NFPRC Foundation

West Bengal Budget Analysis 2026-27

Wed, 08 Apr 2026 07:20:41 GMT

I. Executive Summary

West Bengal’s 2026–27 Interim Budget outlines several welfare expansions, including enhanced cash transfers and honorarium hikes. These announcements come amidst the state’s expanding welfare commitments in its already stretched fiscal capacity.
The state projects a fiscal deficit of 2.91% of GSDP, the first time since FY18 that the projection falls below the FRBM ceiling of 3%, alongside a revenue deficit of 1.01% of GSDP. While this signals an apparent improvement, it rests on a 116% jump in central grants over the 2025–26 revised estimate.
A large share of the state’s revenue is pre-committed to salaries, pensions, and interest payments, which together consume 51.17% of estimated revenue receipts in 2026–27. NITI Aayog’s Fiscal Health Index, 2026 places West Bengal third-last among 18 states evaluated.
Capital outlay remains constrained at just 1.9% of GSDP, well below the national average. West Bengal has consistently underspent its capital outlay by 20–34% in recent years. If a similar underspend recurs in 2026–27, the projected improvement in fiscal quality ratios will not materialise.
Expenditure on social services, at 7.5% of GSDP, significantly exceeds the 1.9% allocated for capital outlay. This highlights a structural trend where current consumption continues to displace productive long-term investment.

I. Introduction

The Finance Minister, Smt Chandrima Bhattacharya presented the West Bengal Interim Vote-on-Account Budget 2026-27 before the State Legislature on 5^th February, 2026. This interim budget was tabled by Trinamool Congress (TMC) Government in the run up to the upcoming state assembly elections.

II. Financial Highlights :

Gross State Domestic Product (GSDP): West Bengal’s GSDP for 2026–27 (at current prices) is projected to be ₹ 21,48,244 crore, amounting to a growth of about 7.9% over the revised estimates (RE) for 2025–26 (₹ 19,90,896 crore).
Net State Domestic Product (NSDP) Per Capita: NSDP per capita of the state for 2024-25 is ₹ 1,63,467, a 9.3% growth over 2023-24 figure of ₹ 1,49,515.
Revenue Deficit (RD): RD in 2026–27 is estimated at 1.01% of GSDP (₹ 21,759.34 crore), as compared to an RD of 2.07% of GSDP (₹ 41,164.05 crore) in 2025–26 RE.
Fiscal Deficit (FD): FD for 2026–27 is targeted at 2.91% of GSDP (₹ 62,423.36 crore) as compared to an FD of 3.40% of GSDP (₹ 67,773.98 crore) in 2025-26 RE.
Expenditure: Expenditure (excluding debt repayment and loans and advances) for West Bengal in 2026–27 is estimated to be ₹ 3,50,866.48 crore, an increase of about 12.3% over the revised estimates of 2025–26 (₹ 3,12,469.49 crore).
Receipts: Receipts (excluding borrowings) for West Bengal for 2026–27 are estimated to be ₹ 2,89,054.28 crore, an increase of about 17.9% as compared to the revised estimates of 2025–26 (₹ 2,45,123.12 crore).

III. Policy Highlights :

West Bengal’s interim budget is politically calibrated considering the upcoming state elections. Majority of the expenditure in the budget is welfare-driven, with significant increase in existing schemes such as Lakshmir Bhandar, Frontline and Civic Worker Welfare. It also features welfare schemes like Banglar Yuva Sathi, which is directly contingent on electoral outcomes.

Lakshmir Bhandar: The scheme provides monthly financial support to women aged 25–60 years, excluding government employees, to enhance economic security. Women from SC and ST categories will receive ₹ 1,700 per month, while others will receive ₹ 1,500 per month, an increase by ₹ 500. The scheme currently covers 2.20 crore beneficiaries, with an expenditure of ₹ 17,076.03 crore in 2025–26.
Banglar Yuba-Sathi: Contingent to election outcome, this scheme is set to be launched in August, 2026. Educated unemployed youth, who have passed Madhyamik, aged 21-40 years would be eligible for ₹ 1,500 per month until employed or for up to five years. ₹ 5,000 crore has been allocated for this scheme.
ASHA And Civic Worker Welfare: ASHA workers would receive ₹ 1,000 per month honorarium hike, 180 days maternity leave as well as ₹ 5 lakh family compensation in the event of their death before 60 years of age. Civic volunteers, which is a significant feature of the state, village police and green police are also set to receive a hike to ₹ 1,000 per month.
Landless Agricultural Labourers: Landless agricultural labourers are set to receive an annual support of ₹ 4,000 in two equal installments during Rabi and Kharif seasons to mitigate the vulnerability of these workers. A database will also be created for eligible workers who do not own any agricultural land and are not recorded as a sharecropper.
Master Plan For Preventing Erosion: In the districts of Murshidabad and Malda, along the Ganga floodplains, the Government will come up with a master plan to prevent erosion of the river banks.
Industrial And Economic Corridors And Parks: The Government has taken up the development of six Industrial and Economic Corridors in partnership with Financial Institutions. The aim is rapid infrastructure development and employment generation but no allocation has been specifically made for the same. In addition, five new MSE industrial Parks will be set up by the state in Jalpaiguri, Birbhum, Bankura and Murshidabad.

IV. West Bengal’s Economy :

Gross State Value Addition (GSVA) Contribution Of Sectors: In 2024–25, agriculture, manufacturing, and services sectors are estimated to contribute 10.31%, 12.56%, and 58.27% of the state’s GSVA, respectively (at current prices).

V. Expenditure :

Revenue Expenditure: Revenue expenditure for West Bengal for 2026–27 is proposed to be ₹ 3,09,551.07 crore, an increase of about 8.2% over the revised estimate of 2025–26 (₹ 2,86,030.95 crore). This includes the expenditure on salaries, pension, interest, grants, and subsidies.
Committed Expenditure:
1. In 2026–27, West Bengal is estimated to spend ₹ 1,47,269.86 crore on committed expenditure, which is 51.17% of its estimated revenue receipts of ₹ 2,87,791.73 crore. In 2024–25, as per actual figures, 65.14% of revenue receipts were spent towards committed expenditure (₹ 1,39,201.64 crore out of revenue receipts of ₹ 2,13,699.56 crore).
2. This comprises spending on salaries (₹ 75,843.06 crore), pension (₹ 18,393.01 crore), and interest payments (₹ 53,033.79 crore).
3. Out of every rupee that comes in as revenue receipts, about 51 paise goes towards pre-committed expenditure. The biggest head is salaries but interest payments, which constitute 18.4% of revenue receipts, is above the threshold that NITI Aayog’s Fiscal Health Index (FHI) classifies as a marker of fiscal stress. In this index, West Bengal ranks the 3^rdlast among the 18 states considered.
Capital Outlay: Capital outlay for West Bengal for 2026–27 is proposed to be ₹ 41,315.41 crore, an increase of about 56.3% over the revised estimate of 2025–26 (₹ 26,438.54 crore).
1. In 2026–27, capital outlay in West Bengal accounts for about 11.75% of the net expenditure (₹ 3,51,477.64 crore) and around 1.9% of the GSDP (₹ 21,48,000 crore). This is lower than the national average capital outlay of about 3.0% of GSDP in the 2025–26 Budget Estimates.
2. Compared to previous years, the proposed outlay reflects a significant step-up in capital spending. Capital outlay was ₹ 21,621.43 crore in 2024–25 (actuals) and ₹ 28,963.09 crore in 2023–24, indicating some fluctuation over the last two years, with a sharper rise proposed in 2026–27.
3. West Bengal has consistently undershot its capital outlay 20%-34% from FY 2022-23 to FY 2025-26 (RE). If 2026-27 capital outlay suffers a 30% underspend, which is closer to the 2025-26 outcome, it would leave actual outlay at about ₹ 28,920 crore, barely above the 2025-26 revised level. Under these circumstances, the improvement in the state’s fiscal quality ratios will not materialise.
Loans and Advances: In 2026–27, loans and advances by West Bengal are expected to be ₹ 611.16 crore, about 43% higher as compared to the revised estimate of 2025–26 (₹ 427.60 crore).

VI. Revenue Receipts :

Total Revenue Receipts: Total revenue receipts for West Bengal for 2026–27 are estimated to be ₹ 2,87,791.73 crore, an increase of about 17.5% over the revised estimate of 2025–26 (₹ 2,44,866.90 crore). Of this, ₹ 1,22,507.70 crore (about 42.6%) will be raised by the state through its own resources, and ₹ 1,65,284.03 crore (about 57.4%) will come from the centre. Resources from the centre are the state’s share in central taxes (about 40.9% of revenue receipts) and grants-in-aid (about 16.5% of revenue receipts).
16th Finance Commission: In 2026–27, State’s share in central taxes is estimated at ₹ 1,17,668.57 crore, an increase of about 9.7% over the revised estimate of 2025–26 (₹ 1,07,265.82 crore). This moderate increase indicates a steady growth in tax devolution from the centre, which will support the state’s revenue base and help finance expenditure commitments and welfare programmes.
Central Grants
1. Grants from the centre in 2026–27 are estimated at ₹ 47,615.46 crore, an increase of about 116% over the revised estimates for 2025–26 (₹ 22,068.85 crore) which is, 28% higher than the budget estimate of ₹ 37,157.57 crore. The 2024–25 actual grants from the centre (₹ 15,205.17 crore) represent a decline of about 31% compared to ₹ 22,072.18 crore in 2023–24.
2. The projected jump in 2026–27 therefore represents a substantial increase over the recent trend of central grants and suggests expectations of higher transfers from the centre, potentially linked to scheme-based allocations or other grant components.
3. Central transfers (devolution and grants) constitute 57.43% of the state’s revenue receipts in 2026-27 BE, compared to own resources at 42.57%. This high central dependency is flagged by both, the NITI Aayog and the RBI, which shows the state’s transfer-dependency ratio has been consistently above the major-state average.
State’s Own Tax Revenue: West Bengal’s total own tax revenue is estimated to be ₹ 1,18,668.78 crore in 2026–27, an increase of about 6% over the revised estimate of 2025–26 (₹ 1,11,737.13 crore). Own tax revenue as a percentage of GSDP is estimated at about 5.5% in 2026–27.

VII. Deficits and Debt :

A significant improvement in RD and FD has been noted in the FY 2026-27 BE, which owes to a significant improvement in central grants (115.75% over FY 2025-26 RE). Such dependency, in the light of previous shortfalls between the budgeted and actual grants, would lead to a similar deficit as in the previous years.

Revenue Deficit: Revenue Deficit in 2026–27 is estimated to be 1.01% of GSDP (₹ 21,759.34 crore), as compared to a revenue deficit of 2.07% of GSDP (₹ 41,164.05 crore) at the revised estimate stage in 2025–26.
1. The state has recorded persistent revenue deficits in recent years, with the revenue deficit at 1.81% of GSDP in 2022–23 (actuals), declining to 1.56% in 2023–24, and further rising to about 2.19% in 2024–25 (actuals). This trend indicates a fluctuating but overall elevated level of revenue deficit, reflecting pressures on the state’s revenue account.
2. West Bengal’s revenue deficit levels are also significantly higher than the aggregate state average of about 0.2% of GDP, as reported in the RBI State Finances, suggesting that the state’s fiscal position on the revenue account remains comparatively weaker than that of most states.
Fiscal Deficit (FD): Fiscal Deficit for West Bengal for 2026–27 is targeted at 2.91% of GSDP (₹ 62,423.36 crore). In 2025–26, as per the revised estimates, the fiscal deficit is expected to be 3.40% of GSDP (₹ 67,773.98 crore).
1. Under the West Bengal Fiscal Responsibility and Budget Management (FRBM) Act, 2010, the fiscal deficit ceiling remains 3% of GSDP. However, the 2025–26 budget estimate places the fiscal deficit at 3.68% of GSDP, implying a breach of the ceiling by 68 basis points.
2. This BE is the first time since FY18 where projection is less than target FD of 3%.
Outstanding Debt:
1. The outstanding debt of West Bengal in 2026–27 is projected at ₹ 8,15,891.35 crore, equivalent to 37.98% of GSDP, which is slightly higher than the revised estimate of 37.52% of GSDP (₹ 7,62,326.61 crore) in 2025–26.
2. This raises concerns around debt sustainability, as NITI Aayog’s FHI shows that debt has remained above median-state levels and that the state’s revenue structure is weaker than average, constraining fiscal flexibility.

VIII. Social Services Expenditure :

Social Services’ Expenditure (₹ 1,62,611.72 crore) is the most significant head under Revenue Expenditure (₹ 3,09,551.07), with a 52.53% share. It is 46.26% of the Net Expenditure (7.5% of GSDP), while capital outlay is just 11.75% (1.9% of GSDP).
This marks a 10.18% increase over FY 2025–26 RE, reflecting a welfare-heavy, election-oriented budget that prioritises direct transfers over capital investment. In 2024–25, actual capital outlay fell 39.72% below BE, while revenue expenditure declined only 5.51%, showing that investment bore the adjustment burden.
Direct benefit transfers alone impose a substantial and growing burden on the revenue account. The enhanced Lakshmir Bhandar scheme adds ₹ 15,000 crore per annum, while the Banglar Yuva Sathi scheme carries a ₹ 5,000 crore allocation, placing a combined ₹ 20,000 crore joint commitment on current revenues in a single year.
This continued focus on current spending over capital investment limits long-term growth and weakens the state’s ability to build a strong tax base to sustain rising welfare spending.

Annexure I - Overview Of West Bengal’s Receipts And Expenditure For 2024-25

Annexure II - Break-up Of The State’s Expenditure Budget Over The Years

Annexure III - State’s Committed Expenditure Trend As % Of Revenue Receipts

Annexure IV - Break-up Of The State Government’s Receipts Over The Years

Annexure V - Major Heads Of Sources For State’s Tax Revenue

Subscribe now

Legislative Brief on The Jan Vishwas (Amendment of Provisions) Bill, 2026

Mon, 06 Apr 2026 12:45:56 GMT

I. Key Takeaways :

The Jan Vishwas (Amendment of Provisions) Bill, 2026, aims to improve Ease of Doing Business and Ease of Living by replacing criminal penalties for minor offences with proportionate civil mechanisms across a wide legislative landscape.
The Bill proposes to amend 784 provisions across 80 Central Acts administered by 23 ministries rationalising more than 1000 offences.
The Bill was reintroduced in Lok Sabha after incorporating the recommendations of the 24- member Select Committee which worked extensively across 49 sitting and extensive consultation processes to recommend decriminalisation of 689 provisions across 78 legislations.
The Bill shifts enforcement from criminal prosecution to designated administrative adjudicating officers, ensuring faster resolution of contraventions.
The Bill establishes a multi-tiered appellate mechanism and a graded enforcement framework that prioritises warnings and improvement notices for first-time offenders.

I. Introduction :

The Jan Vishwas (Amendment of Provisions) Bill, 2026 (the ‘Bill’) was passed in Lok Sabha on 1^st April, 2026, to replace imprisonment for minor offences with civil penalties across multiple laws.
The Bill was initially introduced in the Lok Sabha during the Monsoon Session of 2025, proposing amendments to 355 provisions across 16 Central Acts, and was subsequently referred to a Select Committee of Parliament. The Committee held 49 sittings, conducted 10 inter-ministerial consultations, and organized 7 formal industry consultations, alongside extensive stakeholder interactions with industry bodies, RWAs, and expert witnesses recommended to decriminalise 689 provisions across 78 legislations.
To incorporate the suggestions of the Committee the Bill was withdrawn and reintroduced in the Lok Sabha in March 2026 seeking to amend 784 provisions across 80 central legislations administered by 23 ministries.
The present Bill builds on the success of the Jan Vishwas (Amendment of Provisions) Act, 2023, which was the first consolidated legislation to systematically decriminalise minor offences across multiple Acts. The 2023 Act decriminalised 183 provisions in 42 central acts administered by 19 ministries/departments.

II. Details of the Bill and Key Provisions:

Broad Scope of Decriminalisation: The Bill seeks to amend 80 Central enactments to decriminalise and rationalise minor offences by replacing imprisonment with monetary penalties, particularly where there is no fraudulent intent or significant public harm. For instance, smoking in a metro compartment or underground station will now be treated as a civil default, punishable with a ₹2,000 fine rather than criminal liability. However, it is crucial to note that strict provisions for serious violations remain untouched.
Trust-Based Governance and Ease of Business: The Bill seeks to replace a fear-based regulatory regime by removing imprisonment for minor defaults, thereby boosting investor confidence and easing judicial burden. By streamlining numerous provisions, it aims to create a more business-friendly environment that allows enterprises, especially in early stages, to grow without unnecessary regulatory constraints.
Establishment of Administrative Adjudication: For several Acts, the Bill moves the enforcement of penalties from the courts to designated administrative adjudicating officers. The proposed amendments to the Cattle Trespass Act, 1871 replace criminal proceedings for cattle trespass with an adjudicatory mechanism. Instead of prosecution, an executive magistrate will determine liability and may impose a penalty of up to ₹ 5,000.
Multi-Tiered Appellate Mechanism: To ensure fairness, the Bill introduces a structured appeal process. Any person aggrieved by an order of an adjudicating officer can prefer an appeal to an appellate authority, usually an officer of a higher rank, within a specified timeframe (typically 30 days). For example, under The Court-fees Act, 1870 any person aggrieved by an order may file an appeal before the Commissioner (or any officer notified) within 30 days.
Graded Enforcement: The Bill introduces a rationalised enforcement framework where, for first-time or minor contraventions, authorities may issue advisories, warning notices, or remedial actions instead of immediately imposing fines. Monetary penalties are then applied for subsequent or continuing violations. For many first-time violations, such as under the Apprentices Act, 1961, authorities will issue warnings instead of immediate fines, allowing individuals and small employers to correct lapses within a specified period of time.
Compounding of Certain Offences: The Bill expands the scope for compounding offences, allowing individuals to settle minor criminal charges by paying a specified sum, thereby avoiding criminal prosecution and court trials. This has been done acts such as The Metro Railways (Operation and Maintenance) Act, 2002; The Legal Metrology Act, 2009; The Recycling of Ships Act, 2019.
Periodic Revision of Fines and Penalties: Clause 3 mandates that the fines and penalties specified in the amended enactments (unless they already provide a specific revision method) shall be increased by 10% of the minimum amount every three years from the date the Act comes into force. This is likely to ensure that the penalties retain their deterrent value over time despite economic changes or inflation. This move maintains the integrity of a trust-based governance model, as it prevents penalties from becoming negligible, thereby ensuring continued compliance and reducing the need for frequent, piecemeal legislative amendments to dozens of different acts.

III. Sectoral Achievements :

The reforms in the last 13 years collectively signify India's shift toward a high-trust, transparent business environment by replacing bureaucratic hurdles with digital governance, fiscal clarity, and robust insolvency frameworks that empower both domestic scaling and global integration.

Regulatory Compliance Burden (RCB) Initiative
1. Reduction in Compliance Hurdles: Launched in 2020, the RCB initiative involved a self-identification exercise by Central Ministries and States to eliminate burdensome regulations. This has led to the reduction of over 47,000 compliances in the last 5 years, focusing on simplifying, digitizing, and eliminating redundant requirements to improve the business climate.
2. RCB+ for Interstate Harmonization: To address regional duplication and create a more uniform regulatory framework, the Government introduced RCB+, which has successfully harmonized and reduced 4,846 compliances out of 6,262 identified across 23 commonly implemented Acts in various States and Union Territories.
  Image 2: Breakdown of the reduction in compliance by the RCB initiative.
3. Regulatory Reorganisation by RBI: The Reserve Bank of India (RBI) has streamlined its regulatory framework by consolidating over 9,000 circulars and guidelines into 238 function-specific Master Directions across regulated entities. As part of this exercise, 9,446 circulars are being repealed, 3,809 integrated into Master Circulars and 5,673 identified as obsolete. This rationalisation enhances regulatory clarity, reduces compliance burden.
Goods and Services Tax 2.0
1. GST reforms introduced in September 2025 have enhanced Ease of Doing Business by simplifying tax slabs and moving toward a two-rate structure (5% and 18%), reducing compliance burdens and transaction costs. Rationalised rates across key sectors such as automobiles, cements etc. have lowered tax incidence, improved affordability, and boosted price competitiveness, supporting entrepreneurship.
2. The reforms have also driven formalisation, with GST registered taxpayers rising from around 60 lakh in 2017 to over 1.5 crore by November 2025. Additionally, correcting inverted duty structures in sectors like textiles and fertilisers has reduced costs and eased working capital pressures, improving overall business efficiency.
The Corporate Laws (Amendment) Bill, 2026
1. The Corporate Laws (Amendment) Bill, 2026 seeks to propose comprehensive reforms to the Companies Act, 2013, and the Limited Liability Partnership (LLP) Act, 2008. It seeks to replace criminal sanctions with civil penalties for procedural defaults, such as non-compliance with Registrar requisitions and audit-related lapses. Key introductions include a specialized framework for IFSC-based LLPs (allowing share capital in foreign currency), the enablement of virtual and hybrid AGMs, and the streamlining of Fast-Track Mergers. Additionally, it proposes rationalizing CSR thresholds and providing greater flexibility in share buy-backs to modernize India’s corporate regulatory environment.
2. The Bill was introduced in Parliament on 26^th March, 2026, and has since been referred to the Parliamentary Standing Committee on Finance for detailed examination.
3. Continuing the momentum of the Ease of Doing Business 2.0 reforms, this Bill builds directly upon the foundational amendments made in 2018 and 2020, which decriminalized 51 technical and procedural violations under the Companies Act, 2013, and the subsequent decriminalization of 12 offences under the LLP (Amendment) Act, 2021. By further transitioning remaining minor lapses into civil defaults adjudicated through monetary penalties, this Bill seeks to alleviate the burden on criminal courts and the NCLT. This legislative evolution integrates with recent systemic upgrades like MCA21 V3 and the enhanced thresholds for “Small Companies” (effective December 1, 2025), ensuring a modernized, disclosure-based governance framework that balances strict board accountability with a frictionless environment for corporate growth.
Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code
1. The IBC replaced a fragmented system with a structured, time-bound framework that prioritizes the revival of distressed assets over liquidation. This “creditor-in-control” model has improved investor confidence by ensuring that assets are reorganized to maximize value. As of 31^st March 2025; 1,194 companies have been successfully resolved under IBC. Creditors realized ₹ 3.89 lakh crore, which represents over 170% of the liquidation value and more than 93% of the fair value of these companies at the time of admission.
2. By providing an efficient exit and recovery mechanism, the IBC has significantly cleaned up the balance sheets of Indian banks, restoring the sector’s health and increasing credit availability for new businesses. Gross Non-Performing Assets (GNPAs) reached a multi-decadal low of 2.15% by September 2025. The Code has become a primary driver of financial stability, accounting for 48.1% of all bank recoveries in the 2023–24 period by contributing ₹46,340 crore out of a total recovery of ₹ 96,325 crore.
3. Image 3: Reduction in the Gross NPAs in the last 5 years
Consolidation of Labour Codes
1. The consolidation of 29 central labor laws into four codes has streamlined operations by cutting factory approval timelines from 90 to 30 days. Efficiency is further boosted by a single national tripartite board, electronic registrations, and 5-year all-India licenses with deemed approvals, replacing a fragmented and slow-moving bureaucratic system.
2. Operational flexibility has increased as the threshold for layoffs and standing orders rose to 300 workers. Furthermore, the shift from criminal to civil penalties, graded fines, and a mandatory 30-day compliance notice period ensures a more supportive, less litigious environment for businesses to scale.
Production Linked Incentive (PLI) Schemes
1. The PLI scheme offers performance-based incentives that have successfully shifted the industrial focus from simple assembly to deep-rooted manufacturing across 14 strategic sectors such as automobiles, pharmaceutical drugs etc.
2. This structural shift is backed by significant capital, with realized investments reaching approximately ₹ 1.76 lakh crore and 806 approved applications as of March 2025. The impact is particularly visible in high-tech industries, such as the Automobile and Auto Components sector, which alone has seen committed investments climb to ₹ 67,690 crore, signaling robust global and domestic confidence in India’s industrial ecosystem.
3. PLI scheme has integrated Indian businesses into global value chains and shifted the nation from import dependency to a net exporter in critical sectors. The total participant sales exceeded ₹16.5 lakh crore, a 146% production surge in electronics (reaching ₹5.25 lakh crore in FY 2024–25), and the pharmaceutical sector transitioned to a ₹2,280 crore trade surplus in bulk drugs by March 2025.
4. The PLI scheme creates a ripple effect where large anchor units modernise the MSME sector and decentralise industrial growth into Tier-2 and Tier-3 cities, creating a more inclusive business environment. This has generated over 12 lakh direct and indirect jobs, with specific impacts including nearly 38,500 direct jobs in Solar PV Modules as of June 2025 and over 171 approved applications to modernize smaller units in the Food Processing sector.
National Single Window System (NSWS)
1. The NSWS which guides in identifying and applying for approvals according to the business requirements has emerged as a key reform initiative to streamline business approvals by reducing approval timelines, securing a document repository and fast query management through a single digital gateway. It integrates approval processes across 32 Central Departments and 32 State Governments, and has access over 698 Central and 7435 State approvals. NSWS has granted over 8,29,750 approvals since its launch.
  Share

