held this senior position. The House’s rules of procedure and list of non-parliamentary terms are binding on all Members. It cannot be said that these rules do not apply to us. The Constitution confers certain rights on members but does not confer any privileges on anyone. There is no state of emergency and no one has extraordinary powers beyond those provided for in the Constitution. “He said the functioning of Parliament was governed by established rules and traditions established over decades.“Sadan koi mela nahi hai. Parliament runs according to rules. Everyone speaks according to rules. No one has the right to violate the rules of Parliament and speak. For those who say this happened because of the BJP, let me tell them that these rules were not made in our time; they have been continued since the days of Nehruji. I am ready to argue that the Congress has violated the rules of Parliament many times,” Shah said.Stressing the importance of trust between the ruling and opposition parties, Amit Shah said the Speaker is the neutral guardian of the House.“I will talk later about the issues raised by the opposition parties today, but first I would like to say that the ethos and long-standing tradition of the House is based on mutual trust. The functioning of the House is based on trust between the ruling party and the opposition party. For both parties, the Speaker of the House is the guardian of its operations. However, there are established rules on how the Lok Sabha operates, and these rules are set by the House itself. Within these rules we can raise issues related to our rights, and members of the opposition can do the same. “He also pointed to the procedural history of motions against the Speaker, saying such measures were extremely rare.“As per Section 96, when the motion to remove the Speaker is discussed, the Speaker concerned will not be the Chairman of the House. What happened before? It happened three times before and the Congress party was in power every time the motion was moved.” Traditionally, the Speaker does not assume the chair when a motion of no confidence against the Speaker is discussed. In all three cases, the House is presided over by other officials for 14 days. Om Birla was the only Speaker who showed moral courage…”Amit Shah also accused the opposition of trying to weaken parliamentary institutions and said the accusations against the Speaker harmed India’s international democratic image.“…the world recognizes the strength and prestige of India’s democratic system. When a House Speaker is accused, it raises questions about our democratic process not just within India but globally. That is why, generally speaking, no-confidence motions are moved against the Speaker. Members can go to the Speaker’s Chamber to discuss their concerns. The Speaker hears from members of both sides. However, a very strange situation arises here, when MPs enter the chamber, an atmosphere is created as if the safety of the Speaker himself is threatened. Nothing could be more unfortunate. What kind of system do they want? The position of Speaker is placed above party lines and is intended to function as a neutral mediator. However, questions are now being raised about the people who took on this mediating role. I’ll explain later why such a question arises. Over 75 years, both Houses of Parliament have done much to strengthen the foundations of our democracy. Today, however, the opposition has raised serious question marks over this. “He further claimed that the opposition motion itself contained procedural errors that had to be corrected before it could be accepted.“…the Speaker’s Office provided them with the opportunity to correct multiple errors in their submissions. When they realize a correction must be made, the notification is accepted. This reflects the high moral foundation and seriousness of the House. The fact that Speaker Om Birla gave them a chance to properly submit the notice despite the no-confidence motion being twice out of compliance shows high moral standards. The motion originally did not comply with the rules, but the speaker insisted on fairness. Some members complained that they were not allowed to speak, claiming there was a problem with the microphones… Anyone who didn’t follow the rules or discipline would have their microphones turned off, and that’s how it should be. “Amit Shah also criticized the opposition parties for alleged errors in the notification submitted for the motion.“…Maybe the bill they submitted was half-hearted. The country and the world knew the year was 2026, but they mentioned 2025 in the notice.” They probably thought the Speaker could reject it. The notice must be accompanied by an appropriate motion, but they failed to do so. Once it was brought to their attention, they withdrew the notice and filed a second notice. Regarding the second notification, the actual copying is excluded. According to regulations, members must submit notices with actual signatures. Let’s assume there is a special situation where a member of the Opposition wants to move a motion of no confidence in the Speaker… The House will run according to the rules of the Lok Sabha and not according to the rules of any political party. “The interior minister also denied accusations that the government was suppressing opposition voices, instead pointing to the situation during the state of emergency.“We have never silenced opposition; during the emergency, when leaders were jailed, opposition was silenced,” he said.