Annexure I - Summary of Bill Provisions

Annexure II - List of Acts Proposed to be Decriminalised Under the Bill

Annexure III - Chronological Overview of the Jan Vishwas Reforms

Annexure IV - Questions Asked In The Parliament

A. Lok Sabha

B. Rajya Sabha

Subscribe now

Parliamentary Proceedings for 2nd April, 2026

Fri, 03 Apr 2026 08:21:55 GMT

I. Key Highlights of The Proceedings:

The proceedings of the Lok Sabha and Rajya Sabha commenced at 11:00 AM.
In the Lok Sabha, Shri Om Birla Ji (Speaker, Lok Sabha; BJP, Kota, Rajasthan) commenced the Question Hour.
1. Shri Hanuman Beniwal (RLP, Nagaur, Rajasthan) raised concerns over the Smart Meter Scheme, terming it a step toward privatisation, and sought details on consumer grievances related to incorrect billing, sudden disconnections and the existence of an independent central monitoring mechanism. In response, Shri Manohar Lal (Union Minister, Ministry of Power; BJP, Karnal, Haryana) clarified that the Government has no reports of forced installations, and noted that power distribution companies, which had accumulated losses of ₹7 lakh crore in 2017, recorded a collective profit of ₹2,600 crore in the most recent fiscal year.
2. Shri Ram Shiromani Verma (SP, Shrawasti, UP) sought accountability over Jal Shakti Ministry’s pipeline initiatives, highlighting unrepaired roads post-installation and non-operational water tanks. In response, Shri C.R. Patil (Union Minister, Ministry of Jal Shakti; BJP, Navsari, Gujarat) stated that 17,000 out of 18,000 complaints have been addressed under the Jal Jeevan Mission, with payments released only after Sarpanch certification.
In the Lok Sabha, proceedings commenced with the Zero Hour.
1. Shri Jagdambika Pal (BJP, Domariyaganj, Uttar Pradesh) urged the Government to develop 10 historical reservoirs in the Budhi Gandak circuit as eco-tourism hubs. Noting their 30 lakh cubic feet capacity and 13.5 lakh annual footfall, he emphasized their potential to mitigate flooding and boost local economies through the ‘One District One Product’ (ODOP) initiative.
2. Smt. Bansuri Swaraj (BJP, New Delhi, NCT of Delhi) raised concerns over the breakdown of law and order in West Bengal, specifically citing the intimidation of female judicial officers by local administration supporters. Referencing Supreme Court observations on constitutional failure, she urged the Union Government to intervene immediately and ensure the safety of the judiciary in the state.
3. Shri Manish Tewari (INC, Chandigarh, Chandigarh) raised concerns over the alleged embezzlement of ₹125 crore from the Chandigarh Smart City scheme, claiming that funds deposited in an IDFC bank account have disappeared. He demanded a thorough investigation and called for an RBI directive ensuring that Government funds are deposited only in scheduled commercial banks.
In the Lok Sabha, Shri Nityanand Rai (MoS, Ministry of Home Affairs; BJP, Ujiarpur, Bihar), moved the Central Armed Police Forces (General Administration) Bill, 2026, for consideration, and the House initiated discussion.
1. Shri Dharmendra Yadav (SP, Azamgarh, UP) opposed the Bill, stating that it neglects 10 lakh paramilitary personnel by prioritising IPS deputations over in-service officers, causing rank stagnation for up to 25 years. He demanded restoration of the Old Pension Scheme, martyr status, and referral of the Bill to a Joint Parliamentary Committee (JPC).
2. Shri Krishna Prasad Tenneti (TDP, Bapatla(SC), Andhra Pradesh) supported the Bill as a vital reform for internal security and the “steel framework” of federal coordination. Drawing on his IPS background, he noted it addresses promotional stagnation and reduces litigation, while urging the Government to fill 90,000 vacancies and strengthen specialized units like the Greyhounds to achieve “Viksit Bharat 2047.”
3. Smt. Mahua Moitra (AITC, Krishnanagar, West Bengal) opposed the Bill, terming it a legislative workaround to bypass judicial rulings, arguing it preserves senior leadership roles for IPS officers while blocking Central Armed Police Forces (CAPF) cadre progression. She cited alarming rates of suicide and resignation and urged referral of the Bill to a Select Committee.
4. Replying to the discussion, Shri Nityanand Rai (MoS, Ministry of Home Affairs; BJP, Ujiarpur, Bihar) replied that the Bill provides a unified framework, removing administrative ambiguities and improving cadre management. He noted that 2.1 lakh appointments have been made since 2022, and martyrs’ families receive up to ₹1 crore assistance. Moreover, he mentioned that over 22 lakh Ayushman CAPF health cards have been issued, and recruitment timelines have been reduced to under one year, asserting that the Bill strengthens CAPFs without harming any section.
In the Lok Sabha, the motion to pass the Central Armed Police Forces (General Administration) Bill, 2026, was moved, adopted by the House, and the Bill was declared passed in the Lok Sabha.
In Rajya Sabha, Shri C.P. Radhakrishnan Ji (Chairman, Rajya Sabha) commenced the proceedings of the House by addressing Members on World Autism Awareness Day on 2^ndApril.
In the Rajya Sabha, Shri C.P. Radhakrishnan Ji (Chairman, Rajya Sabha) then commenced the Question Hour.
1. Shri Chunnilal Garasiya (BJP, Rajasthan) sought details on Green India Mission implementation in Rajasthan. In response, Shri Kirti Vardhan Singh (MoS, Ministry of Environment, Forest and Climate Change; BJP, Gonda, Uttar Pradesh) stated that ₹2.77 crore was allocated under the mission and afforestation was carried out over 61,056 hectares using indigenous species with support from Compensatory Afforestation Fund Management and Planning Authority (CAMPA) and National Bank for Agriculture and Rural Development (NABARD), along with initiatives like Nagar Van Yojana.
2. Shri Digvijaya Singh (INC, Madhya Pradesh) questioned the impact of current sports policies and called for integration of sports with education. Smt. Raksha Nikhil Khadse (MoS, Ministry of Youth Affairs and Sports; BJP, Raver, Maharashtra) Government is strengthening a grassroots sports ecosystem through the Khelo India Mission by focusing on early talent identification, aligning with NEP 2020, and working with states to expand sports infrastructure, such as integrated sports schools, Centres of Excellence, and Khelo India Centres, across districts to ensure nationwide access to training.
In the Rajya Sabha, Shri Nityanand Rai (MoS, Ministry of Home Affairs; BJP, Ujiarpur, Bihar) moved a motion for the consideration of the Andhra Pradesh Reorganisation (Amendment) Bill, and the House initiated discussion.
1. Smt. Renuka Chowdhury (INC, Telangana) expressed dissatisfaction over delays in addressing issues under the Andhra Pradesh Reorganisation Act, 2014, calling it a “national shame,” and sought a time-bound roadmap for Amaravati along with a status report on pending commitments, citing unresolved disputes, stalled projects, and regional imbalance.
2. Shri Kinjarapu Rammohan Naidu (Union Minister, Ministry of Civil Aviation; TDP, Srikakulam, Andhra Pradesh) emphasized Amaravati’s centrality to Andhra Pradesh’s identity post-bifurcation, highlighting its consensus-based selection, judicial backing, and strong farmer participation. He called for a transparent, time-bound development framework with central support to ensure stability and restore investor confidence.
3. Shri K. R. Suresh Reddy (BRS, Telangana) supported the Bill while stressing unity between the two states, but raised concerns over unresolved commitments and amendments affecting Telangana, urging the Centre to adopt a balanced approach and fulfil pending assurances.
4. Responding to the discussion, Shri Nityanand Rai (MoS, Ministry of Home Affairs; BJP, Ujiarpur, Bihar) seeks to grant statutory recognition to Amaravati as the state capital, noting its earlier notification in 2015 and a supporting resolution passed in March 2024. Further, he explained that the Bill amends Section 5(2) of the 2014 Act to designate Amaravati as the capital with retrospective effect from 2 June 2014, ensuring legal clarity after Hyderabad ceased to be a joint capital, and described it as a historic step for the state’s development.
5. The Bill was then taken up for detailed consideration clause by clause. Following this, the motion to pass the Bill was moved, adopted by the House, and the Bill was passed in the House.
In the Rajya Sabha, Shri Piyush Vedprakash Goyal (Union Minister, Ministry of Commerce and Industry; BJP, Mumbai North, Maharashtra) moved a motion for the consideration of the Jan Vishwas (Amendment of Provisions) Bill, 2026, and the house initiated discussion.
1. Shri Shaktisinh Gohil (INC, Gujarat) opposed the Bill, criticizing its rushed introduction and lack of scrutiny, and warned that reduced penalties across laws could weaken deterrence, harm vulnerable groups, and compromise public safety.
2. Shri Surendra Singh Nagar (BJP, Uttar Pradesh) supported the Bill, describing it as a historic step decriminalising 717 offences across 42 ministries, replacing colonial-era punitive measures with warnings and penalties, and restoring dignity to ordinary citizens from vendors to cattle-rearers.
3. Replying to the discussion, Shri Piyush VedprakashGoyal (Union Minister, Ministry of Commerce and Industry; BJP, Mumbai North, Maharashtra)concluded the discussion, describing the bill as a historic shift toward trust-based governance, empowering adjudicating officers to levy penalties for over 1,000 provisions. He stated that decriminalisation was pursued only for purely procedural offences, while criminal provisions for deliberate misconduct were retained. Further, he added that key reforms aimed at enhancing penalties for women’s safety and making compliance easier for the people.
In the Rajya Sabha, following this, the motion to pass the Jan Vishwas (Amendment of Provisions) Bill, 2026, was moved, adopted by the House, and the Bill was declared passed.
The proceedings of Lok Sabha and Rajya Sabha were adjourned at 07:03 PM and 06:33 PM, 2^nd April, 2026, respectively, to reconvene at 11:00 A.M on 16^th April, 2026, Thursday.
Share Legislative Research - NFPRC’s Substack

II. Lok Sabha Proceedings:

The proceedings of the Lok Sabha commenced at 11:00 AM.
Shri Om Birla Ji (Speaker, Lok Sabha; BJP, Kota, Rajasthan) presided over the proceedings of the House and made an Obituary Reference regarding the passing of two former members, i.e., Shri Jangbir Singh (10th Lok Sabha, Bhiwani, Haryana) and Shri Narayan Sahu (7th Lok Sabha, Deogarh, Odisha).
Shri Om Birla Ji (Speaker, Lok Sabha; BJP, Kota, Rajasthan) commenced the Question Hour.
1. Shri Hanuman Beniwal (RLP, Nagaur, Rajasthan) raised concerns over the Smart Meter Scheme, terming it a step toward privatization, and sought details on consumer grievances related to incorrect billing and sudden disconnections. Further, he questioned whether an independent monitoring mechanism existed at the central level.
  1. In response, Shri Manohar Lal (Union Minister, Ministry of Power; BJP, Karnal, Haryana) clarified that the Government has no reports of forced installations. He also noted that power distribution companies, which had accumulated losses of around ₹7 lakh crore in 2017 and again by 2026, recorded a collective profit of ₹2,600 crore in the most recent fiscal year.
2. Shri Ram Shiromani Verma (SP, Shrawasti, Uttar Pradesh) raised concerns over the Jal Shakti Ministry’s pipeline initiatives and sought accountability regarding infrastructure issues. Further, he highlighted that excavated roads and alleys are not being repaired post-installation and that several water tanks are not operational on time, citing an instance in Balrampur where a water tank collapsed within 15 days of its inauguration.
  1. In response, Shri C.R. Patil (Union Minister, Ministry of Jal Shakti; BJP, Navsari, Gujarat) stated that under the Jal Jeevan Mission, approximately 17,000 out of 18,000 complaints have been addressed. Furthermore, he clarified that payments are released only after certification by the Sarpanch and villagers, after 15 days of operation, with 2% to 4% of the total project cost specifically allocated for road repairs following pipeline installation.
3. Shri Ramvir Singh Bidhuri (BJP, South Delhi, NCT of Delhi) sought details on the Ministry’s plans to alleviate traffic congestion in Delhi, including project costs and timelines for commencement.
  1. In response, Shri Harsh Malhotra (MoS, Ministry of Road Transport & Highways; BJP, East Delhi, NCT of Delhi) outlined several key projects, including the Ashram-Badarpur stretch being made signal-free through three flyovers, the Mehrauli-Gurugram road aimed at reducing a one-hour journey to 15 minutes, and similar work on the Punjabi Bagh to Tikri stretch. He highlighted a 5-kilometre tunnel project from Shiv Murti to Nelson Mandela Marg, estimated at ₹3,500 crore. Further, he also mentioned that the redevelopment of the Kalindi Kunj sector, an elevated road from DND to Faridabad, is expected to commence within six months, and the inauguration of the Delhi-Dehradun Expressway is expected within the next eight to ten days.
4. Shri Parshottambhai Rupala (BJP, Rajkot, Gujarat) raised concerns over passenger safety during flights, particularly regarding disruptions caused by air turbulence on shorter routes attributed to global warming, and inquired whether the Government is developing updated safety protocols in light of changing environmental conditions.
  1. In response, Shri Kinjarapu Rammohan Naidu (Union Minister, Ministry of Civil Aviation; TDP, Srikakulam, Andhra Pradesh) assured the House that India adheres to top international standards set by the International Civil Aviation Organization (ICAO), with the India Meteorological Department (IMD) providing critical weather data using sophisticated ground-based instruments to predict turbulence and storms. Further, he also affirmed the Government’s commitment to adopting new technologies to further strengthen civil aviation safety.
Following this, Papers, reports, and statements were laid on the Table.
Shri Om Birla Ji (Speaker, Lok Sabha; BJP, Kota, Rajasthan) cautioned Members against engaging in private conversations during proceedings and warned that continued misconduct would necessitate naming the Members and Ministers involved. He thereafter commenced the Zero Hour discussion.
1. Smt. Ruchi Vira (SP, Moradabad, Uttar Pradesh) raised urgent concerns over leopard attacks in Moradabad and Bijnor since 2023, resulting in over 30 deaths and 100 injuries across 80 high-risk villages. She urged the Government to deploy a special task force, cages, drones, and camera traps, and demanded ₹25 lakh compensation for the victims’ families.
2. Smt. Roopkumari Choudhary (BJP, Mahasamund, Chhattisgarh) urged the Railway Minister to construct a new railway line connecting Arang to Bargarh-Sambalpur via Pithora, Basna, and Saraipali, advocating for over 35 years. She argued it would provide farmers with direct market access, boost agricultural income, and fulfill the long-standing aspirations of the region.
3. Smt. Harsimrat Kaur Badal (SAD, Bathinda, Punjab) criticised the lack of justice in sacrilege cases, noting approximately 600 incidents since 2015 with only a 7% conviction rate. She urged the Government to approve the Anti-Sacrilege Bill of 2016 and called for the commutation of Shri Bhai Rajoaana’s death sentence to life imprisonment.
4. Shri Jagdambika Pal (BJP, Domariyaganj, Uttar Pradesh) urged the Government to develop 10 historical reservoirs in the Budhi Gandak circuit as eco-tourism hubs. He noted their collective capacity exceeds 30 lakh cubic feet and attracts nearly 13.5 lakh tourists annually, with potential to boost local products under the ‘One District One Product’ scheme and mitigate flooding.
5. Shri Manish Tewari (INC, Chandigarh, Chandigarh) raised concerns over the alleged embezzlement of ₹125 crore from the Chandigarh Smart City scheme, claiming that funds deposited in an IDFC bank account have disappeared. He demanded a thorough investigation and called for an RBI directive ensuring that Government funds are deposited only in scheduled commercial banks.
6. Smt. Bansuri Swaraj (BJP, New Delhi, NCT of Delhi) raised concerns over the breakdown of law and order in West Bengal, citing intimidation of judicial officers, particularly women, by supporters of the local administration. Referencing Supreme Court observations on constitutional failure in the state, she urged the Central Government to ensure the safety of judicial officers.
Shri Nityanand Rai (MoS, Ministry of Home Affairs; BJP, Ujiarpur, Bihar) moved the Central Armed Police Forces (General Administration) Bill, 2026, for consideration and passing on behalf of the Home Minister. Following which, Shri Om Birla Ji called upon the House to take it into consideration and discussion.
1. Smt. Mahua Moitra (AITC, Krishnanagar, West Bengal) moved an amendment proposing that the Central Armed Police Forces (General Administration) Bill, 2026, be referred to a 15-member Select Committee, with its report to be submitted by the last day of the first week of the next Lok Sabha session.
2. Shri Dharmendra Yadav (SP, Azamgarh, Uttar Pradesh) opposed the Bill, asserting it neglects the welfare and service conditions of 10 lakh paramilitary personnel despite their immense sacrifices. He criticized the legislation for prioritizing IPS deputations over the career progression of in-service officers, leading to rank stagnation for up to 25 years.
  1. Further, he highlighted the Government’s failure to implement judicial rulings on pensions and demanded the restoration of the Old Pension Scheme alongside official “martyr status” for those killed in action. Alleging that the Bill dilutes personnel rights while favoring corporate interests, he urged its referral to a Joint Parliamentary Committee (JPC) to ensure a more consultative and sensitive approach to internal security.
3. Smt. Mahua Moitra (AITC, Krishnanagar, West Bengal) opposed the Bill, framing it as a legislative “workaround“ to bypass judicial rulings and institutionalize inequity. She criticized the Government for denying personnel official “martyr status” and argued that the Bill unfairly preserves senior leadership roles for IPS officers, blocking the career progression of experienced CAPF cadre.
  1. Citing alarming rates of suicide and resignation, she warned that ignoring the welfare and dignity of 10 lakh personnel undermines national security. Further, she accused the Government of using the Bill to override the Supreme Court’s 2025 mandate for cadre reforms and urged that it be referred to a Select Committee to protect the autonomy and morale of the forces.
4. Shri Krishna Prasad Tenneti (TDP, Bapatla (SC), Andhra Pradesh) supported the Bill, framing it as a vital reform to strengthen India’s federal structure and internal security. Drawing on his experience as a former IPS officer, he described the All India Services as the nation's "steel framework" and argued that the legislation ensures necessary coordination between the CAPFs, civil administration, and the military.
  1. Further, he noted that the Bill addresses long-standing structural issues, such as promotional stagnation where constables often retire without a single advancement, while also standardizing rules to reduce internal litigation. Linking security to the “Viksit Bharat 2047” vision, he emphasized that uniform recruitment and training are essential for stability. He concluded by urging the Government to quickly fill 90,000 vacancies and enhance support for specialized units like the Greyhounds.
5. Shri Mohite Patil Dhairyasheel Rajsinh (NCP-SP, Madha, Maharashtra) opposed the Bill, asserting it institutionalizes systemic injustice against the personnel guarding India’s borders. He highlighted a severe leadership disparity where up to 100% of top-level CAPF posts are reserved for IPS officers, blocking the career progression of experienced cadre.
  1. Citing 750 suicides and 46,000 resignations between 2021 and 2025, he argued that the Bill ignores institutional distress and lacks essential welfare provisions. Criticizing the “zero financial cost” as evidence of neglect, he accused the Government of bypassing Supreme Court mandates and demanded a referral to a Joint Parliamentary Committee to ensure fairness for the forces.
6. Shri Imran Masood (INC, Saharanpur, UP) opposed the Bill, arguing it circumvents a Supreme Court judgment. He invoked General Manekshaw, noting even decorated officers would be adversely affected. He highlighted alarming suicide rates within CAPFs, 143 suicides in the CRPF alone in 2025, along with 93,000 vacant posts in CAPF and rising voluntary retirements, urging referral of the bill to a Joint Parliamentary Committee for detailed deliberation.
7. Shri Awadhesh Prasad (SP, Faizabad, Uttar Pradesh) opposed the CAPF General Administration Bill, 2026, arguing that it directly violates the Supreme Court’s May 2025 judgment recognising CAPFs as Organised Group ‘A’ Services. He highlighted that reserving IG, ADG, and DG posts for IPS officers denies CAPF personnel fair promotions, with officers waiting 15–18 years for their first promotion. He warned that declining morale, rising suicides, and premature retirements weaken a force of over 11 lakh personnel deployed across India’s borders.
8. Replying to the discussion, Shri Nityanand Rai (MoS, Ministry of Home Affairs; BJP, Ujiarpur, Bihar) stated that the Central Armed Police Forces (General Administration) Bill, 2026, aims to remove administrative ambiguities in CAPF service conditions and provides an umbrella framework to ensure clarity and improved cadre management, enhancing both efficiency and morale of the forces.
  1. He stated that ‘Group A’ officers generally receive four promotions, with delays attributed to court cases or disciplinary issues rather than policy failure. He rejected claims of neglect in recruitment, noting that since 2022, approximately 2.10 lakh appointments have been made, with exams now conducted in 13 regional languages.
  2. He highlighted significant welfare measures, including financial assistance of up to ₹1 crore for families of martyrs and over 22 lakh Ayushman CAPF health cards issued, with thousands of crores spent on healthcare. He noted that recruitment timelines have been reduced from two years to under one year, new battalions have been formed, and housing satisfaction has crossed 50%, reflecting the Government’s commitment to the welfare and modernisation of CAPF personnel
  3. He concluded by stating that the Bill would bring greater administrative clarity and strength to CAPFs without harming any section.
The proceedings of the Lok Sabha were adjourned at 07:03 PM to reconvene at 11:00 A.M on 16^thApril, 2026, Thursday.

III. Rajya Sabha Proceedings:

The proceedings of the Rajya Sabha commenced at 11:00 AM.
Shri C.P. Radhakrishnan Ji (Chairman, Rajya Sabha) commenced the proceedings of the House by addressing Members on World Autism Awareness Day, observed globally on 2^ndApril. He reaffirmed the House’s commitment to the rights and welfare of persons with Autism Spectrum Disorder (ASD), stressing the need for early diagnosis, inclusive education, and community awareness to empower them fully.
Shri P.C. Mody (Secretary General, Rajya Sabha) informed the House that the Jan Vishwas (Amendment of Provisions) Bill, 2023, was passed in the Lok Sabha and laid on the Table of the House for consideration.
Papers and Reports were laid on the table of the house. Following this, matters raised with permission were taken up. (Refer to Annexure VII for further details)
Amidst the discussion of Matters Raised with Permission, Shri C.P. Radhakrishnan Ji (Chairman, Rajya Sabha) asked permission to skip lunch to discuss the Andhra Pradesh Reorganisation (Amendment) Bill, 2026. Shri Jairam Ramesh (INC, Karnataka) questioned the uncertainty regarding the House proceedings, asking whether the Rajya Sabha would continue the next day or be adjourned sine die. In response, Shri J.P. Nadda (BJP, Gujarat) stated that he would inform the House accordingly.
Following this, Shri C.P. Radhakrishnan Ji (Chairman, Rajya Sabha) proceeded to continue discussing Matters Raised with Permission, the details of which can be found under Annexure IX.
Shri C.P. Radhakrishnan Ji (Chairman, Rajya Sabha) then commenced the Question Hour.
1. Shri Chunnilal Garasiya (BJP, Rajasthan) sought details on the implementation of the National Mission for a Green India (GIM) in Rajasthan. He inquired about land brought under forest cover, restoration of degraded forest land, and steps to accelerate afforestation despite the state’s arid climate.
  1. In response, Shri Kirti Vardhan Singh (MoS, Ministry of Environment, Forest and Climate Change; BJP, Gonda, Uttar Pradesh) responded that afforestation efforts focus on indigenous species to improve sapling survival rates. He informed that Rajasthan received ₹2.77 crore under the mission. He added that, through convergence of funds from Compensatory Afforestation Fund Management and Planning Authority (CAMPA) and National Bank for Agriculture and Rural Development (NABARD), afforestation was carried out across 61,056 hectares in ecologically sensitive zones, including the Aravalli range. He also noted that initiatives like the Nagar Van Yojana (2021–2024) were launched to further enhance green cover.
  2. Shri Chunnilal Garasiya (BJP, Rajasthan) raised supplementary questions on ecological funding, low forest cover in desert districts, and degradation of the Aravalli Range due to mining. Shri Kirtivardhan Singh (MoS, Ministry of Environment, Forest and Climate Change; BJP, Gonda, Uttar Pradesh), responded that the Government is shifting towards a performance-based framework linking financial incentives to measurable forest conservation, and assured that mining activities in the Aravalli range are being actively monitored for their restoration and ecological protection.
2. Shri Digvijay Singh (INC, Madhya Pradesh) raised concerns over the effectiveness of existing sports policies, noting that despite the launch of the Target Olympic Podium Scheme (TOPS) in 2014, India’s medal tally at major international events remains limited. Further, he suggested that India draw lessons from countries like China, where sports schools integrate academics with high-performance training centers, in contrast to the Sports Authority of India (SAI) centers, which often operate outside the mainstream educational system.
  1. In response, Smt. Raksha Nikhil Khadse (MoS, Ministry of Youth Affairs and Sports; BJP, Raver, Maharashtra) stated that the Government is building a grassroots-oriented sports ecosystem through the Khelo India Mission, focusing on early talent identification and aligning sports development with the National Education Policy 2020, with collaboration with state Governments to establish integrated sports schools, State Centres of Excellence, and Khelo India Centres across districts to make sports training accessible nationwide.
3. Dr. Sasmit Patra (BJD, Odisha) raised concerns over the declining safety of Olive Ridley turtle populations along the Odisha coast, citing deaths due to fishing net entanglement, trawler collisions, and poaching. Further, he sought details on concrete measures taken for their protection.
  1. In response, Dr. Jitendra Singh (MoS, Ministry of Earth Science; BJP, Udhampur, Jammu and Kashmir) highlighted the Government’s commitment to marine conservation through the Deep Ocean Mission, with a budget of ₹4,027 crore allocated for 2023–25. He informed that a dedicated institution, Centre for Marine Living Resources and Ecology (CMLRE) has been established in Kochi, undertakes marine biodiversity surveys, conservation research, and maintains a digital database. Further, he added that the launch of “Amrut Sagar” as a biodiversity reference framework further strengthens the protection of marine species along India’s 11,000 km coastline.
Shri Mallikarjun Kharge (Leader of Opposition, INC, Karnataka) called for an All-Party meeting to deliberate on the modalities and roadmap for implementing the Nari Shakti Vandan Adhiniyam, 2023, informing the House that he had formally written to the government in this regard. He requested that the meeting be convened after the conclusion of the ongoing Assembly elections.
1. Shri Sanjay Singh (AAP, NCT of Delhi) raised similar concerns amid disruptions in the House. In response, Shri Kiren Rijiju (Union Minister, Ministry of Parliamentary Affairs; BJP, Arunachal West, Arunachal Pradesh) and Shri J.P. Nadda (Leader of the House; BJP, Gujarat) emphasized that the government had already held consultations with nearly 80 per cent of political parties, and urged that proceedings move forward in an orderly manner without politicising the issue.
Shri Nityanand Rai (MoS, Ministry of Home Affairs; BJP, Ujiarpur, Bihar) moved a motion for the consideration of the Andhra Pradesh Reorganisation (Amendment) Bill, and the House initiated discussion.
1. Smt. Renuka Chowdhury (INC, Telangana) expressed strong dissatisfaction over the prolonged delay in addressing issues arising from the Andhra Pradesh Reorganisation Act, 2014, calling it a “national shame.” She demanded a time-bound roadmap for Amaravati’s development and a comprehensive status report on pending commitments, highlighting unresolved disputes, stalled projects, and regional imbalances, while urging the Government to move beyond assurances and ensure concrete, accountable implementation.
2. Shri Kinjarapu Rammohan Naidu (Union Minister, Ministry of Civil Aviation; TDP, Srikakulam, Andhra Pradesh) underscored Amaravati’s democratic legitimacy, stating it was chosen through a consensus-driven process. However, he also expressed concern over policy reversals and inconsistent positions by the previous state Government, which created uncertainty and hindered development. Further, he pointed to strong grassroots participation, especially by nearly 29,000 farmers who pooled 34,000 acres of land and the resilience of women protesters, while calling for a transparent, time-bound development framework with central support to restore investor confidence.
3. Shri Mohammed Nadimul Haque (AITC, West Bengal) extended his congratulations to the people of Amaravati and Andhra Pradesh, recalling past solidarity with TDP members during the bifurcation period. While conveying his good wishes, he cautioned against shifting political alliances, citing examples of changing alignments in national politics, and briefly alluded to future political developments before concluding with his remarks.
  1. In response, Shri Kiren Rijiju (Union Minister, Ministry of Parliamentary Affairs; BJP, Arunachal West, Arunachal Pradesh) defended his party’s record of maintaining long-standing alliances, citing instances of support extended to political leaders in the past. He contrasted this with what he described as inconsistencies in opposition alliances. Further, he urged the members to remain focused on the subject under discussion while reiterating the importance of constructive debate in the House.
4. Shri Sanjay Singh (AAP, NCT of Delhi) expressed support for the Bill. While praising Shri N. Chandrababu Naidu for his leadership, he advised TDP members to leverage their current political position to secure maximum central assistance for the capital’s development. He also cautioned against reliance on shifting political alliances, citing past instances, and urged them to act strategically to ensure long-term benefits for Andhra Pradesh.
5. Shri K. R. Suresh Reddy (BRS, Telangana) reflected on the significance of the 2015 foundation ceremony of Andhra Pradesh’s capital and emphasized the shared cultural unity between the two states, recalling Shri K. Chandrashekar Rao’s vision of them as “one body, two eyes.” While supporting the Bill, he raised concerns over unresolved issues, including amendments made without Telangana’s consent and alleged neglect of its commitments. Highlighting Telangana’s development, including the Kaleshwaram project, he urged the Centre to ensure a balanced approach and fulfil pending assurances to both states.
6. Smt. Priyanka Chaturvedi (SS-UBT, Maharashtra) expressed solidarity with the people of Andhra Pradesh, particularly the farmers and women of Amaravati, while supporting the Bill and describing it as a “belated reckoning” of post-2014 shortcomings. She highlighted concerns over the 34,000 acres of land surrendered by farmers and pointed out the absence of clear timelines and compensation frameworks. She also flagged the non-fulfilment of Special Category Status over the past decade, urging that the amendment should not mark a “full stop” on the state’s aspirations and that pending commitments be addressed.
7. Shri Nityanand Rai (MoS, Ministry of Home Affairs; BJP, Ujiarpur, Bihar), replying to the discussion, outlined the legislative intent of the Andhra Pradesh Reorganisation (Amendment) Bill, 2024, noting that Amaravati had been notified as the capital on 23^rd April, 2015, and that a resolution dated 28^th March, 2024, sought its statutory recognition.
  1. He explained that the Bill amends Section 5(2) of the Andhra Pradesh Reorganisation Act, 2014, to formally designate Amaravati as the capital with retrospective effect from 2^nd June, 2014, ensuring legal clarity post the expiry of Hyderabad’s status as a joint capital. He termed it a “historic occasion,” expressing hope for the state’s development.
8. The Bill was then taken up for detailed consideration clause by clause. Following this, the motion to pass the Bill was moved, adopted by the House, and the Bill was declared passed.
Shri Piyush Vedprakash Goyal (Union Minister, Ministry of Commerce and Industry; BJP, Mumbai North, Maharashtra) moved a motion for the consideration of the Jan Vishwas (Amendment of Provisions) Bill, 2026, and the house initiated discussion.
1. Shri Shaktisinh Gohil (INC, Gujarat) raised strong objections to the Jan Vishwas (Amendment of Provisions) Bill, 2026. He criticized the Bill’s substance and rushed introduction, noting that the 340-page legislation amending 79 laws was brought without adequate scrutiny, undermining proper legislative deliberation. While supporting decriminalization in principle, he warned that reduced penalties across key laws could weaken deterrence, harm vulnerable groups, and compromise public safety, thereby urging a more consultative approach to ensure citizens’ rights are protected.
2. Shri P. Wilson (DMK, Tamil Nadu) opposed the Jan Vishwas (Amendment of Provisions) Bill, 2026, calling it a “pay and escape” framework that weakens accountability. He criticized the decriminalization of 717 offenses across 80 Acts without scrutiny, warning that changes to laws like the Drugs and Cosmetics Act, National Highways Act, railway safety, and environmental provisions could endanger public safety. He also cautioned that shifting powers from the judiciary to the executive may lead to arbitrary decisions and unequal justice.
3. Shri Surendra Singh Nagar (BJP, Uttar Pradesh) supported the Jan Vishwas (Amendment of Provisions) Bill, describing it as a historic step amending 784 provisions across 42 ministries and decriminalising 717 offences. He noted that colonial-era laws treated citizens as subjects, whereas this bill restores dignity to ordinary citizens from fruit vendors and small factory owners to cattle-rearers by replacing criminal prosecution with warnings and penalties. Invoking Shri Mahatma Gandhi’s principles of minimal use of force, he argued that governance should rely on the moral agency of citizens rather than punitive measures, and lauded the Government for ensuring Ease of Living and protecting the dignity of every citizen.
4. Smt. Maya Naroliya (BJP, Madhya Pradesh) supported the Bill, emphasising that it would benefit 2.12 lakh startups and MSMEs by eliminating the fear of imprisonment for minor filing mistakes, alleviating the burden of 4.8 crore pending court cases, and reducing redundant compliances. She asserted the bill as a vital tool for Viksit Bharat, urging all Members to support it in the national interest.
5. Replying to the discussion, Shri Piyush Vedprakash Goyal (Union Minister, Ministry of Commerce and Industry; BJP, Mumbai North, Maharashtra) described the Bill as a remarkable shift toward trust-based governance. Invoking Chanakya’s concept of “Yatharth Dand,” he argued that excessive punishment does not foster a law-abiding society. He emphasized that citizens, particularly in the MSME sector, should not face criminal prosecution for minor inadvertent errors where no criminal intent exists, and that the bill empowers adjudicating officers to levy penalties for over 1,000 provisions, reducing judicial backlog.
  1. He explained the rigorous litmus test applied to each provision, stating that decriminalisation was pursued only for purely procedural offences causing no significant harm, where deliberate intent to deceive existed, criminal provisions were strictly retained. He elaborated on a graded approach where first-time offenders receive “improvement notices” or warnings, while habitual offenders face strict criminal fines and imprisonment.
  2. Addressing concerns on women’s safety, the Minister stated that unauthorized entry into ladies’ railway compartments now carries an instant ₹2,500 penalty recoverable on the spot, replacing the earlier ₹500 fine that required a lengthy judicial process, thereby sparing women repeated court appearances. On public order, he clarified that false fire alarm offences are now covered under the BNS.
  3. He rejected allegations that the bill favours powerful interest groups, asserting that it empowers farmers, weavers, MSMEs, and small entrepreneurs by freeing them from the burden of courts and lawyers. He emphasised that genuine criminal misconduct remains firmly dealt with under the BNS, while honest citizens are protected from bureaucratic harassment. He framed the Jan Vishwas Bill as a vital step toward Viksit Bharat 2047.
6. The Bill was then taken up for detailed consideration clause by clause. Following this, the motion to pass the Bill was moved, adopted by the House, and the Bill was declared passed.
Following which, special mentions were taken up which have been covered in Annexure-X.
The proceedings of the Rajya Sabha were adjourned at 06:33 PM to reconvene at 11:00 A.M on 16^thApril, 2026, Thursday.

IV. Events Outside The Parliament:

Shri Ram Gopal Yadav (SP, Uttar Pradesh) strongly criticized the 2026 CAPF Bill as an abuse of the Government’s majority, warning of negative public consequences. Regarding the West Bengal assembly elections, he dismissed the impact of central opposition and NIA investigations, expressing absolute confidence that Kum. Mamata Banerjee will secure a thumping majority despite any political challenges directed from Delhi.
Shri Manish Tewari (INC, Chandigarh, Chandigarh) criticized the Government’s “band-aid approach” to the Strait of Hormuz crisis, questioning the long-term efficacy of duty cuts. He demanded stronger diplomatic efforts to address the blockade and restore global supply, noting that temporary relief cannot substitute for a strategic resolution to the West Asia conflict.
Smt. Priyanka Chaturvedi (SS-UBT, Maharashtra) dismissed official claims of energy stability as disconnected from reality, citing severe LPG shortages and delivery delays. She accused the Government of “jumlebaazi” instead of strategic planning, urging ministers to move beyond Question Hour assurances and engage with citizens facing immense hardships due to the ongoing West Asia crisis.
Shri Nishikant Dubey (BJP, Godda, Jharkhand) took to ‘X’ to urge the younger generation to independently research his historical and political claims. Expressing absolute confidence in their analytical abilities, he stated that an objective study of declassified records and past national policies would lead the youth to understand his perspective and the evidence supporting his stance on governance.
Shri Ravneet Singh Bittu (BJP, Ludhiana, Punjab) condemned the 1st April, 2026, blast outside the BJP office in Chandigarh as a clear sign of Punjab’s collapsing law and order. Alleging the involvement of Khalistani elements following a terror group’s claim of responsibility, he criticized the state leadership for failing to secure a sensitive border region and demanded immediate accountability.
Shri Karti P. Chidambaram (INC, Sivaganga) expressed surprise and disappointment at Defence Minister Shri Rajnath Singh’s remarks, stating they reflected a fundamental lack of understanding of Kerala’s spiritual traditions. He criticized the statement for misinterpreting the state’s cultural fabric, suggesting that the Union Minister’s perspective failed to grasp the unique social and religious harmony inherent to the region.
Shri P. P. Chaudhary (BJP, Pali, Rajasthan) backed the Supreme Court’s observations on West Bengal, alleging a total breakdown of law and order and systematic obstruction of the electoral process. He advocated for the deployment of central forces and asserted that imposing President’s rule would be a justified measure if conditions for free and fair elections are not maintained.
Shri Rajiv Ranjan Singh (Union Minister; JDU, Munger, Bihar) accused Mamata Banerjee of disregarding India’s laws, democratic principles, and traditions to maintain power. He alleged she is actively dismantling the system for political survival and urged her to recall her own past struggles against the CPI(M) Government’s authoritarianism, suggesting she has now adopted the very tactics she once opposed.
Shri Sanjay Singh (AAP, National Capital Territory of Delhi) confirmed that the party has formally notified the Rajya Sabha Secretariat regarding the leadership transition. He stated that the decision involves replacing Shri Raghav Chadha with Shri Ashok Kumar Mittal as the Deputy Leader of the Aam Aadmi Party in the Upper House, framing the move as a standard administrative update for the party.
Shri Ravi Kishan (BJP, Gorakhpur, Uttar Pradesh) thanked the Supreme Court for taking cognizance of the Malda incident, where judicial officers were allegedly held hostage. He highlighted a severe lack of security for BJP Karyakartas during the 2026 election campaign and asserted that Mamata Banerjee is losing ground as the public prepares to reject the TMC’s “culture of violence.”
Shri Dinesh Sharma (BJP, Uttar Pradesh) raised concerns over demographic imbalances, advocating for a uniform population policy and strict action against illegal infiltration and proselytisation. He further urged the Government to extend minority benefits to Hindus in districts where their population has declined, framing these measures as essential for maintaining social equilibrium and national security.
Subscribe now

Annexure I - Matters Raised Under Rule 377 In The Lok Sabha

Annexure II - Reports And Statements Presented In The Lok Sabha

Annexure III - Members Who Participated In Debate on The Central Armed Police Forces (General Administration) Bill, 2026, in the Lok Sabha

Annexure IV - Bills Passed In The Lok Sabha

Annexure V - Members Who Participated In Debate on The Andhra Pradesh Reorganisation (Amendment) Bill, 2026 in Rajya Sabha

Annexure VI - Members Who Participated in the Debate on the Jan Vishwas (Amendment of Provisions) Bill, 2026 in Rajya Sabha

Annexure VII - Reports And Statements Presented In The Rajya Sabha

Annexure IX - Bills Passed In The Rajya Sabha

Annexure X - Special Mentions In The Rajya Sabha

Parliamentary Proceedings for 1st April, 2026

Thu, 02 Apr 2026 07:32:28 GMT

I. Key Highlights of The Proceedings:

The proceedings of the Lok Sabha and Rajya Sabha commenced at 11:00 AM.
In the Lok Sabha, Shri Om Birla Ji (Speaker, Lok Sabha; BJP, Kota, Rajasthan) commenced the proceedings of the House with Question Hour.
1. Smt. Shambhavi (LJSP (RV), Bihar) requested the extension of the Muzaffarpur-Anand Vihar Sapt Kranti Express to Samastipur to utilize idle rakes. In response, Shri Ashwini Vaishnaw (Union Minister, Ministry of Railways) highlighted record investments, noting that 76,352 special trains were operated in the past financial year and consequential accidents reached a 50-year low. He assured that the specific request would be examined.
In Lok Sabha, Shri Nityanand Rai (MoS, Ministry of Home Affairs) moved a resolution to introduce the Andhra Pradesh Reorganisation (Amendment) Bill, 2026, which seeks to recognize Amaravati as the sole capital of Andhra Pradesh.
1. Shri Shrikant Eknath Shinde (SS, Kalyan, Maharashtra) supported the Bill, calling Amaravati’s recognition as capital a long-awaited step that fulfils public and farmer aspirations, boosts economic growth, infrastructure, and jobs, and ensures inclusive development through land pooling.
2. Shri Nityanand Rai (MoS, Ministry of Home Affairs; BJP, Ujiarpur, Bihar) defended the Bill, explaining that it modifies Section 5(2) to give statutory effect to the State Assembly’s resolution and clarify Amaravati’s recognition as the capital.
Shri Om Birla Ji (Speaker, Lok Sabha; BJP, Kota, Rajasthan), put the motion to a vote, and Andhra Pradesh Reorganisation (Amendment) Bill, 2026, was passed by majority via voice vote.
Following this, Shri Pankaj Chaudhary (MoS, Ministry of Finance) moved a statutory resolution to impose a Special Additional Excise Duty on Aviation Turbine Fuel (ATF) at the rate of ₹ 50 per litre. The house adopted the statutory resolution.
In the Lok Sabha, Shri Piyush Goyal (Union Minister, Ministry of Commerce and Industry; BJP, Mumbai North, Maharashtra) moved the Jan Vishwas (Amendment of Provisions) Bill, 2026, for consideration.
1. Shri Tejasvi Surya (BJP, Bangalore South, Karnataka) supported the Bill, calling it the largest decriminalisation exercise, removing over 1,000 offences across 79 laws, and argued that eliminating penalties for minor procedural lapses would reduce compliance burdens rooted and boost entrepreneurship, ease of living, and economic growth.
2. Shri Chamala Kiran Kumar Reddy (INC, Bhongir, Telangana) opposed the Bill, stating that replacing imprisonment with fines weakens deterrence and accountability, risks public safety, and undermines safeguards for farmers and artisans.
Replying to the discussion on the Jan Vishwas (Amendment of Provisions) Bill, 2026, Shri Piyush Goyal (Union Minister, Ministry of Commerce and Industry; BJP, North Mumbai, Maharashtra) described the bill as a reform to simplify laws, replace minor penalties with warnings or fines, and promote “trusting citizens.” He noted it decriminalizes over 1,000 provisions across 79 central Acts, easing court burdens and benefiting Micro Small and Medium Enterprises (MSMEs) farmers, artisans, and rural workers, while sensitive sectors remain regulated. Citing measures like self-certification, single-window licensing, faceless income tax assessments, Goods and Services Tax (GST) collections, and Direct Benefit Transfer (DBT), he said the Bill shifts governance from a “culture of punishment” to one of “trust and responsibility,” empowering citizens and boosting economic activity.
Following this, the motion to pass the Jan Vishwas (Amendment of Provisions) Bill, 2026,was moved, adopted by the House, and the Bill was declared passed in the Lok Sabha.
In the Lok Sabha, the Zero Hour was taken up where several urgent matters were raised.
1. Shri Awadesh Prasad (SP, Faizabad, Uttar Pradesh) highlighted the ongoing issue of unpaid wages under the Mahatma Gandhi National Rural Employment Guarantee Act, 2005, and urged the Government to ensure timely payments, raise wages to match inflation since 2008, and increase the guaranteed work period from 125 to 200 days annually.
2. Smt. Hema Malini (BJP, Mathura, Uttar Pradesh) emphasized the importance of protecting art and culture, sharing her five decades of service as a classical dancer, and criticized West Bengal authorities for canceling her ballet “Draupadi,” calling for politics to be kept out of cultural support and for measures to safeguard artists and their work.
In the Rajya Sabha, Shri C.P. Radhakrishnan Ji (Chairman, Rajya Sabha) commenced the proceedings of the house and Papers and Reports were laid on the table of the house.
Following this, matters raised with permission were taken up in the Rajya Sabha.
1. Shri S. Selvaganabathy (BJP, Puducherry) noted Puducherry’s high Gross Enrolment Ratio (61.1%) but the absence of premier institutions like Indian Institutes of Information Technology (IIITs) and Indian Institute of Management (IIMs). He proposed an IIIT and a Central Institute of Marine Sciences to boost the blue economy and urged expansion of PM Shri schools.
2. Shri Digvijaya Singh (INC, Madhya Pradesh) raised concerns over declining SC/ST representation at Jawaharlal Nehru University (JNU), irregular faculty recruitment, and delayed promotions, urging the Government to uphold social justice and inclusivity in central universities.
Following this, Shri C.P. Radhakrishnan Ji (Chairman, Rajya Sabha) commenced the Question Hour in the Rajya Sabha.
1. Shri Govindbhai Dholakia (BJP, Gujarat) inquired about measures to strengthen Early Childhood Care and Education (ECCE) through Anganwadi centres. In response, Smt. Annpurna Devi (Union Minister, Ministry of Women and Child Development; BJP, Kodarma, Jharkhand) replied that under New Education Policy (NEP) 2020, the ‘Poshan Bhi Padhayi Bhi’ initiative integrates nutrition with play-based learning for children aged 3–6, using curricula like ‘Aadharshila’ and learning kits in Saksham Anganwadis.
2. Shri Sanjay Seth (BJP, Uttar Pradesh) inquired about upgradation of Industrial Training Institutes (ITIs) near Defence Industrial Corridors and their industry linkage for employment. In response, Shri Jayant Chaudhary (MoS (IC), Ministry of Skill Development & Entrepreneurship; RLD, Uttar Pradesh) replied that defence manufacturing is being strengthened through Corridors in Uttar Pradesh and Tamil Nadu, supported by a ₹ 7,000 crore ITI modernisation scheme and ₹ 10,000 crore from Corporate Social Responsibility.
In the Rajya Sabha, Shri Pankaj Chaudhary (MoS, Ministry of Finance) moved a statutory resolution to impose a Special Additional Excise Duty on Aviation Turbine Fuel (ATF) at the rate of ₹ 50 per litre. The house adopted the statutory resolution.
In the Rajya Sabha, Shri C.P. Radhakrishnan Ji (Chairman, Rajya Sabha) announced further discussion on The Central Armed Police Forces (General Administration) Bill, 2026.
1. Shri Saket Gokhale (AITC, West Bengal) opposed the Bill, arguing that the combat-focused Central Armed Police Forces (CAPF) is closer to the Armed Forces than civilian police and criticized the “top-heavy” structure favoring Indian Police Services (IPS) officers. Citing 1,100 CAPF deaths versus 40 IPS in 20 years, he warned that sidelining internal veterans risks politicizing national security.
2. Shri Brij Lal (BJP, Uttar Pradesh) supported the Bill, calling it essential for a uniform framework and reduced service litigation. He defended the Indian Police Service (IPS) as the “steel frame,” noted officer sacrifices, highlighted the 33% state-promoted quota, and said it ensures consistency and safeguards across the Central Armed Police Forces (CAPF).
Replying to the discussion on the Central Armed Police Forces (General Administration) Bill, 2026, Shri Nityanand Rai (Minister of State, Ministry of Home Affairs; Bharatiya Janata Party, Ujiarpur, Bihar) said the Bill unifies rules for the Border Security Force (BSF), Central Reserve Police Force (CRPF), Central Industrial Security Force (CISF), Indo-Tibetan Border Police (ITBP), and Sashastra Seema Bal (SSB), covering recruitment, promotions, and benefits, while deputations from the Army and Indian Police Service (IPS) ensure coordination. He highlighted faster recruitment, improved infrastructure, housing, and training, boosting readiness against terrorism and Naxalism, and urged members to pass the Bill for force welfare and national security.
Following the discussion, the motion to pass The Central Armed Police Forces (General Administration) Bill, 2026, was moved, adopted by the House, and the Bill was declared passed in the Rajya Sabha.
In the Rajya Sabha, Shri Harsh Malhotra (MoS, Ministry of Corporate Affairs; BJP, NCT of Delhi) moved the motion to consider the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code (IBC) Amendment Bill, 2026 and a discussion on the same was undertaken
1. Shri Sukhendu Sekhar Ray (AITC, West Bengal) opposed the Bill, citing low National Company Law Tribunal (NCLT) resolution rates, heavy creditor haircuts, and ₹8 lakh crore losses for nationalized banks. He criticized the Corporate Insolvency Resolution Process (CIRP) for bypassing judicial oversight, granting excessive Executive power, and risking public funds, calling the proposed 40-day admission timeline unrealistic due to National Company Law Appellate Tribunal (NCLAT) vacancies.
2. Shri Surendra Singh Nagar (BJP, Uttar Pradesh) supported the Bill noting that earlier frameworks like the Sick Industrial Companies Act (SICA) and the Board for Industrial and Financial Reconstruction (BIFR) had near-zero recovery rates and NPAs. He highlighted that the IBC shifted control from debtors to creditors, ensuring defaults carry real consequences.
Replying to the discussion on the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code (IBC) Amendment Bill, 2026, Smt. Nirmala Sitharaman (Union Minister, Ministry of Corporate Affairs; Bharatiya Janata Party, Karnataka) stated that the IBC, 2016 has significantly improved creditor recovery from 26.5% to 71.6%, aiming to rescue viable businesses while preventing defaulting promoters from regaining control. She explained that the amendments expedite insolvency through Information Utilities (IUs), set statutory timelines, strengthen creditor oversight, and introduce a Creditor-Initiated Insolvency Framework, including group and cross-border insolvency rules with a 150-day resolution timeline and out-of-court initiation. She also highlighted enforcement under the Code, including numerous bank fraud investigations, arrests, and recovery of substantial assets, helping keep Gross Non-Performing Assets (Gross NPAs) low.
Following the discussion, the motion to pass the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code (IBC) Amendment Bill, 2026 was moved, adopted by the House, and the Bill was declared passed in the Rajya Sabha.
The proceedings of Lok Sabha and Rajya Sabha were adjourned at8:01 PM and 6:35 PM, 1^st April, 2026, respectively, to reconvene at 11:00 A.M on Thursday, 2^nd April, 2026.
Subscribe now

I. Lok Sabha Proceedings:

The proceedings of the Lok Sabha commenced at 11:00 AM.
Shri Om Birla Ji (Speaker, Lok Sabha; BJP, Kota, Rajasthan) presided over the proceedings of the House and commenced the Question Hour amidst protests by Opposition members against the Foreign Contribution (Regulation) Amendment Bill, 2026.
Smt. Shambhavi (LJSP (RV), Samastipur (SC), Bihar) asked whether the Ministry of Railways would consider extending the Muzaffarpur–Anand Vihar Sapt Kranti Express up to Samastipur, noting that the train’s rake remains idle at Muzaffarpur for nearly 11 hours. She stated that utilising this idle rake could improve connectivity and enhance passenger convenience, particularly for travel to Delhi from her constituency.
1. In response, Shri Ashwini Vaishnaw (Union Minister, Ministry of Railways; BJP, Odisha) highlighted record investments in railways, noting that in the previous fiscal year 76,352 special trains were operated, that about 25,000 trains run daily, and freight loading reached 1,670 million metric tonnes. He also stated that only 16 consequential accidents were recorded, the lowest in 50 years, and that locomotive manufacturing reached 1,914 units. He added that the specific request regarding the Sapt Kranti Express would be examined and that he would gather the necessary details and revert to the Member.
Amid persistent interruptions by opposition members during the Question Hour, Shri Kiren Rijiju (Union Minister, Ministry of Parliamentary Affairs; BJP, Arunachal West, Arunachal Pradesh), clarified that the Foreign Contribution (Regulation) Amendment Bill, 2026 listed for the day was not being taken up for consideration and called upon Members to avoid creating confusion on the issue.
Despite this clarification, disruptions by the opposition continued, following which the proceedings of the House were adjourned at 11:05 AM to reconvene at 12:00 PM.
The proceedings of the house resumed at 12:00 PM with Shri Om Birla Ji (Speaker, Lok Sabha; BJP, Kota, Rajasthan) presiding over the House.
Shri Om Birla Ji (Speaker, Lok Sabha; BJP, Kota, Rajasthan) emphasised that all Members would be given adequate opportunity to speak, provided they maintained order in the House. He reiterated that the House functioned through discussion, dialogue, agreement and disagreement, and urged Members to participate constructively. He also cautioned that Members who spoke and left immediately thereafter would not be given priority in future.
Shri Nityanand Rai (MoS, Ministry of Home Affairs; BJP, Ujiarpur, Bihar) moved for leave to introduce the Andhra Pradesh Reorganisation (Amendment) Bill, 2026, seeking to recognise Amaravati as the sole capital of Andhra Pradesh. The House adopted the motion through voice vote following which the bill was introduced.
Shri Pankaj Chaudhary (MoS, Ministry of Finance; BJP, Maharajganj, Uttar Pradesh) moved a statutory resolution to approve Notification No. 7 of 2026 issued under the Finance Act, 2002, read with the Central Excise Act, 1944, relating to imposition of Special Additional Excise Duty on Aviation Turbine Fuel (ATF) at the rate of ₹ 50 per litre.
1. Shri Asaduddin Owaisi (AIMIM, Hyderabad, Telangana) sought a discussion on the issue, citing its implications for prices and broader economic concerns, including international developments.
2. Shri Om Birla Ji (Speaker, Lok Sabha; BJP, Kota, Rajasthan) stated that the matter would be considered and subsequently put the resolution to vote.
3. The House adopted the statutory resolution.
With the consent of the House, it was decided that a two-hour discussion would be held on the Andhra Pradesh Reorganisation (Amendment) Bill, 2026, following which the discussion commenced.
1. Shri B. Manickam Tagore (INC, Virudhunagar, Tamil Nadu) supported the Bill and affirmed Amaravati as the capital of Andhra Pradesh. He, however, stressed the need to ensure justice and fulfil commitments made during the bifurcation of the state. He highlighted that provisions under the Act, including financial support and incentives for backward regions, remain inadequately implemented, raising concerns over funding for Amaravati and industrial support. He further emphasised that the demand for Special Category Status, assured in Parliament, remains unfulfilled, affecting investment and employment. He concluded by stating that while supporting the Bill, it is essential to ensure full implementation of statutory commitments and promote balanced development in Andhra Pradesh.
2. Dr. Daggubati Purandeswari (BJP, Rajamahendravaram, Andhra Pradesh) supported the Bill, stating that Amaravati represents not just a capital city but issues of justice, constitutional fairness, and the aspirations of the people of Andhra Pradesh. She highlighted that after bifurcation in 2014, Andhra Pradesh was left without a developed capital, and Amaravati emerged as a “people’s capital” with nearly 29,000 farmers pooling around 34,000 acres of land. She further highlighted Central support for infrastructure and stressed that statutory recognition of Amaravati is essential for stability, investor confidence, and the State’s long-term development.
3. Shri Shrikant Eknath Shinde (SS, Kalyan, Maharashtra) supported the Bill, stating that recognising Amaravati as the capital is a long-awaited and significant step that fulfils the aspirations of the people and farmers of Andhra Pradesh. He noted that the demand for a permanent capital had been consistently raised and that the decision provides clarity and direction to the State’s governance and development. He emphasised that a stable and well-planned capital would drive economic growth, infrastructure development, and employment generation. Referring to land pooling models, including experiences from Maharashtra, he highlighted the importance of public participation in ensuring inclusive development
4. Shri Nityanand Rai (BJP, Ujiarpur, Bihar) stated that the Andhra Pradesh Reorganisation (Amendment) Bill, 2026 had been placed before the House, with broad support emerging during discussions. He highlighted that the Andhra Pradesh Legislative Assembly’s resolution of 28^thMarch, 2026 sought statutory recognition of Amaravati as the State’s capital. He explained that under the Andhra Pradesh Reorganisation Act, 2014 a new capital was to be established, and Amaravati had already been notified as the capital on 23^rd April, 2015. The amendment seeks to modify Section 5(2) and related provisions to give statutory effect to the Assembly’s resolution, clarifying that Amaravati would be recognised as the capital from 2^nd June, 2014
5. Shri Rajesh Ranjan alias Pappu Yadav (Independent, Purnia, Bihar) stated that legislation must prioritise the economic and political security of Dalits, farmers, and Scheduled Tribes, ensuring their protection and inclusion in development policies. He referred to past developments, acknowledging the roles of Chief Minister Shri N. Chandrababu Naidu and Smt. Sonia Gandhi (INC, Rajasthan) in the creation of Telangana and the reorganisation process, which he said reflected responsible political decision-making
Following this, Shri Piyush Goyal (Union Minister, Ministry of Commerce and Industry; BJP, Mumbai North, Maharashtra) moved that the Jan Vishwas (Amendment of Provisions) Bill, 2026 be taken into consideration. He stated that the bill aimed to enhance ease of doing business and ease of living by decriminalising minor offences and proposed amendments to 79 Central Acts administered by 23 ministries. Following this, a discussion on the Bill commenced.
1. Shri Chamala Kiran Kumar Reddy (INC, Bhongir, Telangana) opposed the Bill, arguing that replacing imprisonment with monetary penalties weakens accountability and deterrence. He raised concerns that reduced punishments under various laws could endanger public safety, infrastructure, and women’s security. He further highlighted that the Bill adversely affects farmers and artisans by weakening existing safeguards. He concluded that the Bill risks undermining the rule of law by allowing offenders to escape liability through fines and urged its reconsideration.
2. Shri Tejasvi Surya (BJP, Bangalore South, Karnataka) supported the Bill, describing it as the largest decriminalisation exercise in independent India, removing over 1,000 minor offences across 79 laws to shift governance from a suspicion-based to a trust-based framework. Responding to criticism, he noted that the earlier system had over 26,000 criminal provisions and 69,000 compliance requirements under a licence-permit regime that hindered growth. He highlighted that the Bill includes measures to relax driving licence norms and ensure timely ex-gratia compensation, reducing unnecessary burdens on citizens while fostering enterprise and economic development.
3. Shri N. K. Premachandran (RSP, Kollam, Kerala) critically examined the Bill, raising procedural concerns that the Select Committee exceeded its mandate by expanding the scope beyond the original Bill without proper authority. He argued that combining amendments to multiple laws into a single Bill limits detailed parliamentary scrutiny and requires clarification from the Speaker. On substance, he supported decriminalisation for minor offences but cautioned against a blanket approach, stressing that serious violations must retain strict penalties. He concluded that reforms should balance ease of business with labour rights, social equity, and adherence to constitutional and parliamentary principles.
4. Shri Jagdambika Pal (BJP, Domariyagunj, Uttar Pradesh) supported the Bill, emphasising that it has undergone extensive parliamentary scrutiny through a Select Committee that held 49 meetings and conducted detailed consultations, and argued that opposing it now undermines consensus. He stated that the Bill addresses over-criminalisation in India’s legal system, where hundreds of laws contain thousands of minor offences that unnecessarily attract criminal punishment. He explained that even trivial violations earlier led to imprisonment and repeated court visits, particularly affecting vulnerable individuals, and noted that such provisions contribute to a large judicial backlog of over 3.6 crore cases. He concluded that the Bill is a historic reform that removes outdated colonial provisions, reduces unnecessary criminal liability, improves ease of doing business and living, and creates a more efficient and citizen-friendly legal system.
5. Shri Piyush Goyal (Union Minister, Minister of Commerce and Industry; BJP, North Mumbai, Maharashtra) responded to the debate on the The Jan Vishwas (Amendment of Provisions) Bill, 2026. He defended the Jan Vishwas Bill, 2026, describing it as a transformative reform aimed at simplifying laws, reducing undue penal provisions, and aligning governance with a philosophy of “trusting citizens.”
  1. The Minister linked the bill to Prime Minister Shri Narendra Modi Ji’s vision articulated on 15^th August, 2022, during the 75^th year of independence, particularly the “Panch Pran” initiative. He explained that the legislation operationalises this vision by promoting ease of living and ease of doing business, moving away from a colonial mindset of control and punishment toward a modern framework of empowerment.
  2. He argued that many existing laws, including the Court Fees Act, 1870, Cattle Trespass Act, 1871, Presidency Small Cause Courts Act, 1882, Livestock Importation Act, 1898, and Indian Succession Act, 1925, are relics of the colonial era and treat minor procedural violations as criminal offences. He stated that this punitive approach created unnecessary litigation, public distress, and a “culture of fear” rather than compliance.
  3. He stressed that the bill introduces a graded approach to penalties, replacing imprisonment for minor, technical, or procedural lapses with warnings or monetary fines, while serious or repeated offences will still attract legal action. This proportional approach, he argued, allows individuals to correct mistakes without harsh punishment.
  4. Providing concrete figures, Shri Goyal noted that the bill impacts 79 central Acts and seeks to rationalise or decriminalise over 1,000 provisions, building on the 2023 version that amended 183 provisions across 42 Acts. He added that over 1,500 obsolete laws have been repealed in recent years, significantly reducing court burdens and preventing citizens from being entangled in litigation for trivial issues.
  5. The Minister highlighted systemic improvements under the Government, such as self-certification instead of notarised affidavits, single-window licensing, and faceless income tax assessments, where nearly 99% of returns are processed efficiently, often with refunds issued within weeks. He also cited GST collections exceeding ₹ 2 lakh crore in a single month as evidence of improved compliance and economic strength.
  6. He emphasised that the bill would particularly benefit MSMEs, small traders, farmers, artisans, and rural workers, who face disproportionate compliance burdens. He cited examples from textiles, handlooms, silk production, tea plantations, and cottage industries across Assam, West Bengal, Tamil Nadu, Kerala, Maharashtra, and Gujarat, noting that minor procedural lapses previously exposed individuals to criminal liability. Decriminalising such provisions, he argued, reduces harassment, compliance costs, and fear among small economic actors.
  7. He clarified that sensitive sectors, such as pharmaceuticals, remain strictly regulated; serious offences under the Drugs and Cosmetics Act will continue to attract strict penalties, while only minor procedural lapses have been rationalised to ensure public safety is not compromised. He also explained that administrative efficiency has improved, as minor violations are now handled through adjudicating officers and appellate authorities in a time-bound manner.
  8. In a broader governance context, Shri Goyal contrasted the bill with earlier regimes that relied on control, bureaucracy, and punitive enforcement. He cited the Direct Benefit Transfer system through Jan Dhan–Aadhaar–Mobile as an example of trust-based governance.
  9. In conclusion, he described the Jan Vishwas Bill as part of a philosophical shift from a “culture of punishment” to a “culture of trust and responsibility.” By reducing unnecessary criminal provisions, simplifying compliance, and empowering citizens, he argued, the bill would enhance economic activity, reduce judicial burden, and improve everyday life. He urged the House to pass it unanimously, presenting it as a key step toward a developed, efficient, and citizen-centric India by 2047.
6. The Chair moved that the motion to take the Jan Vishwas (Amendment of Provisions) Bill, 2026 into consideration be adopted, which was accepted by the House. The Bill was then taken up for detailed consideration clause by clause. Following this, the motion to pass the Bill was moved, adopted by the House, and the Bill was declared passed.
Following this, the Chair announced the commencement of the Zero Hour.
1. Shri Awadesh Prasad (SP, Faizabad, Uttar Pradesh) highlighted the ongoing crisis of unpaid wages under the Mahatma Gandhi National Rural Employment Employment Guarantee Act, 2005 noting that ₹ 28 crore remain pending in Barabanki alone, affecting laborers nationwide. He criticized the Government for renaming the scheme without ensuring timely payments and urged immediate action to clear all dues. He also called for wage increases to match inflation since 2008 and, on behalf of the Samajwadi Party, demanded that the guaranteed work period be raised from 125 to 200 days annually.
2. Smt. Hema Malini (BJP, Mathura, Uttar Pradesh) spoke on the importance of art and culture, sharing her five decades of service as a classical dancer and promoter of India’s heritage. She expressed concern over West Bengal’s cultural climate, recounting how her dance ballet “Draupadi,” was canceled and later denied at an alternate venue under dubious excuses. She noted this has been a recurring issue for eight to nine years, contrasting it with the Central and Uttar Pradesh Governments, which support artists without political bias. She urged that politics should not interfere with culture and called on West Bengal authorities to safeguard artists and their work.
3. Shri Ganesh Singh (BJP, Satna, Madhya Pradesh) raised the long-standing demand to include certain Majhi tribe sub-groups, Keval, Mallah, Bhoi, and Dhimar, under the Scheduled Tribes category. He noted that historical records from 1950 recommended their inclusion, but they were omitted, denying them constitutional and legal rights. Shri Singh outlined administrative steps taken since 2018, including state recommendations and referrals to the Ministry of Tribal Affairs and the Census Commissioner. He urged the Central Government to review historical records and issue a formal notification to ensure the social and legal empowerment of these communities.
4. Shri Vishnu Dayal Ram (BJP, Palamu, Jharkhand) requested the Union Minister of Railways to construct overbridges or underpasses at several railway crossings, highlighting that the closure of unmanned crossings is dividing villages and causing severe commuting difficulties. He listed affected locations and requested the Hon’ble Minister for construction of Road Over Bridge (ROB), Road Under Bridge (RUB) and Limited Height Subways (LHS) in such areas.
5. Shri Dhairya Sheel Sambhajirao Mane (SS, Hatkanangle, Maharashtra) highlighted the disparity in Liquified Petroleum Gas (LPG) delivery times, noting that urban areas receive cylinders in 25 days while rural areas wait 45 days. He urged the Government to standardize delivery at 25 days nationwide. He further raised concerns over discontinued rural biogas subsidies, citing Kolhapur as a leader in biogas initiatives, and suggested linking ethanol production to sugarcane farmers to support their income and energy initiatives. He concluded by calling for social justice for rural communities through immediate equalization of LPG delivery times.
1. The proceedings of the Lok Sabha were adjourned at 8:01 PM to reconvene at 11:00 A.M on Thursday, 2^ndApril, 2026.

III. Rajya Sabha Proceedings:

The proceedings of the Rajya Sabha commenced at 11:00 AM.
Papers and Reports were laid on the table of the house. Following this, matters raised with permission were taken up.
1. Shri Javed Ali Khan (SP, Uttar Pradesh) raised concerns over repeated violations of Department of Personnel and Training (DoPT) guidelines and the Warrant of Precedence in Uttar Pradesh, alleging that Opposition representatives are being excluded from official functions despite mandated protocols. He cited multiple instances and urged the Government to ensure inclusion of all elected representatives or amend the rules if such exclusion is intentional.
2. Shri Sadanand Mhalu Shet Tanavade (BJP, Goa) raised concerns over delays in the upgradation of NH-66 (Mumbai–Goa corridor), citing issues such as land acquisition, clearances, and contractor delays, and urged the Government to expedite completion with a clear timeline before the monsoon.
3. Shri Digvijaya Singh (INC, Madhya Pradesh) raised concerns over the erosion of reservation policies at Jawaharlal Nehru University (JNU), citing a decline in Schedule Caste/Schedule Tribe student representation, irregularities in faculty recruitment, and delays in promotions, and urged the Government to ensure adherence to social justice and inclusivity in central universities.
4. Shri S. Selvaganabathy (BJP, Puducherry) highlighted Puducherry’s high Gross Enrolment Ratio of 61.1% and strong educational base, but noted the absence of premier national institutions like Indian Institutes of Information Technology (IIITs) and Indian Institute of Management (IIMs). He proposed establishing an IIIT and a Central Institute of Marine Sciences to leverage coastal potential and strengthen the blue economy, and also urged expansion of PM Shri schools in the Union Territory.
5. Shri Chunnilal Garasiya (BJP, Rajasthan) drew attention to the Dharti Aba Janjati Gram Utkarsh Abhiyan, highlighting its large-scale focus on transforming tribal-majority villages through multi-sectoral interventions. He emphasised that tribal districts in Rajasthan require improved road connectivity, drinking water, healthcare, and other essential services to ensure inclusive development.
Shri Mallikarjun Kharge (LoP; INC, Karnataka) raised concerns over rising prices of LPG, gas, and other essential commodities, and stated that he had sought a short-duration discussion under Rule 176 to address inflationary pressures. He argued that while global economic challenges persist, the Government appeared reluctant to allocate adequate time for a detailed discussion, and emphasised the need for democratic debate and consideration of Opposition suggestions.
1. Shri Kiren Rijiju (Union Minister, Ministry of Parliamentary Affairs; BJP, Arunachal West, Arunachal Pradesh), stated that the issue had already been discussed in the Business Advisory Committee and that detailed statements had been made by the Prime Minister and the Finance Minister in both Houses. He noted that an all-party meeting had also been convened to deliberate on the global crisis, though some Opposition leaders were absent. He further highlighted measures taken by the Government, including reduction in excise duties, and asserted that India has managed the situation better than many countries. He emphasised that during a global crisis, there is a need for unity rather than partisan politics.
Following this, Shri C.P. Radhakrishnan Ji (Chairman, Rajya Sabha) commenced the Question Hour.
1. Shri Pradeep Verma (BJP, Jharkhand) sought details on the progress of the National Action Plan for Drug Demand Reduction (NAPDR) and the ‘Nasha Mukt Bharat Abhiyan’ in Jharkhand, emphasising the importance of treatment, rehabilitation, and social reintegration for individuals affected by drug addiction. He also inquired about the reach and outcomes of these initiatives in the state.
  1. In response, Dr. Virendra Kumar (Union Minister, Ministry of Social Justice and Empowerment; BJP, Tikamgarh (SC) Madhya Pradesh) stated that the ‘Nasha Mukt Bharat Abhiyan’, launched in 2020, has evolved into a nationwide movement. He informed that 15 districts in Jharkhand are covered under the programme, supported by rehabilitation centres and outreach initiatives, benefiting thousands of individuals. He further noted that over ₹ 3.63 crore has been sanctioned for the state under NAPDR, with a strong focus on community awareness and institutional participation.
2. Shri Govindbhai Dholakia (BJP, Gujarat) inquired about the specific measures being taken by the Government to strengthen Early Childhood Care and Education (ECCE) through the network of Anganwadi centers. He sought details on initiatives aimed at improving the foundational learning and holistic development of young children across the country.
  1. In response, Smt. Annpurna Devi (Union Minister, Ministry of Women and Child Development; BJP, Kodarma, Jharkhand) stated that the Ministry has prioritised Early Childhood Care and Education (ECCE) in line with the National Education Policy (NEP) 2020. Through the ‘Poshan Bhi Padhayi Bhi’ initiative, targeted efforts have been made to support children aged 3–6 years by integrating nutritional support with play-based, early childhood learning. She noted the introduction of specialised curricula, including ‘Aadharshila’, and the use of audio-visual tools, educational content, and learning kits in Saksham Anganwadis to enhance engagement.
3. Shri Mahendra Bhatt (BJP, Uttarakhand) raised concerns regarding the welfare, honorarium, and social security benefits of Anganwadi workers and helpers.
  1. In response, Smt. Annpurna Devi (Union Minister, Ministry of Women and Child Development; BJP, Kodarma, Jharkhand) stated that the Government is improving the service conditions of 13.89 lakh Anganwadi workers and helpers, with periodic honorarium revisions supported by states. She stated that Anganwadi workers and helpers receive 30 days of annual leave, 180 days of paid maternity leave, and 45 days of medical leave, along with insurance under Pradhan Mantri Jeevan Jyoti Bima Yojana (PMJJBY) and Pradhan Mantri Suraksha Bima Yojana (PMSBY), and ₹ 5 lakh health cover under Ayushman Bharat PM-JAY. Additionally, 50% of Supervisor posts are reserved for experienced workers, and steps have been taken to reduce administrative duties like Booth Level Officer (BLO) work, enabling them to focus on core services.
4. Shri Sanjay Seth (BJP, Uttar Pradesh) inquired about the upgradation of Industrial Training Institute (ITIs) near Defence Industrial Corridors and their linkage with industry for employment generation.
  1. In response, Shri Jayant Chaudhary (MoS (IC), Ministry of Skill Development & Entrepreneurship; RLD, Uttar Pradesh) stated that the Government is strengthening defence manufacturing through Defence Industrial Corridors in Uttar Pradesh and Tamil Nadu. He noted the alignment of ITIs with defence needs, along with a Centre of Excellence at the National Skill Training Institute (NSTI), Kanpur, and a Letter of Intent (LoI) with France for aeronautics training.
5. Shri Pramod Tiwari (INC, Rajasthan) raised concerns about the state of education in Uttar Pradesh, noting its low ranking in a recent survey. He highlighted that an Industrial Training Institute (ITI) in Lalganj, Pratapgarh, remains non-functional despite being completed, due to a lack of staff, and urged the Government to ensure its operationalisation.
  1. In response, Shri Jayant Chaudhary (MoS (IC), Ministry of Skill Development & Entrepreneurship; RLD, Uttar Pradesh) clarified that while affiliation is provided by the Directorate General of Training, administrative and financial responsibilities lie with State Governments. He informed that a ‘National Steering-cum-Strategic Advisory and Reform Task Force’ has been constituted to address such issues and assured that the concerns regarding the Pratapgarh ITI would be examined.
Shri Pankaj Chaudhary (MoS, Ministry of Finance; BJP, Maharajganj, Uttar Pradesh) moved a statutory resolution to approve Notification No. 7 of 2026 issued under the Finance Act, 2002, read with the Central Excise Act, 1944, relating to imposition of Special Additional Excise Duty on Aviation Turbine Fuel (ATF) at the rate of ₹ 50 per litre. The House adopted the statutory resolution through a voice vote.
Shri C.P. Radhakrishnan Ji (Chairman, Rajya Sabha) announced further discussion on The Central Armed Police Forces (General Administration) Bill, 2026.
1. Shri Saket Gokhale (AITC, West Bengal) strongly opposed the Bill, calling for its withdrawal and arguing that the Central Armed Police Forces (CAPF)’s combat-heavy role is more aligned with the Armed Forces than civilian police. He criticized the “top-heavy” structure favoring external Indian Police Services (IPS) officers, noting that 1,100 Central Armed Police Force (CAPF) officers died in the line of duty over 20 years compared to 40 IPS officers. Highlighting the operational burden of deploying 2,400 CAPF companies during the 2024 West Bengal elections, he warned that sidelining internal veterans in favor of external appointees risks politicizing national security.
2. Shri Brij Lal (BJP, Uttar Pradesh) supported the Bill to establish a uniform administrative framework and reduce service litigation. Defending the IPS leadership as the “steel frame” envisioned by Sardar Vallabhbhai Patel, he noted the martyrdom of high-ranking officers in Punjab, Mizoram, and during the 26/11 Mumbai attacks. He highlighted the 33% quota for state-promoted officers within the system and concluded that the Bill is essential for legal consistency and professional safeguards across the CAPF.
3. Dr. Fauzia Khan (NCP-SCP, Maharashtra) raised critical concerns regarding the Bill, highlighting severe promotional stagnation where Assistant Commandants serve over 16 years without promotion. She urged the Government to empower internal cadre officers for ground operations instead of relying on external IPS officers. Additionally, she demanded a concrete roadmap to make India “Naxal-free” by March 2026 and questioned how the Bill would ensure command-level roles for women to achieve genuine gender parity.
4. Shri Mayankkumar Nayak (BJP, Gujarat) supported the bill. He argued that a uniform law is essential for the morale and service conditions of nearly 10 lakh personnel and requested clarity on how the legislation will ensure better career progression and parity for cadre officers. Recalling the 2010 Dantewada incident where 76 jawans were martyred, he linked past tragedies to fragmented command structures and lauded the current reduction in Naxalite violence. Nayak concluded by seeking further details on the Government’s modernization efforts and the expansion of welfare schemes, specifically in housing and healthcare, for jawans and their families.
5. Smt. Priyanka Chaturvedi (SS-UBT, Maharashtra) expressed significant concerns regarding the Bill, suggesting it be referred to a Select Committee to resolve the ongoing friction between the IPS and CAPF cadres. She cited a Supreme Court judgment (Sanjay Prakash & Others v. Union of India) directing the Ministry of Home Affairs to transition leadership roles to internal officers and argued that this Bill risks undermining judicial orders and demotivating the force. She highlighted the denial of Non-Functional Upgradation (NFU) benefits to CAPF officers despite favorable rulings from the Delhi High Court and Supreme Court. She specifically criticized clauses that allow the Government to modify recruitment and promotion rules through simple notifications and concluded by demanding fair promotions and the immediate filling of vacancies.
6. Shri Manan Kumar Mishra (BJP, Bihar) supported the Bill as a vital structural reform under Article 355 of the Constitution, providing a statutory framework for recruitment and promotion. He defended the formalized role of IPS officers in senior leadership for their expertise in inter-institutional coordination and counter-insurgency, attributing the near-elimination of Left-Wing Extremism to unified command structures seen in Operation Kagar and Operation Black Panther. To address career stagnation, he noted that the Bill creates senior posts for approximately 13,000 cadre officers. Regarding welfare and infrastructure, he cited the construction of 16,000 housing units (2019–2023) aimed at reaching a 74% housing satisfaction rate by 2025, and lauded “Modernization Plan-4,” which allocates ₹ 1,523 crore for advanced drones and protective gear.
7. Dr. Dharmshila Gupta (BJP, Bihar) expressed strong support for the Bill, describing it as a historic modernization effort focused on the welfare and financial stability of security personnel. Drawing on her experience in Bihar and Jharkhand, she highlighted the successful reduction of Naxal-affected districts from 216 in 2014 to 11 at present. She concluded by affirming the government’s target for the total eradication of Naxalism by March, 2026.
8. Shri Anil Sukhdeorao Bonde (BJP, Maharashtra) supported the Bill as a vital measure for national stability, citing the successful transformation of Naxal-affected regions like Gadchiroli through development and employment. He highlighted significant welfare milestones, noting that housing availability for personnel increased from 31% in 2014 to 73% in 2025, alongside the implementation of cashless healthcare via Ayushman cards. Additionally, he raised concerns regarding national security infrastructure, specifically pointing to the obstruction of border fencing projects in West Bengal due to local administrative challenges regarding land acquisition.
9. Smt. Rekha Sharma (BJP, Haryana) supported the Bill, contrasting the current administration’s welfare efforts with historical hardships faced by security families. She shared her personal struggle of being able to reside with her husband for only 5 years during his 23-year service due to a past lack of housing and educational facilities. She credited the Government for transformative improvements, specifically highlighting the implementation of the One Rank One Pension (OROP) scheme and enhanced living standards for those stationed at the borders.
10. Shri Parmar Jashvantsinh Salamsinh (BJP, Gujarat) supported the Bill, arguing that a robust and uniform regulatory framework is essential to maintain discipline and reduce service-related litigation within the CAPF. He credited the Government’s success in curbing Left-wing extremism to a comprehensive strategy combining security, development, and governance, which has dismantled Maoist leadership while expanding critical infrastructure like mobile towers and banking services in affected regions. He concluded by asserting that the CAPF, given its decisive role in national security and democratic processes, should no longer be subjected to fragmented and inconsistent administrative rules.
11. Shri Sat Paul Sharma (BJP, Jammu & Kashmir) expressed support for the Bill, asserting that the “CAPF 2026” initiative establishes a necessary unified command without imposing any additional burden on the Consolidated Fund of India. He contrasted the current security landscape with the 2010 Dantewada attack leading to the death of 76 CRPF personnels. Highlighting 2025 as a year of significant progress, he noted that total violent incidents dropped to 222 while over 1,225 individuals surrendered to join the mainstream. Additionally, he detailed a ₹ 1,523 crore allocation for modernization, including drones, advanced communication, and armored vehicles, and cited major infrastructure gains on the Bangladesh border, including 511 kilometers of fencing and 115 kilometers of floodlighting.
12. Shri Mokariya Rambhai (BJP, Gujarat) supported the bill describing it as a historic measure to unify the previously disparate administrative structures. He argued that the Bill replaces fragmented regulations with a transparent framework for recruitment, promotion, and welfare, effectively reducing bureaucratic delays in decision-making. Highlighting the integrity and efficiency of the forces, he cited an instance at Rajkot Airport where CRPF personnel recovered and returned a tourist’s watch worth ₹ 5 crore within ten minutes. Shri Rambhai emphasized that the legislation addresses long-overlooked issues such as grievance redressal and living standards for personnel in extreme environments, and he criticized the opposition’s stance as inconsistent, asserting that the Bill is vital for boosting the morale of the national security apparatus.
Replying to the discussion on the Central Armed Police Forces (CAPF) Bill, 2026, Shri Nityanand Rai (MoS, Ministry of Home Affairs; BJP, Ujiarpur, Bihar) informed the House that the legislation underwent extensive deliberation with and characterized the legislation as a strategic necessity to unify the disparate administrative rules governing the Border Security Force (BSF), Central Reserve Police Force (CRPF), Central Industrial Security Force (CISF), Indo-Tibetan Border Police (ITBP), and Sashastra Seema Bal (SSB)
1. He explained that as the scope of the Central Armed Police Forces has expanded over time, different rules and guidelines had created procedural inconsistencies. The Bill aims to provide a unified framework, particularly for the recruitment and service regulation of Group ‘A’ General Duty officers, resolving issues related to promotions, seniority, and financial benefits while maintaining operational efficiency and morale.
2. Reflecting on the vision of Sardar Vallabhbhai Patel, he highlighted that deploying officers on deputation, including from the Army and IPS, ensures coordination and leadership. The Bill empowers the Central Government to frame rules on recruitment, promotion, and seniority, with all rules laid before Parliament to ensure transparency. He clarified that the Bill strengthens the federal structure, as experienced officers from various states facilitate better Centre-state coordination, and confirmed that Parliament has full authority to legislate on these matters.
3. He addressed concerns about promotions, noting that Group ‘A’ officers typically receive four promotions, with some eligible for a fifth, and any delays are generally due to external factors such as court cases, seniority disputes, or vigilance clearances. He also highlighted broader reforms under the leadership of Prime Minister Shri Narendra Modi Ji and Home Minister Shri Amit Shah Ji, including faster and more transparent recruitment, reduced from nearly two years to 10–11 months, along with improvements in infrastructure, housing, and training facilities.
4. He underscored the impact of these measures on operational readiness, citing decisive responses to terrorism in Jammu and Kashmir and the near-eradication of Naxalism. Contrasting with earlier regimes, he noted that the current administration grants personnel the authority to respond effectively to threats, boosting morale and strengthening the paramilitary forces.
5. He concluded by urging members to pass the CAPF Bill, 2026, describing it as essential for the welfare of the forces, protection of national borders, and stability of internal security.
Following the Minister’s reply, Shri Mallikarjun Kharge (LoP, INC, Karnataka) expressed opposition to the Bill, asserting that the legislation is based on incomplete administrative data and fails to address the core needs of CAPF personnel who secure the nation’s borders and airports. He raised four primary objections, specifically criticizing the institutionalization of the deputation system, which he argued severely compromises the career progression and morale of internal cadre officers. He further contended that the Bill was drafted with a significant lack of consultation with key stakeholders and that its provisions are non-aligned with the spirit of existing judicial directives. He concluded by urging the Ministry of Home Affairs to provide a thorough response to these concerns, emphasizing that the gravity of national security demands a more inclusive and legally sound administrative framework.
Shri Jagat Prakash Nadda (Leader of the House, BJP, Gujarat), critiqued the procedural conduct of the opposition leadership, asserting a fundamental parliamentary distinction between participating in a debate and seeking brief clarifications following a Minister’s reply. He alleged that the opposition leader overstepped established protocols by delivering a formal statement instead of concise queries, characterizing the move as an irregularity. He further condemned the opposition for staging a walkout despite the Treasury Benches listening to their views in silence, arguing that such actions demonstrate a lack of respect for constitutional and parliamentary protocols and an evasion of substantive discussion. He concluded by commending the Minister for a comprehensive response, maintaining that all institutional and administrative concerns regarding the CAPF had been thoroughly addressed.
Shri Nityanand Rai (MoS, Ministry of Home Affairs; BJP, Ujiarpur, Bihar) introduced the motion for the consideration of the Central Armed Police Force General Administration Bill, 2026. Following a voice vote, the motion was formally adopted. The Bill then proceeded to a clause-by-clause review; Clauses 1 through 8, the First and Second Schedules, the Enacting Formula, and the Preamble were all put to a vote and agreed to by the House. Following this, the Bill was moved to a final voice vote and was thereby passed by the House.
Shri Harsh Malhotra (MoS, Ministry of Corporate Affairs; BJP, NCT of Delhi) moved the motion to consider the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code (IBC) Amendment Bill, 2026. He informed the House that the Bill, which seeks to further amend the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016, had already been successfully passed by the Lok Sabha. The Chair officially opened the floor for parliamentary deliberation among the listed members to discuss the proposed updates to the insolvency framework.
1. Dr. Radha Mohan Das Agrawal (BJP, Uttar Pradesh) supported the Bill, rebutting claims of undervalued asset sales by citing National Company Law Tribunal (NCLT) data showing realization at 94% of fair value and an actual haircut of just 6%. He highlighted the recovery of Gross Non-Performing Assets (NPAs) from 11.18% to 2.05% and Net NPAs to 0.48%, record bank profits of ₹ 4.01 lakh crore in 2024–25, and S&P Global’s upgrade of India’s insolvency framework. He noted that as of December 2025, 1,376 companies were resolved with recoveries of ₹ 4.11 lakh crore, and 30,000+ pre-admission settlements recovered ₹ 14.62 lakh crore, achieving 94.95% of fair value and 171.54% of liquidation value. Post-resolution, sales rose 89%, asset utilization 131%, and employment 200%, underlining the Bill’s role in strengthening economic discipline, credit culture, and banking stability.
2. Shri Sukhendu Sekhar Ray (AITC, West Bengal) opposed the bill and noted that only 3,865 of 8,659 NCLT cases were resolved by September 2025, with creditors facing haircuts of 67–83% and nationalized banks foregoing ₹ 8 lakh crore. He criticized the Corporate Insolvency Resolution Process (CIRP) for violating Article 14 by allowing financial institutions to initiate insolvency without judicial oversight, granting sweeping powers to the Executive, and discriminating against dissenting creditors. He warned that weak enforcement of Section 66, pre-planned auctions favoring crony capitalists, and classifying the Government as an unsecured creditor threaten public fund recovery. He concluded that the proposed 40-day admission timeline is unrealistic due to NCLT and National Company Law Appellate Tribunal (NCLAT) vacancies, risking misuse of the system for national asset looting.
3. Smt. Rajathi (DMK, Tamil Nadu) opposed the bill and raised concerns over the shift of legislative power code, arguing that cross-border rules should not bypass parliamentary scrutiny. She highlighted the NCLT’s infrastructure crisis, noting that 90% of staff are contractual and over 30,000 cases were pending as of March 2025, with average resolution times exceeding 700 days against the 330-day statutory limit. She stressed that the system is failing Micro, Small and Medium Enterprises (MSMEs) which contribute nearly 30% of India’s GDP, pointing out that the 2021 pre-pack framework admitted only 13 cases and resolved 5 by early 2025. Citing Tamil Nadu’s 2008 MSME policy managing 62 lakh units as a model, she urged the Government to strengthen NCLT capacity and ensure specialized protections for India’s 7.83 crore MSMEs..
4. Shri Sanjay Singh (AAP, Delhi) opposed the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code (Amendment) Bill, 2026, arguing that while the Government cited reduced NPAs and record bank profits, small creditors faced heavy haircuts and the NCLT has over 30,000 pending cases with delays exceeding 700 days. He highlighted high-profile defaulters like Vijay Mallya, Nirav Modi, and Lalit Modi, alleging selective enforcement and corporate favoritism. He concluded that the Bill fails to ensure transparency, accountability, and fairness for smaller stakeholders.
5. Shri Ayodhya Rami Reddy Alla (YSRCP, Andhra Pradesh) praised the IBC for promoting financial discipline but raised concerns over NCLT delays, with over 30,600 pending cases and timelines exceeding statutory limits, causing asset value loss. He noted MSMEs and operational creditors face heavy haircuts and minimal recoveries. He suggested reforms like measuring the economic cost of delays, a Committee of Creditors (CoC), and a minimum payout for small suppliers. He concluded that the system’s credibility depends on a judiciary that ensures fast, fair, and inclusive resolutions.
6. Shri Muzibulla Khan (BJD, Odisha) opposed the bill and criticized the removal of the Fast Track Insolvency Process, which he said would burden MSMEs and startups with lengthy, costly procedures. He noted that the new Creditor-Initiated Resolution Process might favor large creditors over smaller debtors. He recommended modernizing the Fast Track system, adding safeguards for small enterprises, and empowering the NCLT to ensure fair outcomes, while also strengthening tribunal and professional capacity. He concluded that the Bill must balance creditor and debtor interests and support the broader industrial sector, not just debt recovery.
7. Shri Sanjay Yadav (RJD, Bihar) opposed the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code (Amendment) Bill, 2026, arguing that national progress did not begin in 2014 and noting India’s budget growth from ₹ 197 crore in 1947 to ₹ 55 lakh crore today. He criticized corporate bias, claiming ₹ 26 lakh crore in NPAs over the last decade benefited large corporations, while farmers and students face aggressive recovery for loans as small as ₹ 5,000. He called for a social audit to see if SC, ST, or OBC entrepreneurs received similar relief, and cited the World Inequality Lab to highlight extreme disparity: the top 1% holds 40% of resources, while the bottom 60% holds only 3%.
8. Shri Chowdry Mohammad Ramzan (J&KNC, Jammu and Kashmir) opposed the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code (Amendment) Bill, 2026, calling it a protective shield for fugitive economic offenders that ignores the struggles of the rural poor. He questioned why ₹ 20 lakh crore in corporate debt could be written off while farmers are denied relief on Kisan Credit Card loans. He also raised concerns over Jammu and Kashmir Bank, alleging erosion of autonomy and sidelining of local decision-making and employment, and demanded restoration of the bank’s independence along with legislative focus on debt forgiveness for farmers and the poor rather than exit routes for corporate entities.
9. Smt. Priyanka Chaturvedi (SS-UBT, Maharashtra) opposed the code arguing it undermines the Code’s principles of asset maximisation, transparency, and timely resolution. She noted that while the statutory limit is 270 days, the average resolution now takes 602 days, with 43% of cases ending in liquidation. Highlighting bias toward large corporations, she cited the Vedanta–Adani case, where a higher Vedanta bid was overturned in favor of a lower Adani bid by a Committee of Creditors dominated by NARCL. She also criticised the amendment allowing those with 51% debt to initiate proceedings via public notice, calling it a tool for asset grabbing and corporate favoritism, and firmly refused to support the Bill.
10. Shri Surendra Singh Nagar (BJP, Uttar Pradesh) supported the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code (Amendment) Bill, 2026, describing it as a key step in India’s economic journey toward discipline and rapid growth. He noted that prior frameworks like the Sick Industrial Companies Act (SICA) and Board for Industrial and Financial Reconstruction (BIFR) had near-zero recovery rates, contributing to Gross NPAs of around 11%, and allowed a political-corporate nexus to benefit influential defaulters, citing cases like Kingfisher Airlines, the PNB scam, and Amrapali Group. Shri Nagar highlighted that the IBC shifted power from debtor-in-control to creditor-in-control, ensuring that defaults now carry real consequences.
Smt. Nirmala Sitharaman (Union Minister, Minister of Corporate Affairs; BJP, Karnataka) responded to the debate on the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code (Amendment) Bill, 2026. She highlighted the transformative impact of the IBC, 2016 by citing a 2019 World Bank report noting recovery rates improved from 26.5 to 71.6 cents on the dollar. Recoveries through the Code amounted to ₹ 54,528 crore, 52.3% of the total ₹1.04 lakh crore recovered by banks. She clarified that the IBC’s core objective is to rescue viable businesses rather than mandate liquidation, while strict safeguards prevent defaulting promoters from regaining control.
1. The Minister explained that the amendments focus on three key areas. The Bill expedites insolvency admissions by relying on Information Utilities, sets statutory timelines to reduce delays, and strengthens creditor oversight in liquidation. It replaces the underused fast-track process with a Creditor-Initiated Insolvency Framework, including out-of-court initiation and a “debtor-in-possession” model. The Bill also introduces group and cross-border insolvency frameworks, and all 11 Select Committee recommendations, plus one ministry suggestion, were accepted.
2. Smt. Sitharaman clarified that the IBC is a market-driven mechanism, not a debt recovery tool. Recoveries reflect asset quality, sector, and economic conditions. She noted that the IBC realizes 94.95% of the fair value of assets at admission, exceeding 171.54% of liquidation value. As of December 2025, 1,376 companies were resolved, with creditors recovering ₹ 4.11 lakh crore and financial creditors recovering over 34% of claims. She mentioned that section 29A of the bill prevents willful defaulters from submitting plans for large firms, while MSME promoters may return if feasible, and legal proceedings against former promoters continue.
3. To reduce delays, she stated that the look-back period for avoidance transactions was extended to two years, and the Committee of Creditors must document reasons for selecting resolution applicants. Measures to curb litigation include fines of ₹ 1 lakh to ₹ 2 crore for frivolous proceedings, a 14-day admission timeline for financial creditors, and reliance on IU-verified records to speed default determination.
4. The Minister added that the Adjudicating Authority must approve or reject resolution plans within 30 days, and the new CIRP compresses resolution to 150 days with out-of-court initiation. She emphasized that workmen’s dues are prioritized with secured creditors, and post-resolution studies show a 72% increase in employee expenses and 200% growth in workforce per unit of asset. MSME promoters are specifically allowed to participate in pre-packaged resolutions.
5. She also highlighted action against major defaulters and fugitive offenders. Over 1,100 bank fraud cases were investigated, resulting in 150 arrests and eight individuals declared Fugitive Economic Offenders. Assets worth ₹ 64,920 crore were attached, with ₹ 15,183.77 crore restored to public banks. She mentioned that pre-admission settlements totaling ₹ 14.62 lakh crore contributed to a Gross NPA of 2.2%.
6. She clarified that Clauses 42 and 67 ensure parliamentary approval for group and cross-border insolvency rules while the NCLT retains supervisory authority, Committee of Creditor (CoC) manages commercial decisions, insolvency professionals face penalties up to ₹ 2 crore, and Section 240B introduces an electronic portal for real-time tracking.
7. Finally, addressing allegations of neglecting the agricultural sector, the Minister detailed Government support for farmers. Under the PM Kisan Samman Nidhi scheme, ₹ 4.27 lakh crore has been transferred via Direct Benefit Transfer (DBT) to 9.32 crore beneficiaries as of the 22^ndinstallment. Food grain production has risen from 265 million tonnes (2014–15) to 347 million tonnes (2024–25), reflecting sustained and effective support for the farming community alongside corporate reforms.
Shri Harivansh Ji (Deputy Chairman, Rajya Sabha; JD(U), Bihar) introduced a motion to take the Bill into consideration which was moved and adopted by the House. The Bill was then taken up for clause-by-clause consideration, with Clauses 2 to 72 adopted collectively, followed by Clause 1, the Enacting Formula, and the Title, all of which were formally adopted as part of the Bill.
Thereafter, Smt. Nirmala Sitharaman (Union Minister, Minister of Corporate Affairs; BJP, Karnataka) moved that the Bill be passed. The motion was adopted by the House, and the Chair declared the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code (Amendment) Bill, 2026 officially passed.
Following the passing of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code (Amendment) Bill, 2026, Special Mentions were taken up by the chair.
The proceedings of the Rajya Sabha were adjourned at 6:35 PM to reconvene at 11:00 A.M on Thursday, 2^ndApril, 2026.

IV. Events Outside The Parliament

Shri Rajiv Shukla (INC, Uttarakhand) said the commercial LPG price hike will burden small restaurants and businesses, adding that the rise in aviation fuel prices will further strain the economy and impact common citizens dependent on such services.
Shri Manickam Tagore (INC, Virudhunagar, Tamil Nadu) said the LPG hike reflects the Government’s failure to control rising costs, warning it will hurt small businesses and increase daily expenses, making essentials like tea costlier and risking closure of small establishments.
Shri Rajeev Rai (SP, Ghazipur, Uttar Pradesh) alleged the Government is taking advantage of crisis situations, stating that despite petroleum being available at base prices, benefits are not reaching the public.
Shri Sougata Roy (AITC, Dum Dum, West Bengal) raised concerns over submission of 60,000 Form-6 applications (used for new voter registration) in the poll bound state, alleging irregularities. He said protests have included demonstrations outside the Election Commission and will continue.
Shri Karti Chidambaram (INC, Sivaganga, Tamil Nadu) said laws like FCRA are being weaponised to stifle civil society, warning of a chilling effect on NGOs. On LPG prices, he cited supply chain disruptions and urged alternative supply mechanisms.
Smt. Kamaljeet Sehrawat (BJP, West Delhi, Delhi) said the Foreign Contribution (Regulation) Amendment Bill, 2016 aims to ensure transparency in foreign funding and strengthen oversight, clarifying that there is no ban on NGOs, only regulatory measures.
Shri Ghulam Ali Khatana (BJP, Jammu & Kashmir) said the Opposition has used minorities as a vote bank and is now spreading fear, asserting that those working within the law face no restrictions.
Shri Hibi Eden (INC, Ernakulam, Kerala) opposed the Foreign Contribution (Regulation) Amendment Bill, 2026 calling it draconian and restrictive, stating it threatens minority rights and livelihoods, and noting that several restrictions already exist.
Smt. Dimple Yadav (SP, Mainpuri, Uttar Pradesh) while speaking on the FCRA Amendment Bill, 2026 said the Government seeks to control both Government and non-Government institutions, alleging the Bill reflects an attempt to centralise authority and limit institutional autonomy.

Smt. Mahua Moitra (AITC, Krishnanagar, West Bengal) alleged that thousands of Form-6 applications were linked to BJP cadres, raising concerns over irregular voter list additions and questioning the rapid inclusion of voters.
Shri Awadhesh Prasad (SP, Faizabad, Uttar Pradesh) said rising LPG prices reflect increasing inflation and a failing economy, and alleged that India’s foreign policy is influenced by external powers, affecting domestic stability.
Shri Pramod Tiwari (INC, Uttar Pradesh, Rajya Sabha) accused the Government of overriding Supreme Court decisions on The Central Armed Police Forces (General Administration) Bill, 2026 stating it undermines rights of security personnel, and noted that the Opposition staged a walkout in protest.
Shri Manoj Jha (RJD, Rajya Sabha, Bihar) criticised the Government’s functioning in the context of the CAPF Bill, 2026 calling it “contempt of court” and alleging disregard for judicial directions. He added that the Opposition walked out of the House in protest against the Government’s approach.
Shri Manan Kumar Mishra (BJP, Rajya Sabha, Bihar) said The Central Armed Police Forces (General Administration) Bill, 2026 aligns with Supreme Court observations and aims to ensure uniformity, better coordination, and improved welfare of personnel. He criticised the Opposition’s walkout, calling it an unhealthy parliamentary practice that undermines constructive debate.

Annexure I - Matters Raised Under Rule 377 In The Lok Sabha

Annexure II - Reports And Statements Presented In The Lok Sabha

Annexure III - Bills Passed In The Lok Sabha

Annexure IV - Members Who Participated In Debate on The Andhra Pradesh Reorganisation (Amendment) Bill, 2026

Annexure V - Members Who Participated In Debate on The Jan Vishwas (Amendment of Provisions) Bill, 2026

Annexure VI - Reports And Statements Presented In The Rajya Sabha

Annexure VII - Matters Raised With Permission In The Rajya Sabha

Annexure VIII - Bills Passed In The Rajya Sabha

Annexure IX - Members Who Participated In The Discussion On The Central Armed Police Forces (General Administration) Bill, 2026

Annexure X - Members Who Participated In The Discussion On The Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code (Amendment) Bill, 2026

Annexure XI - Special Mentions In The Rajya Sabha

Subscribe now

Parliamentary Proceedings for 30th March, 2026

Wed, 01 Apr 2026 10:27:08 GMT

I. Key Highlights of The Proceedings:

The proceedings of the Lok Sabha and Rajya Sabha commenced at 11:00 AM.
In the Lok Sabha, Shri Om Birla Ji (Speaker, Lok Sabha; BJP, Kota, Rajasthan) commenced the Question Hour.
1. Shri Anand Bhadauria (SP, Uttar Pradesh) raised concerns over the lack of stadium infrastructure in constituencies and sought a nationwide plan for stadium construction. Smt. Raksha Nikhil Khadse (MoS, Ministry of Youth Affairs and Sports; BJP, Raver, Maharastra) responded that the Government aims to identify and train approximately 4 lakh athletes through a structured district-to-national level pathway.
2. Shri Manoj Kumar (INC, Sasaram (SC), Bihar) asked whether the Government was considering introducing a customer data access alert system in banks, under which customers would receive SMS or email alerts whenever their personal data is accessed. In response, Smt. Nirmala Sitharaman (Union Minister, Ministry of Finance; BJP, Karnataka) stated that in addition to the several regulatory frameworks for protection of customer data in banks, under the KYC framework, the Reserve Bank of India has issued Master Directions related to secrecy of customer information and sharing of data. She added that banks are required to maintain strict confidentiality regarding customer information arising from their contractual relationship with customers.
In the Lok Sabha, Smt. Nirmala Sitharaman (Union Minister, Ministry of Finance; BJP, Karnataka) replied to the discussion on the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code (Amendment) Bill, 2025. She noted that 40 Members had participated in the debate. She stated that the amendments aim to strengthen the insolvency framework, improve value realisation, and incorporate global best practices.
1. She highlighted that IBC has played a critical role in improving the health of India’s banking sector, particularly through recovery of non-performing assets. She noted that scheduled commercial banks recovered ₹ 1.04 lakh crore through various channels, out of which 52.3% came through the IBC process.
2. She further explained that the credible threat of losing ownership under IBC has encouraged many promoters to settle their debts before formal admission, resulting in 32,179 cases worth ₹ 14.62 lakh crore being settled at the pre-admission stage
3. She also addressed concerns regarding distress among Micro, Small and Medium Enterprises (MSMEs). She clarified that special provisions already exist for MSMEs under Section 240A, and that earlier amendments in 2018 and 2021 were also designed to support this sector.
In the Lok Sabha, the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code (Amendment) Bill, 2025 was passed through voice vote.
In the Lok Sabha, Shri Om Birla Ji (Speaker, Lok Sabha; BJP, Kota, Rajasthan) commenced the discussion under Rule 193 on efforts to eliminate the country from Left-Wing Extremism.
1. Dr. Shrikant Eknath Shinde (SS, Kalyan, Maharashtra) highlighted that over 10,000 Naxalites have surrendered, with 317 neutralised, 862 arrested, and about 1,900 surrendering in 2025. He further noted that 28 major Maoist leaders were eliminated during 2024–25, including 6 central committee members, and that over 630 cadres surrendered in the first three months of 2026, indicating a declining trend in extremist activity.
2. Shri Sambit Patra (BJP, Puri, Odisha) described the transition from “Red Corridor” to “Growth Corridor” as a significant shift in addressing Left-Wing Extremism. He referred to past counter-insurgency efforts, including Operation Green Hunt, and cited the April 2010 Dantewada attack in which 76 CRPF personnel were killed..
3. Dr. Byreddy Shabari (TDP, Nandyal, Andhra Pradesh) referred to major Maoist attacks between 2004 and 2014 and stated that during this period there were around 17,000 Naxal-related incidents, resulting in over 1,800 security personnel and more than 5,000 civilian deaths. She contrasted this with recent improvements, highlighting infrastructure expansion including over 1,800 banks, 1,300 ATMs, 5,000 post offices, 8,000 mobile towers, about 14,000 km of roads, and basic amenities to around 15,000 villages.
4. Shri Amit Shah Ji (Union Minister, Ministry of Home Affairs; BJP, Gandhinagar, Gujarat) traced Naxalism’s roots to early 20^th century communist movements in Russia and China. He linked these to India, noting the formation of the CPI in 1925, the CPI(M) split in 1964, and the emergence of CPI(ML) in 1969, which rejected parliamentary democracy in favor of armed revolution.
  1. He detailed the Government’s investment in tribal welfare, noting that ₹ 2,212 crore has been spent on health camps, ₹ 3,000 crore under the Security Related Expenditure scheme, ₹ 5,000 crore for the Special Infrastructure Scheme and ₹ 2,000 crore for an extended SIS Scheme.
  2. He explained that the Government has adopted “Whole of Government” and “Whole of Agency” approaches, ensuring alignment between the Centre and States, and fostering seamless coordination between the Central Armed Police Forces (CAPF) and State Police.
  3. He stated that 596 fortified police stations were constructed over the past 11 years. He further noted that Naxal-affected districts declined from 126 in 2014 to only 2 at present, while “most affected” districts reduced from 35 to 0.
  4. He further alleged that Shri Rahul Gandhi had shared stages and interacted with individuals known for extremist ideologies, including during the Bharat Jodo Yatra. He contrasted the previous administration’s “lucrative” approach with his government’s comprehensive rehabilitation policy.
  5. He concluded by paying tribute to the security personnel and innocent citizens who lost their lives to Naxal violence and reaffirmed the government’s goal to make India entirely Naxal-free.
In the Rajya Sabha, Shri C.P. Radhakrishnan Ji (Chairman, Rajya Sabha) proceeded with the matters raised with permission.
1. Shri Sukhendu Sekhar Ray (AITC, West Bengal) raised concerns regarding freedom of speech and expression in universities, emphasising the need to preserve academic spaces for open debate.
2. Dr. K. Laxman (BJP, Uttar Pradesh) raised the issue of misuse of OBC reservation and contended that while the 27% reservation for OBCs was intended for genuinely backward communities, certain States were granting reservation to Muslims on purely religious grounds, thereby distorting the original purpose of the policy.
In the Rajya Sabha, Shri Jagat Prakash Nadda Ji (Leader of the House; BJP, Gujarat) stated that the opposition shows no respect for debate, democratic values, or parliamentary procedure, and accused them of appeasement politics by treating Muslims as a vote bank. Referring to the issue raised by Dr. K. Laxman, he mentioned that there is no constitutional provision for Muslim reservation under the OBC category.
In the Rajya Sabha, Shri C.P. Radhakrishnan Ji (Chairman, Rajya Sabha) commenced the Question Hour.
1. Dr. M. Thambidurai (AIADMK, Tamil Nadu) expressed concerns over passenger safety and airport management. In response, Shri Kinjarapu Rammohan Naidu (Union Minister, Ministry of Civil Aviation; TDP, Srikakulam, Andhra Pradesh) responded that during emergency landings, flights are definitely accorded priority at airports. He also emphasized that all safety-related procedures are governed by strict protocols, and that even in emergencies, decisions must be taken in compliance with established safety regulations. He added that on the issue of multiple runways, both runways cannot be used simultaneously for parallel operations unless they are separated by the required minimum distance.
2. Shri Neeraj Dangi (INC, Rajasthan) inquired regarding the steps taken by the Government to address the limited water testing capacity of laboratories in several States, especially their inability to test for major contaminants such as arsenic. In response, Shri C.R. Patil (Union Minister, Ministry of Jal Shakti; BJP, Navsari, Gujarat) stated that about 14,020 water sources across India were identified as contaminated with arsenic and fluoride. He noted that the number of affected sources has been reduced to 305, while fluoride-affected habitations have declined from 17,996 to 244.
In the Rajya Sabha, Shri Harivansh Ji (Deputy Chairman, Rajya Sabha; JD(U), Bihar) commenced the discussion on the Central Armed Police Forces (General Administration) Bill, 2026.
1. Shri Sanjay Singh (AAP, Delhi) opposed the Bill, raising concerns regarding lack of recognition of CAPF personnel as martyrs, delays in career progression, and disparities in service conditions. He highlighted casualties across forces and questioned the absence of official recognition for personnel killed in major attacks, urging the Government to address systemic inequities.
2. Shri Muzibulla Khan (BJD, Odisha) emphasised the need to strengthen CAPF through modern technologies such as drones and AI, questioned the necessity of the Bill in light of judicial observations, and stressed the need for recognition and entitlements for personnel.
3. Prof. Ram Gopal Yadav (SP, Uttar Pradesh) raised concerns regarding stagnation in promotions, disparities with IAS/IPS cadres, and taxation of disability pensions. He highlighted high voluntary retirement rates and urged referral of the Bill to a Select Committee for wider consultation.
In the Rajya Sabha, Dr. Dinesh Sharma (BJP, Uttar Pradesh) took up Special Mentions.
1. Dr. Bhim Singh (BJP, Bihar) highlighted the historical and cultural significance of Vipulachal, noting its association with ancient heritage and the Mahabharata era. He raised concerns regarding inadequate conservation despite ASI recognition and flagged delays in ongoing projects, resulting in deterioration of structures.
2. Shri Niranjan Bishi (BJD, Odisha) raised concerns regarding misuse of caste certificates, highlighting its adverse impact on genuine SC/ST beneficiaries. He emphasised the need for strict implementation of Supreme Court guidelines to prevent fraudulent claims and protect constitutional safeguards.
The proceedings of Lok Sabha and Rajya Sabha were adjourned at 7:29 PM and 6:00 PM respectively, to reconvene on Wednesday, 1^st April, 2026 at 11:00 AM.
Subscribe now

II. Lok Sabha Proceedings:

The proceedings of the Lok Sabha commenced at 11:00 AM with Shri Om Birla Ji (Speaker, Lok Sabha; BJP, Kota, Rajasthan) presiding over the House.
Shri Om Birla Ji (Speaker, Lok Sabha; BJP, Kota, Rajasthan) commenced the Question Hour.
1. Shri Anand Bhadauria (SP, Dhaurahra, Uttar Pradesh) raised the issue of lack of stadium facilities in many constituencies, particularly affecting rural sporting talent. He asked whether the Government was considering a proposal to construct at least one stadium in every Lok Sabha constituency across the country.
  1. Smt. Raksha Nikhil Khadse (MoS, Ministry of Youth Affairs and Sports; BJP, Raver, Maharastra) stated that the Government’s vision is to identify and train around four lakh athletes from rural areas through a structured pathway beginning at the district level, progressing to the State level and eventually to the national level, thereby providing grassroots talent with opportunities and proper platforms for advancement in sports.
2. Shri Manoj Kumar (INC, Sasaram (SC), Bihar) asked whether the Government is considering the implementation of a customer data access alert system in banks, under which customers would receive SMS or email alerts whenever their personal data is accessed.
  1. Smt. Nirmala Sitharaman (Union Minister, Ministry of Finance; BJP, Karnataka) stated that several regulatory frameworks already exist to ensure protection of customer data in banks. She highlighted that under the KYC framework, the Reserve Bank of India has issued Master Directions related to secrecy of customer information and sharing of data. Banks are required to maintain strict confidentiality regarding customer information arising from their contractual relationship with customers. She also explained that banks and regulated entities must comply with multiple laws including the State Bank of India Act 1955, Banking Companies Act 1949, Regional Rural Banks Act 1976, Credit Information Companies Act 2005, and the Public Financial Institutions Act, 1983.
3. Shri Sudheer Gupta (BJP, Mandsour, Madhya Pradesh) highlighted several sites in the region, including the Chaturbhuj Rock Art, estimated to be 10,000–30,000 years old and included in UNESCO listings, Asia’s largest man-made lake, locations connected with the Buddhist Circuit and Swadesh Darshan Circuit,. He asked whether the Government would consider establishing a training centre in his parliamentary constituency.
  1. Shri Gajendra Singh Shekhawat (Union Minister, Ministry of Tourism; BJP, Jodhpur, Rajasthan) stated that the announcement made in the Budget to upskill more than 10,000 tour guides in collaboration with IIMs was currently at an initial stage. He explained that the Ministry was working with the Indian Institute of Tourism and Travel Management (IITTM), Gwalior, along with IIMs, to develop a detailed action plan. He further noted that the Government had already upgraded tourism-related courses in 21 centrally run institutions and several state-run institutes, but clarified that there was currently no proposal under consideration to open separate training campuses in different locations.
4. Shri Shyamkumar Daulat Barve (INC, Ramtek (SC), Maharashtra) stated that in 2014 the average exchange rate was about ₹ 61.2 per US dollar, whereas it had increased to about ₹ 93.80 per dollar, indicating roughly a 49% depreciation of the rupee. He further noted that food prices had increased by about 72% between 2014 and 2026. He inquired regarding the Government’s claims about declining inflation.
  1. Shri Pankaj Chaudhary (MoS, Ministry of Finance; BJP, Maharajganj, Uttar Pradesh) responded that the value of the rupee against foreign currencies is market-determined, influenced by both domestic and global economic conditions. He stated that India’s economic fundamentals remained strong, highlighting that inflation had fallen to about 1.9%, GDP growth exceeded 7%, and the current account deficit was below 1%. He also mentioned that the manufacturing and services sectors were balanced, domestic demand was supporting economic growth and foreign exchange reserves were sufficient to cover about 11 months of imports.
Following this, Papers and Reports were laid on the Table.
Shri Kiren Rijiju (Union Minister, Ministry of Parliamentary Affairs; BJP, Arunachal West, Arunachal Pradesh) urged all parties to work as one team during national crises without politicising issues. He further noted that concerned Ministers and the Prime Minister have addressed both Houses, an all-party meeting was held, and the Government remains open to further discussion on LPG and petrol prices.
Following this, the house was adjourned at 12:12 PM to reconvene at 12:30 PM.
Shri Om Birla Ji (Speaker, Lok Sabha; BJP, Kota, Rajasthan) took up the discussion for consideration and passing of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code (Amendment) Bill, 2025.
1. Smt. Nirmala Sitharaman (Union Minister, Ministry of Finance; BJP, Karnataka) replied to the discussion on the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code (Amendment) Bill, 2025, noting that 40 Members had participated in the debate.
  1. She stated that the amendments aim to strengthen the insolvency framework created under the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code (IBC), 2016, by addressing practical challenges, incorporating global best practices, and drawing upon the experience gained since the law came into force. She emphasized that the objective is to maximize value for stakeholders and improve the governance process of insolvency resolution.
  2. She highlighted that the IBC has played a critical role in improving the health of India’s banking sector, particularly through recovery of non-performing assets. Scheduled commercial banks have recovered ₹ 1.04 lakh crore through various channels, out of which ₹ 54,528 crore, about 52.3% came through the IBC process, demonstrating its effectiveness in value realization and resolution of stressed companies. She explained that the Bill replaces the under-utilised fast-track Corporate Insolvency Resolution Process (CIRP) with a creditor-initiated insolvency framework, which includes out-of-court settlements and combines the debtor-in-possession and creditor-in-control model.
  3. She further explained that the credible threat of losing ownership under IBC has encouraged many promoters to settle their debts before formal admission, resulting in 32,179 cases worth ₹ 14.62 lakh crore being settled at the pre-admission stage. She added that a large number of companies that went into liquidation during the early years were legacy cases transferred from the Board for Industrial and Financial Reconstruction (BIFR) and Corporate Debt Restructuring mechanisms, where the economic value of firms had already eroded. In 2017-18, the ratio was one company resolved for every five companies liquidated, but by 2024-25 the ratio had improved to 1:1, showing the increasing effectiveness of the resolution framework.
  4. She then addressed concerns regarding distress among Micro, Small and Medium Enterprises (MSMEs) and alleged regional disparities in the pre-packaged insolvency process. She clarified that special provisions already exist for MSMEs under Section 240A, and that earlier amendments in 2018 and 2021 were also designed to support this sector. MSMEs are exempted from disqualification under Sections 29A(c) and 29A(h), allowing existing promoters to participate in the resolution of their own businesses, something that is not permitted for large corporate defaulters.
  5. Finally, she clarified that the “clean slate” principle under the IBC reaffirms that once a resolution plan is approved, all prior claims are extinguished, allowing new management to operate without legacy liabilities. Cases already settled by the Supreme Court will not be reopened. Government licences and approvals will remain valid to ensure smooth revival of the company. She added that no new claims can be raised after approval, as all claims must be submitted and settled during the resolution process.
Following this several amendments were moved by Smt. Nirmala Sitharaman (Union Minister, Ministry of Finance; BJP, Karnataka), which was adopted through voice vote. Subsequently, the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code (Amendment) Bill, 2025 was passed in the Lok Sabha.
Shri Om Birla Ji (Speaker, Lok Sabha; BJP, Kota, Rajasthan) commenced the discussion under Rule 193 on efforts to eliminate the country from Left-Wing Extremism.
1. Dr. Shrikant Eknath Shinde (SS, Kalyan, Maharashtra) stated that the Congress Governments failed to provide development and welfare for tribal communities, which forced many marginalized citizens to take up arms. He further stated that the present Government had addressed several long-standing national security challenges. He added that more than 10,000 Naxalites surrendered and in 2025 alone 317 Naxalites neutralized, 862 arrested, and 1,900 surrendered. He further stated that in 2024 and 2025, 28 major Maoist leaders were eliminated, including 6 members of the central committee. He also highlighted that in the first 3 months of 2026 alone, more than 630 cadres abandoned violence and stated that these figures demonstrated that the vision of a “Naxal-free India” was becoming a reality.
2. Shri Sambit Patra (BJP, Puri, Odisha) stated that the journey from “Red Corridor” to “Growth Corridor” was historic and represented the achievement of a Naxal-free India. He stated that earlier Governments provided only “lip service” and cited Operation Green Hunt as an example of a failed effort. He recalled that 76 CRPF personnel were killed in April 2010 in Dantewara, Chhattisgarh. He cited a 2013 UPA Government’s counter-affidavit in Kishore Samrite vs Union of India, which acknowledged that CPI (Maoist) used human-rights NGOs as front organisations to avoid legal liability, effectively recognising urban Naxal networks despite the term being contested today.
3. Dr. Byreddy Shabari (TDP, Nandyal, Andhra Pradesh) highlighted several major Maoist attacks that occurred between 2004 and 2014. She stated that during the Congress period there were about 17,000 Naxal attacks, resulting in massive casualties. She further stated that over 1,800 security personnel were killed and more than 5,000 civilians lost their lives between 2004 and 2014. She further stated that the current transformation represented a miracle, with areas once echoing with gunfire and slogans of “Lal Salaam” now resonating with school bells and “Bharat Mata Ki Jai.” She highlighted development initiatives in previously affected areas, stating that these regions now have over 1,800 banks, more than 1,300 ATMs, over 5,000 post offices, and more than 8,000 mobile towers. She also stated that around 14,000 kilometers of roads had been constructed in affected areas and that about 15,000 villages received basic amenities.
4. Shri Zia Ur Rehman (SP, Sambhal, Uttar Pradesh) noted that the solution to extremism is not found in guns or jails but in addressing socio-economic issues. He identified poverty, unemployment, and the lack of education and healthcare as the primary drivers of the problem. He suggested that extremism also exists in thought and ideology, particularly when people are divided based on religion or caste. He specifically mentioned that open calls for violence and boycotts against the Muslim community on social media and public platforms constitute a form of extremism that threatens national unity and the PDA (Pichda, Dalit, Alpsankhyak) communities.
5. Shri Arun Bharti (LJSP (RV), Jamui (SC), Bihar) criticized the policy paralysis of the previous Congress-led Government and referred to former Prime Minister Shri Manmohan Singh’s 2009 admission that Naxalism posed the greatest internal security threat to India. Regarding the current situation in Jamui and Bihar, he stated that Left-wing extremism is on the verge of elimination. He contrasted past incidents, such as the attack on a BSF camp in Sasaram by 100 Naxals and the 2021 attack on the Dhanbad-Patna Intercity Express by 200 Naxals, with the current progress. He credited the Union Government for efforts to bring cadres into the mainstream. He cited data showing a decline in incidents from 342 to 13 in the 2024-25 period. He highlighted the restoration of democracy in formerly affected areas, noting 79% voter turnout in Chakarbanda hills and peaceful voting in Munger’s Bhim Bandh after 20 years.
6. Shri Nishikant Dubey (BJP, Godda, Jharkhand) stated that the Left-wing extremism movement is an ideological battle rather than one based on the rights of the poor or tribals. He claimed that the Congress Party supported the communist movement from 1967 to 1969 to win political contests, citing the election of Shri V.V. Giri and the defeat of Shri Neelam Sanjiva Reddy. He also criticized the Congress Government for removing tribal rights under Article 339 during the 1976 Emergency. In stark contrast to the congress, he credited schemes such as PM-JANMAN, the Dharti Aaba program, and the Aspirational Districts initiative for improving the conditions of naxal affected areas. He also highlighted the establishment of an AIIMS, an airport, and various technical colleges in his constituency and concluded by noting that currently Jharkhand has no Naxal-affected districts.
7. Shri Asaduddin Owaisi (AIMIM, Hyderabad, Telangana) criticized the lack of civil administration and effective rehabilitation efforts by the Government. He noted that while the Ministry of Home Affairs accepted the 2025 Maoist Relief and Rehabilitation Policy for Andhra Pradesh and Telangana, there are still instances of advanced weaponry like Israeli Tavor assault rifle, being recovered. He argued that the situation in the “cutoff area” of the Andhra Pradesh-Odisha border requires the proper implementation of the Fifth Schedule, PESA, and the Forest Rights Act. Further, he urged the house to expand discussion beyond Left-wing extremism and focus on Right-wing extremism as well. He further alleged that institutionalized radicalism and extremism is being used against Muslims.
8. Shri Anurag Singh Thakur (BJP, Hamirpur, Himachal Pradesh) stated that Naxalism has been one of the most painful wounds on the nation for decades and accused the Congress party of failing to address the issue while it spread across 126 districts. He highlighted that under the leadership of the Prime Minister and Home Minister, the Government has taken a firm resolution to eliminate Naxalism by 31^stMarch 2026. Further, he paid tribute to the 1,851 security personnel and 7,000 citizens who lost their lives in the conflict.
9. Shri Amit Shah Ji (Union Minister, Ministry of Home Affairs; BJP, Gandhinagar, Gujarat) traced Naxalism’s roots to early 20th-century communist movements in Russia and China, highlighting events like the 1905 upheaval, Lenin’s rise, and Mao’s revolution. He linked these to India, noting the formation of the CPI in 1925, the CPI(M) split in 1964, and the emergence of CPI(ML) in 1969, which rejected parliamentary democracy in favor of armed revolution.
  1. He detailed the consolidation of various extremist groups, such as the MCC (Maoist Communist Centre) in Bihar and Jharkhand and the PWG (People’s War Group) in Andhra Pradesh. He noted that in 2000, the PLGA (People’s Liberation Guerrilla Army) was formed as a specialized guerrilla force, and in 2004. He argued that the movement’s history proves its goal is to obtain power through “bullets” rather than “ballots.” He emphasized that Naxalism should not be glorified as a struggle against injustice, as its core ideology is rooted in the violent overthrow of the state.
  2. He stated that unlike previous administrations, his Government chose to neutralize Maoists to pave the way for development. He listed the establishment of 259 Eklavya Model Residential Schools, 47 ITIs, 49 Skill Development Centers, and 16 Kaushal Vikas Kendra, involving an additional expenditure of ₹ 800 crore. In the health sector, he highlighted the construction of a 240-bed super-specialty hospital in Jagdalpur, Chhattisgarh.
  3. He detailed the Government’s investment in tribal welfare and regional infrastructure, noting that ₹ 2,212 crore has been spent on Civic Action Program, related to health camps and medicines. He highlighted significant financial allocations for security and development, including ₹ 3,000 crore over the last 10 years under the Security Related Expenditure (SRE) scheme, ₹ 5,000 crore for the Special Infrastructure Scheme and ₹ 2,000 crore for an extended SIS Scheme. He specified that ₹ 4,000 crore from central funds was utilized for critical public infrastructure.
  4. He outlined the strategic shift since 2014, emphasizing a clear policy and strong political will under the leadership of Shri Narendra Modi Ji. He asserted that illegal activities, whether in Kashmir, the North-East, or regions affected by Left-Wing Extremism, would no longer be tolerated. He explained that the Government has adopted the “Whole of Government” and “Whole of Agency” approach, ensuring alignment between the Centre and States, and seamless coordination between the Central Armed Police Forces and State Police.
  5. He reaffirmed the goal of making India Naxal-free by 31^st March, 2026 and informed the House that Bihar, Odisha, and nearly all of Maharashtra and Jharkhand had been cleared of Naxal influence by 2024.
  6. He stated that 596 fortified police stations were constructed over the past 11 years. Further, the number of Naxal-affected districts declined from 126 to 2, while “most affected” districts reduced from 35 to 0. He further specified that the number of police stations recording Naxal incidents has dropped from 350 to 7. He detailed the addition of 406 new CAPF camps, 68 night-landing helipads, and deployment of 400 bullet-proof and blast-proof vehicles for security personnel.
  7. Furthermore, he added that between 2024-early 2026, 706 Naxalites were killed in encounters, 2,218 were arrested, and 4,839 surrendered. He also informed the House of the successful operations that helped reduce Naxalism like Operation Octopus, Operation Double Bull, Operation Thunderstorm and Operation Black.
  8. He mentioned Congress party’s past affiliations, alleging that members of the National Advisory Council during the UPA Government had extremist sympathies. He further alleged that Shri Rahul Gandhi shared stages with individuals having extremist ideologies, even during the Bharat Jodo Yatra. He concluded by paying tribute to the security personnel and innocent citizens who lost their lives to Naxal violence.
The Lok Sabha was adjourned at 7:29 PM to reconvene at 11:00 AM on Wednesday, 1^stApril 2026.

III. Rajya Sabha Proceedings:

The proceedings of the Rajya Sabha commenced at 11:00 AM.
Papers and Reports were laid on the Table.
Shri C.P. Radhakrishnan Ji (Chairman, Rajya Sabha) proceeded with the matters raised with permission.
1. Dr. Ajeet Madhavrao Gopchade (BJP, Maharashtra) urged the Government to declare Nanded as a “Holy City”, which he described as the sacred land associated with Guru Gobind Singh and the Guru Granth Sahib, particularly the revered shrine of Takht Sachkhand Sri Hazur Abchalnagar Sahib.
2. Shri Sukhendu Sekhar Ray (AITC, West Bengal) raised the issue of freedom of speech and expression in universities and higher educational institutions, invoking Article 19(1)(a) of the Constitution. He stated that universities and higher educational institutions ought to function as dynamic spaces for vibrant intellectual debate, where diverse political perspectives and cultural ideas can be discussed openly.
3. Shri Pramod Tiwari (INC, Rajasthan) raised a matter concerning the dignity of Parliament and democratic accountability. He said that it had become a common experience where phone calls made by Members of Parliament often do not receive a callback, and letters written by MPs frequently go unanswered, despite clear instructions from the Department of Personnel and Training (DoPT).
4. Dr. K. Laxman (BJP, Uttar Pradesh) raised the issue of misuse of OBC reservation, arguing that the benefits meant for socially and educationally backward classes were being extended on the basis of religion. He contended that while the 27% reservation for OBCs was intended for genuinely backward communities, certain States were granting reservation to Muslims on purely religious grounds, thereby distorting the original purpose of the policy.
Shri Jagat Prakash Nadda Ji (Leader of the House; BJP, Gujarat) interjected and stated that the opposition had no interest in debate, no respect for democratic values, and no regard for the parliamentary procedure. He further alleged that the opposition lacked faith in the Constitution, and claimed that these parties treat Muslim citizens as a vote bank and pursue appeasement politics. In the context of the issue raised by Dr. K. Laxman (BJP, Uttar Pradesh), stated that there was no constitutional provision for Muslim reservation within the OBC category, and referred to the Andhra Pradesh High Court as having struck down such a measure.
Following this, Shri C.P. Radhakrishnan Ji (Chairman, Rajya Sabha) commenced the Question Hour.
1. Dr. M. Thambidurai (AIADMK, Tamil Nadu) expressed concerns over passenger safety and airport management. He pointed out that Bengaluru airport has two runways, but alleged that they were not being properly utilised, with only one runway being used effectively despite heavy traffic. He asked how the Government intended to resolve such operational problems, particularly in situations involving fuel constraints.
  1. Shri Kinjarapu Rammohan Naidu, (Union Minister, Ministry of Civil Aviation; TDP, Srikakulam, Andhra Pradesh) responded that whenever there is an emergency landing or a request for priority landing based on safety considerations, such flights are definitely accorded priority at airports. He also emphasized that all safety-related procedures are governed by strict protocols, and that even in emergencies, decisions must be taken in compliance with established safety regulations. He added that on the issue of multiple runways, both runways cannot be used simultaneously for parallel operations unless they are separated by the required minimum distance.
2. Shri Raghav Chadha (AAP, Punjab) raised the issue of flight delays and passenger compensation. He asked whether the Government was considering or had already introduced any provision under which passengers would receive compensation for delayed flights.
  1. Shri Kinjarapu Rammohan Naidu, (Union Minister, Ministry of Civil Aviation; TDP, Srikakulam, Andhra Pradesh) stated that passenger rights in cases of flight delays are already covered under the Passenger Charter, which provides for assistance, meals for delays beyond 3 hours, and refund entitlements depending on the duration of delay or cancellation. He added that while some delays arise from factors such as weather or safety concerns, airlines are still required to comply with the Ministry’s charter, and the Government is working to increase passenger awareness of these rights.
3. Shri Neeraj Dangi (INC, Rajasthan) inquired regarding the steps taken by the Government to address the limited water testing capacity of laboratories in several States, especially their inability to test for major contaminants such as arsenic. He asked whether the Government had any preventive measures to stop the mixing of sewage water with drinking water in urban areas.
  1. Shri C.R. Patil (Union Minister, Ministry of Jal Shakti; BJP, Navsari, Gujarat) stated that across the country there were around 14,020 water sources identified as being affected by arsenic and fluoride contamination. He said that such sources cannot simply be shut down, but that they are sealed with cement to prevent the contaminated water from seeping further into the ground. He added that of the 14,020 contaminated sources, the number had now been reduced to only 305 locations where arsenic- and fluoride-affected water remained a concern. He referred to fluoride-affected habitations, stating that their number had fallen from 17,996 to 244.
4. Shri Sana Sathish Babu (TDP, Andhra Pradesh) stated that the full implementation of the MSME-CDP scheme could generate 60,000 jobs in Andhra Pradesh, and urged the Government to consider setting up skill upgradation centres, learning facilities, and training infrastructure in both existing and upcoming clusters to support the young workforce through targeted training programmes.
  1. Shri Jitan Ram Manjhi (Union Minister; Ministry of Micro, Small and Medium Enterprises; HAM(S), Gaya (SC), Bihar) clarified that the scheme operates through Common Facility Centres (CFCs) and Infrastructure Development (ID) projects. He stated that in Andhra Pradesh, 47 projects had been approved, comprising 11 CFCs and 36 ID projects. Of these, 5 CFCs and 12 ID projects were operational/completed, generating 8,300 jobs through CFCs and 57,796 jobs through infrastructure projects.
The proceedings of the house were adjourned at 1:00 PM to reconvene at 2:00 PM.
Following the recommencement, Shri Harivansh Ji (Deputy Chairman, Rajya Sabha; JD(U), Bihar) commenced the discussion on the Central Armed Police Forces (General Administration) Bill, 2026.
1. Shri Sanjay Singh (AAP, National Capital Territory of Delhi) opposed the bill and stated that the Government was committing injustice against the personnel who risked their lives to protect the country. He noted that the total strength of officers and personnel was approximately 11 lakh with a combined 2,290 officers and jawans having died in service across various forces. He further questioned the Government whether martyr status would be granted to those who died in service. He further highlighted delays in CAPF officers reaching Second-in-Command and ADG levels, contrasting it with IPS timelines, to demonstrate systemic inequities. He concluded by urging the Government to not commit injustice against CAPF officers and personnel, stating that such treatment would not be forgiven by the nation.
2. Shri Muzibulla Khan (BJD, Odisha) noted that India faces complex internal security challenges and stressed strengthening forces through modern technologies like drones, AI, and data-driven systems. He questioned the need for the Bill despite Supreme Court rulings, emphasizing that CAPF personnel risk their lives and deserve justice, recognition, and rightful entitlements. He also highlighted that respecting security forces is a national duty, citing Biju Babu’s contributions during the freedom struggle and in securing Kashmir. He concluded by urging that CAPF personnel and historical figures like Biju Babu be given due honor and recognition for their service to the nation.
3. Prof. Ram Gopal Yadav (SP, Uttar Pradesh) questioned why CAPF personnel are forced to seek judicial intervention due to disparities in service conditions. He criticized the stagnant career progression of CAPF officers compared to their IAS and IPS counterparts, noting that many remain Assistant Commandants for decades. He warned that the resulting frustration and high rates of voluntary retirement pose a serious threat to national security. He also highlighted that the disability pensions for CAPF personnel are currently taxable. He further reminded the House that the NDA Government had discontinued their pensions in 2003. He argued that it was unjust to withhold these benefits. He concluded by demanding that the bill be referred to a Select Committee. He further insisted that all stakeholders must be consulted to ensure that the grievances of CAPF personnel are addressed.
4. Dr. Sudhanshu Trivedi (BJP, Uttar Pradesh) expressed strong support for the CAPF Bill, highlighting the vital role of these forces in both border defense and internal security. He highlighted the significant shift in the security landscape particularly in Bastar where the participation in “Bastar Olympics” grew from 1.65 lakh youth in 2024 to nearly 4 lakh in 2025. He also pointed out that the bill removes reserved quotas for IPS officers at the DIG level, opening these positions to cadre officers to ensure fairer career progression. He highlighted that compensation for deaths on duty has been set to ₹ 25 lakhs and ₹ 35 lakhs for deaths in action.
5. Shri Digvijay Singh (INC, Madhya Pradesh) asserted that the bill is not introduced out of Government initiative but is a defensive measure to avoid a contempt of court charge. He stated that the Government was acting only because it faced an April 1st deadline set by the judiciary, which ruled in favor of the CAPF’s demands for recognition as an Organized Group A Service (OGAS). He criticized the Government’s intelligence record, citing the Jhiram Ghati and Pulwama attacks as major lapses that occurred despite the Government’s claims of improved security. He further criticized the bill’s provision to reserve 50% of IG-level and 67% of ADG-level posts for IPS officers and stated that this is a legislative workaround to avoid implementing the Supreme Court’s mandate for fair promotional avenues for the CAPF cadre. He described the legislation as discriminatory, unjust, and demoralizing for the forces. Finally, he demanded that the Government either withdraw the bill or refer it to a Select Committee for further review.
6. Shri Sanjay Raut (SS-UBT, Maharashtra) expressed doubt that the proposed legislation would actually improve coordination between state and central authorities as claimed. He characterized the bill as an attempt to “capture” the command of the CAPF by external leadership. He argued that it is unjust to deny cadre officers the opportunity to lead their own organizations. He further highlighted the promotion delays faced by cadre officers, noting that it takes 15-16 years for an officer to move from Assistant Commandant to Deputy Commandant. He questioned why the highest position (Director General) is reserved exclusively for IPS officers, preventing internal cadre members from ever reaching the top. He urged the Government to refer the bill to a Select Committee as the legislation is not a general administrative matter and requires deeper scrutiny.
7. Shri Subhash Barala (BJP, Haryana) stated that the primary purpose of the bill is to bring all these major forces under “one umbrella.” He further highlighted that the bill seeks to establish a uniform structure for Group ‘A’ General Duty officers. He explained that this would create consistency in recruitment, service conditions, transfers, and promotions across all branches of the CAPF. Subsequently, he rejected the opposition’s claims that the bill was drafted in haste. He cited the Prime Minister’s decisive actions in Gujarat (such as the earthquake response) and at the national level (including the removal of Article 370 and the containment of Naxalism) as evidence of the Government’s commitment to effective crisis management and internal security.
8. Shri Shaktisinh Gohil (INC, Gujarat) stated that while the nation sleeps peacefully due to the vigilance of the Central Armed Police Forces (CAPFs), the proposed bill would severely undermine their morale. He highlighted the quotas proposed in the bill, noting that 50% of Inspector General (IG) posts and at least 67% of Additional Director General (ADG) posts were to be filled through deputation, primarily by IPS officers. He maintained that the legislature could not simply enact a law to override a judicial decision without addressing the substantive legal reasoning underlying that ruling. He further alleged that the bill had been introduced with mala fide intent, specifically to circumvent a Supreme Court judgment dated 23^rdMay 2025, delivered by Justices Abhay S. Oka and Ujjal Bhuyan.
In the chair, Dr. Dinesh Sharma (BJP, Uttar Pradesh) took up Special Mentions.
1. Dr. Bhim Singh (BJP, Bihar) stated that Vipulachal is a significant centre of India’s ancient heritage, particularly as the seat of power of Jarasandh during the era of the Mahabharata. He pointed out that although the Archaeological Survey of India has formally recognized the mountain’s historical significance, meaningful conservation efforts have yet to be undertaken. He added that projects initiated in 2009 remain incomplete, leaving several ancient structures in a dilapidated condition.
2. Shri Ramji lal Suman (SP, Uttar Pradesh) urged the inclusion of the Banjara community of Uttar Pradesh in the Scheduled Tribe (ST) category. He stated that the Banjara community, with a population exceeding 2 million, resides across nearly 26 parliamentary constituencies. In addition, he mentioned that detailed ethnographic surveys have also been submitted multiple times in support of this demand, yet the matter remains pending.
3. Shri Niranjan Bishi (BJD, Odisha) addressed the House regarding the urgent need for the strict implementation of Supreme Court guidelines on the cancellation of fraudulent caste certificates. He emphasized the severe injustice faced by genuine Scheduled Caste (SC) and Scheduled Tribe (ST) communities due to the misuse of such certificates by ineligible individuals.
The Rajya Sabha was adjourned at 6:00 PM to reconvene at 11:00 AM on Wednesday, 1^stApril 2026.

IV. Events Outside The Parliament

Shri Damodar Agarwal (BJP, Bhilwara, Rajasthan) praised Shri Nitish Kumar, calling him a tall leader and noting that NDA respected his wish to serve in the Rajya Sabha. He dismissed Sushree Mamata Banerjee’s remarks about a potential ban on fish and meat as an attempt to polarise voters, reflecting political desperation.
Shri E.T. Muhammed Basheer (IUML, Malappuram, Kerala) stated that the Modi Government is actively working against the interests of minorities, based on clear evidence and past experience. He also asserted that the CPM consistently acts against the interests of the people.
Responding to Shri Hussain Dalwai’s remarks regarding India’s foreign policy, Shri Dinesh Sharma (BJP, Uttar Pradesh) said Prime Minister Shri Narendra Modi Ji has already made statements in both Houses of Parliament, and accused the INC of repeatedly questioning the Government to defame it.
Prof. Manoj Kumar Jha (RJD, Bihar) accused the Government of neither understanding the Constitution nor the Backward Classes Commission. He warned that such actions amount to setting the Constitution on fire and are aimed at dismantling the Mandal Commission framework.
Smt. Priyanka Gandhi Vadra (INC, Wayanad, Kerala) stated that all of Kerala knows the truth about the alliance, regardless of what Hon’ble Prime Minister Shri Narendra Modi Ji says. She demanded a debate on the West Asia conflict, citing rising gas cylinder prices, and called for a united solution with the Government clearly outlining its preparedness.
Shri Ramdas Athawale (RPI(ATWL), Maharastra) clarified that reservation is not granted on the basis of religion, noting that 80% of Muslims already benefit from reservation and children receive 10% under the EWS category.
Shri Rajiv Shukla (INC, Chhattisgarh) stated the Government is playing politics by blaming INC, asserting that during the INC regime, ships never stopped, there was no crisis, and no queues were seen outside gas agencies or petrol pumps.
Shri Manish Tewari (INC, Chandigarh, Chandigarh) stated that the Opposition had submitted notices under Rule 193 on 9th and 13th March demanding a discussion on the West Asia situation. He added that a Government assurance was conveyed through the Business Advisory Committee. However, as global conditions deteriorated over the following month, the Opposition raised the issue in the House.
Smt. Dimple Yadav (SP, Mainpuri, Uttar Pradesh) said that while the Government promotes ethanol-mixed fuel, it can potentially damage vehicle engines. She asked who would compensate for such damage and urged the Government to frame a systematic policy to protect people.
Shri Pramod Tiwari (INC, Rajasthan) said that the issue raised by Dr. K. Laxman (BJP, Uttar Pradesh) in Zero Hour regarding misuse of OBC reservation in opposition-led states, violated the spirit of the Mandal Commission and the Constitution by denying reservations to minorities within Backward Classes, breaching the principle of non-discrimination under Article 14. This led the Opposition, after the LoP’s intervention, to boycott and walk out of Rajya Sabha.

Annexure I - Matters Raised Under Rule 377 In The Lok Sabha

Annexure II - Reports And Statements Presented In The Lok Sabha

Annexure III - Bills Passed In The Lok Sabha

Annexure IV - Members Who Participated in Discussion on Efforts To Free The Country From Left-Wing Extremism in Lok Sabha

Annexure V - Reports And Statements Presented In Rajya Sabha

Annexure VI - Matters Raised With Permission In The Rajya Sabha

Annexure VII - Members Who Took Part in Discussion on The Central Armed Police Forces (General Administration) Bill, 2026 in Rajya Sabha

Parliamentary Proceedings for March 25th, 2026

Thu, 26 Mar 2026 07:20:50 GMT

Parliament convened on 25 March 2026 with proceedings in both Houses reflecting a mix of legislative action, fiscal decision-making and sectoral discussions. In the Lok Sabha, the focus remained on the passage of the Finance Bill, 2026–27, alongside the introduction of key legislation and continued debate on economic reforms. Question Hour also saw members raise concerns relating to renewable energy infrastructure and public distribution systems, highlighting ongoing implementation challenges and government responses.

I. Key Highlights Of The Proceedings:

The proceedings of the Lok Sabha and Rajya Sabha commenced at 11:00 AM.
In the Lok Sabha, Shri Om Birla Ji (Speaker, Lok Sabha; BJP, Kota, Rajasthan) commenced the proceedings of the House with Question Hour.
1. Smt. Varsha Eknath Gaikwad (INC, Mumbai North-Central, Maharashtra) raised concerns about the gap between growing renewable energy production and inadequate transmission capacity, questioning whether increased solar generation is being wasted. In response, Shri Pralhad Joshi (Union Minister, Ministry of New and Renewable Energy; BJP, Dharwad, Karnataka) noted that India’s power capacity has doubled to over 500 GW, ensuring no electricity shortages, and emphasised improved grid stability since 2012. He further highlighted that over 10,000 circuit kilometers have been completed under the Green Energy Corridor, with further phases underway.
In the Lok Sabha, Shri Nityanand Rai (MoS, Ministry of Home Affairs; BJP, Ujiarpur, Bihar) moved a resolution to introduce the Foreign Contribution (Regulation) Amendment Bill, 2026.
1. Shri Manish Tewari (INC, Chandigarh) and Shri Gowaal Kagada Padavi (INC, Nandurbar (ST), Maharashtra) opposed the Bill, citing constitutional concerns, excessive centralisation, and potential harm to civil society.
2. Shri Nityanand Rai (MoS, Ministry of Home Affairs; BJP, Ujiarpur, Bihar) defended the Bill as necessary for efficiency, transparency, and national interest. He highlighted safeguards, including asset management provisions, opportunities for NGOs to regularise their status, return of assets, and access to judicial review.
3. Shri Krishna Prasad Tanneti (TDP, Bapatla (SC), Andhra Pradesh), presiding over the chair, put the motion to a voice vote and declared it approved by majority. He then formally introduced the Bill in the House.
In the Lok Sabha, Smt. Nirmala Sitharaman (Union Minister, Ministry of Finance; BJP, Karnataka) addressed the House while replying to the debate on the Finance Bill 2026–27.
1. She highlighted reductions in TCS on education, medical remittances, and overseas tours, customs duty exemptions on 17 life-saving drugs, and a disclosure scheme for small taxpayers to declare overseas assets or income without prosecution.
2. She stated that tax incentives for data centers are conditional on Indian infrastructure, ensuring local jobs, and highlighted $70 billion in investments in semiconductors with 4–5× projected growth in cloud capacity by 2030.
3. She noted that India’s combined debt-to-GDP ratio is 84.2% and fiscal deficit will be 4.3% in 2026–27, down from 9.3% in 2020–21. She highlighted that India’s debt levels are lower than those of the US, China, and Japan.
4. Shri Krishna Prasad Tanneti (TDP, Bapatla (SC), Andhra Pradesh) put the motion for the Finance Bill 2026–27, and the Bill was passed by majority via voice vote.
Following this, Smt. Nirmala Sitharaman (Union Minister, Ministry of Finance; BJP, Karnataka) proposed the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code (Amendment) Bill, 2025.
1. Shri Anurag Singh Thakur (BJP, Hamirpur, Himachal Pradesh) supported the amendment, stating that it strengthens economic reforms and shifts power from defaulters to creditors. He highlighted that 8,654 cases have been resolved with recoveries of about ₹4 lakh crore, achieving 170% of liquidation value and 94% of fair value.
2. Shri Daggumalla Prasad Rao (TDP, Chittoor (SC), Andhra Pradesh) supported the Bill, stating that it addresses IBC implementation gaps. Further, he highlighted major reforms such as creditor-driven insolvency, group insolvency for related companies, and a cross-border mechanism aligned with global standards.
3. Shri Rahul Kaswan (INC, Churu, Rajasthan) raised concerns that the Bill gives excessive power to the Committee of Creditors, compromises liquidation independence, favors select financial creditors, and creates legal uncertainty with vague terms like ‘mala fide intent’.
4. Shri Anup Sanjay Dhotre (BJP, Akola, Maharashtra) stated that the Bill addresses IBC delays and gaps. He highlighted India’s GDP growth, startup expansion, infrastructure improvements, UPI adoption, renewable energy growth, NPA reduction, and Government schemes supporting MSMEs.
5. The debate on the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code (Amendment) Bill, 2025 remains unfinished and will continue on 27^th March 2026.
In the Rajya Sabha, C.P. Radhakrishnan Ji (Chairman, Rajya Sabha) informed the House that the Transgender Persons (Protection of Rights) Amendment Bill, 2026, and the Central Armed Police Forces (General Administration) Bill, 2026, were included in the revised list of business.
In the Rajya Sabha, Shri C.P. Radhakrishnan Ji (Chairman, Rajya Sabha) commenced the Question Hour.
1. Shri Mayankkumar Nayak (BJP, Gujarat) asked if the NBCFDC provides specific schemes for De-notified, Nomadic, and Semi-Nomadic Tribes in areas like startups, higher education, and traditional occupations. In response, Shri Ramdas Athawale (MoS, Ministry of Social Justice and Empowerment; RPI (ATHAWALE), Maharashtra) outlined Government efforts, including surveys to assess needs, and noted that DNTs, classified under OBC, benefit from schemes like PM-DAKSH.
2. Shri Golla Baburao (YSRCP, Andhra Pradesh) raised concerns over the underutilisation of police modernisation funds in 2022–23 and 2024–25, asking for reasons, corrective measures, and the 2026–27 action plan. In response, Shri Nityanand Rai (MoS, Ministry of Home Affairs; BJP, Ujiarpur, Bihar) explained that fund utilisation depends on states, with the Ministry reviewing regularly, and noted that coordination increased the revised estimate from ₹225 crore spent of ₹540 crore to about ₹593 crore.
In the Rajya Sabha, Shri Harsh Malhotra (MoS, Ministry of Finance; BJP, East Delhi, NCT of Delhi) urged the House to accept Lok Sabha’s recommendation to join the Joint Committee on the Corporate Laws Amendment Bill, 2026. Shri Harivansh Ji (Deputy Chairman, Rajya Sabha; JD(U), Bihar) put the motion to a vote, which was adopted by a majority.
In the Rajya Sabha, Shri Nityanand Rai (MoS, Ministry of Home Affairs; BJP, Ujiarpur, Bihar) introduced the Central Armed Police Forces (General Administration) Bill, 2026.
1. Shri Derek O’Brien (AITC, West Bengal) opposed the bill’s introduction, citing the absence of Shri Amit Shah Ji (Union Minister, Ministry of Home Affairs; BJP, Gandhinagar, Gujarat), calling it ‘anti-federal’ and a threat to democracy.
2. Shri Tiruchi Siva (DMK, Tamil Nadu) opposed the bill, arguing it overrides Supreme Court judgments on CAPF personnel and IPS deputations, and urged referral to a Select Committee.
3. Dr. John Brittas (CPI(M), Kerala) opposed on constitutional grounds, citing misuse of Article 312 and a clause nullifying court judgments, claiming it exceeds Parliament’s legislative competence.
4. Shri Nityanand Rai (MoS, Ministry of Home Affairs; BJP, Ujiarpur, Bihar) defended the bill, stating it is within Parliament’s powers, does not alter the original CAPF Acts, has no financial impact, and does not affect Article 312 or judicial authority.
5. Shri Harivansh Ji (Deputy Chairman, Rajya Sabha; JD(U), Bihar) presided over the conclusion of the first legislative item. The House voted on the Central Armed Police Forces (General Administration) Bill, 2026, and the motion was adopted, formally introducing the Bill.
In the Rajya Sabha, Shri Harivansh Ji (Deputy Chairman, Rajya Sabha; JD(U), Bihar) initiated the discussion on Transgender Persons (Protection of Rights) Amendment Bill, 2026.
1. Smt Renuka Chowdhury (INC, Telangana) opposed the Bill, citing concerns about privacy, self-identification, constitutional rights, state interference, weak healthcare infrastructure, and lack of consultation with the transgender community.
2. Dr. Medha Vishram Kulkarni (BJP, Maharashtra) supported the Bill, emphasising dignity, legal safeguards, identification and certification by authorities, stricter penalties for offences, and protection against misuse.
3. Dr. Bhim Singh (BJP, Bihar) supported the Bill, highlighting legal protection for transgender persons and their recognition in India’s cultural and historical traditions.
4. Smt. Priyanka Chaturvedi (SS-UBT, Maharashtra) opposed the Bill, calling it inhuman and noting that it was introduced without proper consultation, affecting over five lakh people.
5. Dr. Virendra Kumar (Union Minister, Ministry of Social Justice and Empowerment; BJP, Tikamgarh (SC), Madhya Pradesh) highlighted that the Amendment Bill will enforce stricter penalties and more consistent definition so that the benefits can reach the genuine beneficiaries. He then moved the motion for passing the Bill and the House approved it through a voice vote and the Bill was passed.
In the Rajya Sabha, Shri Nityanand Rai (MoS, Ministry of Home Affairs; BJP, Ujiarpur, Bihar) moved a motion for consideration of the Central Armed Police Forces (General Administration) Bill, 2026.
1. Shri Ajay Makan (INC, Karnataka) opposed the Bill, calling it unconstitutional and an attempt to override Supreme Court judgments. He highlighted the CAPFs’ role in safeguarding democracy and cited multiple court rulings supporting CAPF officers’ rights.
2. Shri Mahendra Bhatt (BJP, Uttarakhand) supported the Bill, stating it would modernise and strengthen internal security. He emphasised its benefits in simplifying administrative processes, improving coordination, and addressing modern security challenges.
3. The debate on Central Armed Police Forces (General Administration) Bill, 2026 remains unfinished and will continue on 27^th March 2026.
The proceedings of Lok Sabha and Rajya Sabha were adjourned at 6:28 P.M. and 6:58 P.M. respectively to reconvene at 11:00 A.M on Friday, 27^th March, 2026.
Subscribe now

II. Lok Sabha Proceedings :

The proceedings of the Lok Sabha commenced at 11:00 AM.
Shri Om Birla Ji (Speaker, Lok Sabha; BJP, Kota, Rajasthan) presided over the proceedings of the House and made obituary references on the recent passing of Shri Vishnu Modi (former member of the 8^th Lok Sabha from Ajmer, Rajasthan) and Shri Dattatraya Raghobaji Meghe (senior politician with five Lok Sabha terms).
Shri Om Birla Ji (Speaker, Lok Sabha; BJP, Kota, Rajasthan) commenced the Question Hour.
1. Smt. Varsha Eknath Gaikwad (INC, Mumbai North-Central, Maharashtra) raised concerns about the gap between growing renewable energy production and inadequate transmission capacity. She stated that despite increased solar generation, insufficient infrastructure is leading to energy losses, and questioned whether solar power is being wasted.
  1. In response, Shri Pralhad Joshi (Union Minister, Ministry of New and Renewable Energy; BJP, Dharwad, Karnataka) highlighted that India’s power capacity has doubled to over 500 GW, ensuring no electricity shortage, and emphasised improved grid stability since 2012. He also noted that over 10,000 circuit kilometers have been completed under the Green Energy Corridor, with further phases underway to strengthen transmission. He further highlighted the Government’s performance by comparing it with the UPA era, noting a sharp rise in solar module capacity from 3 GW to 172 GW, solar cell manufacturing from zero to 27 GW, and solar generation from 2.8 GW to 144 GW.
2. Shri Gyaneshwar Patil (BJP, Khandwa, Madhya Pradesh) appreciated the Pradhan Mantri Garib Kalyan Anna Yojana (PMGKY) scheme and raised concerns about the Annvitra app, asking whether it works offline in remote tribal areas and if digital training is planned for shopkeepers and officials. He also inquired about the Ann-Sahayta platform’s complaint resolution timeline, urging for 72-hour redressal for tribal issues.
  1. Smt. Nimuben Jayantibhai Bambhaniya (MoS, Ministry of Consumer Affairs, Food and Public Distribution; BJP, Bhavnagar, Gujarat) outlined the Government’s push for digital reforms in ration distribution, noting that the system helps eliminate fake ration cards and improves transparency. She also pointed to the Ann-Sahayta WhatsApp service, which enables beneficiaries to register complaints easily from home, ensuring better access and accountability.
3. Shri Bidyut Baran Mahato (BJP, Jamshedpur, Jharkhand) sought an update on the progress of 6G technology projects and related research initiatives. Further, he questioned the implementation of the Anusandhan National Research Foundation (ANRF), and also about plans for setting up regional innovation or training hubs in Jharkhand and Eastern India.
  1. In response, Shri Jyotiraditya M Scindia (Union Minister, Ministry of Communications; BJP, Guna, Madhya Pradesh) outlined that the ANRF, launched in February 2024, has a ₹50,000 crore budget (2023–28) to boost research and innovation, with multiple programs in areas like EVs, MedTech, and AI. He further highlighted initiatives such as the introduction of research grants, Centers of Excellence, and funding for innovation hubs. On 6G technology, he mentioned India’s goal of contributing 10% of global patents and emphasised that over 4,000 of them have already been filed. He further stated that the country’s ‘Ubiquitous Connectivity’ vision has gained international recognition.
Following this, Papers and Reports were laid on the Table.
Shri Nityanand Rai (MoS, Ministry of Home Affairs; BJP, Ujiarpur, Bihar) on behalf of Shri Amit Shah Ji (Union Minister, Ministry of Home Affairs; BJP, Gandhinagar, Gujarat), moved a resolution to introduce the Foreign Contribution (Regulation) Amendment Bill, 2026. The Speaker informed the House that the President had recommended the Bill’s introduction under Article 117(1) of the Constitution. The discussion on the Bill ensued, and members participated in the same.
1. Shri Manish Tewari (INC, Chandigarh) opposed the introduction of the Bill, raising constitutional concerns such as excessive delegation of powers to the Government, potential violation of property rights under Article 300A, and undermining of the separation of powers. He also warned that the provisions could adversely affect civil society by allowing disproportionate control over assets, thereby impacting the right to form associations, and concluded that the Bill is constitutionally questionable in its current form.
2. Shri Gowaal Kagada Padavi (INC, Nandurbar (ST), Maharashtra) opposed the Bill, arguing that the takeover of NGO assets amounts to quasi-expropriation and reflects excessive centralisation of power. He raised concerns that the provisions could violate fundamental rights, including freedom of speech and association, and warned that increased control and scrutiny may shrink the space for civil society organizations. He cautioned that the Bill could adversely affect religious and minority institutions, potentially infringing upon constitutional protections under Articles 25 and 26.
3. Shri Nityanand Rai (MoS, Ministry of Home Affairs; BJP, Ujiarpur, Bihar) defended the Bill as necessary for improving efficiency, transparency, and alignment with national interests, addressing past administrative issues. He emphasised safeguards such as clear provisions for asset management, opportunities for NGOs to regularise their status, return of assets, and access to judicial review. He also asserted that the Bill targets misuse of foreign funds for illegal activities, while legitimate NGOs would not be affected, and maintained that it does not violate any constitutional provisions.
4. Shri Krishna Prasad Tanneti (TDP, Bapatla (SC), Andhra Pradesh), presiding over the chair, put the motion to a voice vote and declared that it was approved by the majority. Following this, Shri Nityanand Rai (MoS, Ministry of Home Affairs; BJP, Ujiarpur, Bihar) formally introduced the Foreign Contribution (Regulation) Amendment Bill, 2026 in the House.
Matters under Rule 377 were laid on the Table of the House.
Smt. Nirmala Sitharaman (Union Minister, Ministry of Finance; BJP, Karnataka)addressed the House while replying to the debate on the Finance Bill 2026–27, noting that amendments approved on 24^th March, 2026 would be taken into account.
1. She outlined several relief measures in the Finance Bill 2026–27. She noted that TCS on education and medical remittances under the Liberalised Remittance Scheme (LRS) has been reduced from 5% to 2%, and on overseas tour packages from 20% to 2%. She further highlighted that customs duty has been removed on 17 life-saving drugs, with expanded benefits for rare diseases. She also introduced a disclosure scheme allowing small taxpayers to declare overseas assets up to ₹5 crore or income up to ₹1 crore without prosecution.
2. She defended cess and surcharges as constitutionally valid, stating they fund key welfare schemes like Samagra Shiksha, Midday Meal, and National Health Mission (NHM), with ₹11,627 crore transferred to PM Swasthya Suraksha Nidhi. She argued that states benefit more through targeted schemes than the 41% share under the divisible pool, noting that between 2019–25, spending on these schemes exceeded collections.
3. She explained that tax incentives for data centers are conditional, including a tax holiday till 2047, only if the infrastructure is based in India, ensuring local jobs and use of Indian resellers, with ‘safe harbor’ rules guaranteeing a 15% margin for domestic entities. She noted that $70 billion in investments are underway and projected a 4–5 times growth in cloud capacity by 2030, creating large-scale employment. She also rejected criticism of GST cuts, citing a 26.1% rise in passenger vehicle sales as evidence of improved economic activity.
4. On the PLI scheme, she pointed to a ₹76,000 crore commitment for semiconductors and emphasised that building such ecosystems takes decades globally.
5. She further clarified that the combined debt-to-GDP ratio of 84.2% includes both Centre and state borrowings, noting that states also play a significant role and must share responsibility. She highlighted that the fiscal deficit has been reduced from 9.3% in 2020–21 to a projected 4.3% in 2026–27, adhering to the fiscal glide path. Comparing globally, she pointed out that India’s debt levels are lower than those of countries like the US, China, and Japan, and are on a declining trend.
6. She also alleged underreporting of the fiscal deficit in 2008–09 and noted that the current Government has repaid significant oil bond liabilities, which has impacted available funds for development.
Shri Krishna Prasad Tanneti (TDP, Bapatla (SC), Andhra Pradesh), presiding over the chair, put the motion for considering the Bill to the House. Following this, the bill was moved to a final voice vote and was thereby adopted after a majority vote. Following adoption, the chair informed the House that a total of 17 new clauses had been added to the Finance Bill, 2026-27.
Following this, Smt. Nirmala Sitharaman (Union Minister, Ministry of Finance; BJP, Karnataka) proposed the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code (Amendment) Bill, 2025, for consideration by the House.
1. Shri Anurag Singh Thakur (BJP, Hamirpur, Himachal Pradesh) supported the amendment, stating that it strengthens economic reforms and has shifted power from defaulters to creditors through the IBC framework. He noted that 8,654 cases have been processed with recoveries of about ₹4 lakh crore, achieving 170% of liquidation value and 94% of fair value.
  1. He further noted that 40% of resolved Corporate Insolvency Resolution Process (CIRP) cases were legacy Board for Industrial and Financial Reconstruction (BIFR) cases, where creditors recovered 18.91%, amounting to 152% of the liquidation value. He supported the amendment as part of ongoing economic reforms, stating that it improves efficiency by allowing faster resolution within 150 days. He concluded by stating that the bill strengthens the IBC framework and supports creditors, businesses, and economic growth.
2. Shri Virendra Singh (SP, Chandauli, Uttar Pradesh) opposed the Bill, arguing that it creates inequality between small borrowers and large corporations. He stated that despite promises made during the introduction of the IBC 2016, recovery outcomes have been poor, with declining recovery rates and very high haircuts. He cited cases like Videocon Group, Bhushan Steel, and Essar Steel to show significant losses to banks. He alleged that large companies misuse insolvency provisions to write off debts and restart operations, while small borrowers and farmers face strict penalties even for minor defaults. He also raised concerns about unresolved issues like Sahara India, where depositors have not received relief.
3. Shri Daggumalla Prasad Rao (TDP, Chittoor (SC), Andhra Pradesh) supported the Bill, stating that it addresses key gaps in the implementation of the IBC. He noted that delays in resolution had increased significantly, with many cases exceeding the prescribed timeline and leading to value loss. He highlighted that the Bill introduces three major reforms: a creditor-driven insolvency process for faster resolution, a group insolvency framework to handle related companies together, and a cross-border insolvency mechanism to align with global standards.
4. Shri Rahul Kaswan (INC, Churu, Rajasthan) raised concerns that the Bill gives excessive power to the Committee of Creditors, compromising the independence of the liquidation process and creating potential bias against other stakeholders. He criticised provisions like the creditor-initiated insolvency process for being limited to select financial creditors, creating inequality and reducing effectiveness. He also warned that vague terms like ‘mala fide intent’ could increase arbitrariness and legal uncertainty.
5. Shri Anup Sanjay Dhotre (BJP, Akola, Maharashtra)noted that while IBC, 2016 was a major reform, it faced issues like delays and implementation gaps, which the new bill aims to fix. He highlighted India’s economic progress, including significant GDP growth, strong startup expansion, improved infrastructure, growth in digital payments through UPI, increased renewable energy capacity, and a sharp decline in Non-performing assets (NPAs). He also mentioned various Government schemes supporting MSMEs, street vendors, farmers, and startups through loans, subsidies, and incentives.
6. Shri Gurmeet Singh Meet Hayer (AAP, Sangrur, Punjab) raised concerns about the bill, stating that the proposed 14-day timeline for admitting insolvency cases was unrealistic without strengthening the capacity of institutions like NCLT and NCLAT, where many cases are already pending. He warned that strict insolvency provisions could harm MSMEs, especially seasonal businesses, by pushing them into early bankruptcy and causing job losses.
7. Shri Darshan Singh Choudhary (BJP, Hoshangabad, Madhya Pradesh) supported the bill, stating that the IBC, 2016 was a major reform that brought discipline, transparency, and accountability to the banking system, especially after issues like rising NPAs and prolonged disputes. He further acknowledged challenges such as delays, procedural complexities, and difficulties faced by MSMEs, and stated that the amendment addresses these by ensuring faster, time-bound resolution and simplifying processes.
8. The discussion on the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code (Amendment) Bill, 2025 will further continue on 27^th March, 2026.
The Lok Sabha was adjourned at 6:28 PM to reconvene at 11:00 A.M on Friday, 27^th March, 2026.

III. Rajya Sabha Proceedings:

The proceedings of the Rajya Sabha commenced at 11:00 AM.
Shri C.P. Radhakrishnan Ji (Chairman, Rajya Sabha) presided over the proceedings of the House and informed the House about the recent passing of Shri Dattatraya Raghobaji Meghe (senior politician with five Lok Sabha terms).
Following this, papers and Reports were laid on the table.
Shri C.P. Radhakrishnan Ji (Chairman, Rajya Sabha) informed the House that 2 Bills, i.e., the Transgender Persons (Protection of Rights) Amendment Bill, 2026, and the Central Armed Police Forces (General Administration) Bill, 2026, were included in the revised list of business, with provisions for introduction and further consideration. He directed members to submit amendment notices through the e-portal by the specified deadlines of 12:00 PM and 2:00 PM, for the day respectively.
Shri C.P. Radhakrishnan Ji (Chairman, Rajya Sabha) informed the House that the Business Advisory Committee has allotted 4 hours each for the Transgender Persons (Protection of Rights) Amendment Bill, 2026 and the Foreign Contribution (Regulation) Amendment Bill, 2026. The committee further recommended cancelling Private Members’ Business on 27^th March, 2026, to prioritise Government business.
Matters raised with permission were taken up in the House.
Following this, Shri C.P. Radhakrishnan Ji (Chairman, Rajya Sabha) commenced the Question Hour.
1. Shri Mayankkumar Nayak (BJP, Gujarat) questioned whether the National Backward Classes Finance and Development Corporation (NBCFDC) provides specific schemes for De-notified, Nomadic, and Semi-Nomadic Tribes, particularly in areas like startups, higher education, and traditional occupations, and sought clarity on any dedicated services for these communities. In response, Shri Ramdas Athawale (MoS, Ministry of Social Justice and Empowerment; RPI (ATHAWALE), Maharashtra) outlined the Government’s efforts for the welfare of De-notified, Nomadic, and Semi-Nomadic Tribes, mentioning surveys conducted through commissions to assess their needs. He noted that while Denotified Tribes (DNT) fall under OBC, they benefit from schemes like Pradhan Mantri Dakshta Aur Kushalta Sampann Hitgrahi (PM-DAKSH) for skill development.
2. Smt. Rekha Sharma (BJP, Haryana) addressed the House regarding women-led development and inquired whether specific targets have been fixed under Pradhan Mantri Kaushal Vikas Yojana (PMKVY) 4.0 in Haryana to increase female participation in emerging sectors such as drones, AI, and green energy. In response, Shri Gajendra Singh Shekhawat (Union Minister; Ministry of Culture; BJP, Jodhpur, Rajasthan) explained that under Skill India and PMKVY 4.0, reskilling programs are demand-driven with no gender restrictions, while offering special support for women, PwDs, and SC/ST groups. He noted that women’s participation is about 50% overall and around 46% in new-age sectors, though lower in Haryana at 36%. Further, he added that interest among women in emerging technologies is steadily increasing.
3. Shri Shambhu Sharan Patel (BJP, Bihar) noted that despite India being the world’s largest producer of dairy products, its exports remain relatively low and sought reasons for this gap. In response, Shri Rajiv Ranjan Singh (Union Minister, Ministry of Fisheries, Animal Husbandry and Dairying; JD(U), Munger, Bihar) explained that while India leads in milk production, rising from 146.3 million tonnes in 2014–15 to 248 million tonnes in 2024–25, exports remain low mainly due to the prevalence of Foot-and-Mouth Disease (FMD). He noted that many developed countries restrict imports from non-FMD-free nations. To address this, the Government is working on eradication efforts and moving toward FMD-free certification in select states, which is expected to boost dairy exports.
4. Shri Golla Baburao (YSRCP, Andhra Pradesh) raised concerns about the underutilisation of funds for police modernisation, noting a gap between high allocations and low spending in the years 2022–23 and 2024–25, and asked for reasons, corrective steps, and the 2026–27 action plan. In response, Shri Nityanand Rai (Minister of State, Ministry of Home Affairs; BJP, Ujiarpur, Bihar) explained that police modernisation funds depend on state-level utilisation, as states handle planning and implementation. He noted that the Ministry conducts regular reviews, and despite only ₹225 crore of the ₹540 crore being spent initially, persistent coordination increased the revised estimate to about ₹593 crore.
The proceedings of the Rajya Sabha were adjourned to reconvene at 2:00 PM with Shri Harivansh Ji (Deputy Chairman, Rajya Sabha; JD(U), Bihar) presiding over the chair.
1. Shri Harsh Malhotra (MoS, Ministry of Finance; BJP, East Delhi, NCT of Delhi) urged that the House concur with the recommendations of the Lok Sabha to join the Joint Committee on the Corporate Laws Amendment Bill, 2026. The motion further resolved that 10 members of the House be nominated by the Chairman to serve on the said Joint Committee. Following the formal introduction, Shri Harivansh Ji (Deputy Chairman, Rajya Sabha; JD(U), Bihar) put the motion to a vote. After a majority vote, the motion was adopted.
Shri Harivansh Ji (Deputy Chairman, Rajya Sabha; JD(U), Bihar) called upon Shri Nityanand Rai (MoS, Ministry of Home Affairs; BJP, Ujiarpur, Bihar) to introduce the Central Armed Police Forces (General Administration) Bill, 2026. He noted that 6 notices of amendment had been received for the bill.
1. Shri Derek O’Brien (AITC, West Bengal) opposed the bill’s introduction, citing the absence of Shri Amit Shah Ji (Union Minister, Ministry of Home Affairs; BJP, Gandhinagar, Gujarat), and described the legislation as ‘anti-federal’ and an encroachment on legislative powers. He expressed dissatisfaction and spent the remaining time in silence as a form of protest, calling it a parliamentary right and a stand against ‘muzzling of democracy.’
2. Shri Tiruchi Siva (DMK, Tamil Nadu) opposed the bill’s introduction, arguing that it seeks to override past Supreme Court judgments, including a ruling favoring CAPF personnel on reducing IPS deputations. He noted that the Government’s review petition was dismissed and expressed concern over the impact on the separation of powers. Further, he urged that the bill be referred to a Select Committee for detailed scrutiny.
3. Dr. John Brittas (CPI(M), Kerala) opposed the bill on legal and constitutional grounds, arguing that it wrongly invokes Article 312 to mandate IPS deputations without the required two-thirds resolution. He stated that ordinary legislation cannot override this constitutional provision. He also objected to a clause seeking to nullify court judgments, asserting that while laws can be changed prospectively, Parliament cannot directly override judicial decisions, making the bill exceed legislative competence.
4. Shri Nityanand Rai (MoS, Ministry of Home Affairs; BJP, Ujiarpur, Bihar) defended the bill, asserting that it falls within Parliament’s legislative powers under Entries 1 and 2 of the Union List. He clarified that the original Acts governing CAPFs would remain unchanged and that the bill has no financial burden on the Consolidated Fund. He emphasised that Article 312 is not affected and rejected concerns about interference with judicial authority.
5. Shri Harivansh Ji (Deputy Chairman, Rajya Sabha; JD(U), Bihar) moved the introduction of the Central Armed Police Forces (General Administration) Bill, 2026, to a vote. The motion was adopted, and the Bill was formally introduced.
The House then moved to a consideration of the Transgender Persons (Protection of Rights) Amendment Bill, 2026. Shri Harivansh Ji (Deputy Chairman, Rajya Sabha; JD(U), Bihar) issued a directive that the scope of the discussion must be strictly confined to arguments for or against the specific provisions of the Bill.
1. Smt. Renuka Chowdhury (INC, Telangana) opposed the Bill, raising concerns about privacy, self-identification, and constitutional rights. She argued that it undermines the principles established by the NALSA judgment and amounts to state interference in personal identity. She questioned the lack of proper consultation with the transgender community and highlighted practical issues such as weak healthcare infrastructure and legal inconsistencies with existing identity documents. She urged the House to withdraw the Bill or refer it to a Select Committee for detailed examination.
2. Shri Tiruchi Siva (DMK, Tamil Nadu) opposed the Bill, expressing concern that it violates constitutional rights under Articles 14, 15, 19, and 21 by undermining the dignity, privacy, and self-identification of transgender persons. He argued that the legislation conflicts with Supreme Court judgments, lacks proper consultation with states and stakeholders, and could further marginalise the community.
3. Dr. Medha Vishram Kulkarni (BJP, Maharashtra) supported the Bill, stating that it aims to ensure dignity, identity, protection, and legal safeguards for transgender persons. She highlighted its focus on identification, certification by authorities, and stricter penalties for offences. Referring to 2011 Census data, she noted variations across states and raised concerns about possible misuse or forced identity in some cases, stressing the need to identify genuine beneficiaries.
4. Shri Subhasish Khuntia (BJD, Odisha) described the Bill as a sensitive issue, emphasising that transgender persons hold cultural and social respect in Indian tradition. He referred to the 2014 NALSA judgment affirming their right to self-identification and stressed that any law must uphold dignity, equality, and constitutional rights. While acknowledging the Bill’s intent to improve benefit delivery, he raised concerns about identity verification through medical or administrative processes.
5. Shri Manoj Kumar Jha (RJD, Bihar) raised concerns over the bill, stating that a legislative majority does not equal moral legitimacy. He argued that the Bill reflects excessive state control and undermines personal freedom, emphasising that gender identity must remain self-determined and not subject to medical or bureaucratic approval.
6. Dr. Bhim Singh (BJP, Bihar) strongly supported the Bill, stating that it aims to strengthen legal protections for transgender persons. He emphasised that transgender individuals have long been part of India’s cultural and historical traditions, citing references from texts like the Mahabharata, Arthashastra, and Kamasutra. He criticised previous Governments for inaction and credited the current Government with enacting the 2019 law and further improving it through this amendment.
7. Smt. Priyanka Chaturvedi (SS-UBT, Maharashtra) strongly opposed the bill, calling it inhuman and demanding its withdrawal. She argued that the Bill was introduced without proper consultation with the transgender community, affecting over five lakh people without their participation.
8. Dr. Virendra Kumar (Union Minister, Ministry of Social Justice and Empowerment; BJP, Tikamgarh (SC), Madhya Pradesh) stated that the Bill is aimed at ensuring equality, dignity, and justice for a community that has historically faced discrimination. He emphasised that the amendment seeks to clarify definitions and improve implementation so that benefits reach genuine beneficiaries. He highlighted that the Government has taken several steps in recent years to promote inclusion through education, training, employment opportunities, and awareness programmes. He concluded by stating that the Bill would provide clearer legal recognition, stronger safeguards, and promote social inclusion, and urged the House to support it in the interest of equality and social justice.
9. Shri Harivansh Ji (Deputy Chairman, Rajya Sabha; JD(U), Bihar) introduced a motion to take up the Transgender Persons (Protection of Rights) Amendment Bill, 2026, for consideration. Consequently, all clauses of the Bill were put to a vote and adopted without changes. Following this, Dr. Virendra Kumar (Union Minister, Ministry of Social Justice and Empowerment; BJP, Tikamgarh (SC), Madhya Pradesh) moved the motion for passing the Bill. The House approved it through a voice vote, and the Bill was passed.
Shri Nityanand Rai (MoS, Ministry of Home Affairs; BJP, Ujiarpur, Bihar) moved the motion for consideration of the Central Armed Police Forces (General Administration) Bill, 2026.
1. Shri Ajay Makan (INC, Karnataka) opposed the Bill, describing it as an attempt to undermine Supreme Court judgments and harm the career prospects of CAPF personnel. He emphasised the crucial role of CAPFs in safeguarding democracy, especially during elections, and contrasted them with forces in countries like Pakistan to highlight their independence. He pointed to multiple court rulings that supported CAPF officers’ rights and questioned why the Government was attempting to override them through legislation.
2. Shri Mahendra Bhatt (BJP, Uttarakhand) supported the bill, stating that it would strengthen and modernise India’s internal security system. He highlighted that CAPFs play a vital role in border security, counter-insurgency, and disaster response, but have long faced administrative complexities, which the bill aims to simplify and make more transparent. He stated that the bill would improve coordination among forces and address modern security challenges like terrorism, cybercrime, and internal unrest. It would also bring a unified legal framework for CAPFs, reducing disputes and improving efficiency for over 10 lakh personnel.
3. The discussion on the Central Armed Police Forces (General Administration) Bill, 2026 will further continue on 27^th March, 2026.
Following this, special mentions were initiated in the House. (Refer Annexure XI for further details.)
The proceedings of Rajya Sabha were adjourned at 6:58PM to reconvene at 11:00 A.M on Friday, 27^th March, 2026.

IV. Events Outside The Parliament :

Shri Pralhad Joshi (Union Minister, Ministry of Consumer Affairs, Food and Public Distribution; BJP, Dharwad, Karnataka) criticised Shri Rahul Gandhi’s (Leader of Opposition; INC, Rae Bareli, Uttar Pradesh), stating that the opposition should act responsibly and support the Government during global crises, and questioned his approach to national issues. On the opposition’s protest, he added that such actions are politically motivated and not aligned with the nation’s interest.
On the Women’s Reservation Bill, Smt. Thamizhachi Thangapandian (DMK, Chennai South, Tamil Nadu) stated that Shri M. K. Stalin (Chief Minister of Tamil Nadu, DMK) has consistently supported women’s reservation but questioned the timing of the Bill and called for detailed consultations with opposition parties before taking a final position. Further, regarding the all-party meeting regarding the West Asia conflict, she said the opposition seeks a serious and constructive discussion to understand India’s stance and diplomatic approach.
Shri Chandra Shekhar (ASP (KR), Nagina (SC), Uttar Pradesh) termed the West Asia conflict an ‘invited crisis’, criticising the Government’s foreign policy and calling for greater accountability. He said the situation affects ordinary citizens the most and urged Prime Minister Shri Narendra Modi Ji (BJP, Varanasi, Uttar Pradesh) to clearly outline the Government’s policies and future preparedness.
On the notice to vacate the INC office at 24 Akbar Road, Shri Pramod Tiwari (INC, Rajasthan) criticised the BJP Government, calling the move unfortunate and stating that the party will respond after internal discussions once the notice is formally received.
Shri Giriraj Singh (Union Minister, Ministry of Textiles; BJP, Begusarai, Bihar) criticised Shri Asaduddin Owaisi (AIMIM, Hyderabad, Telangana), alleging that he presents one stance in Parliament based on the Constitution and another outside, and accusing him of raising issues related to historical figures like Akbar and Babur.
Smt. Kiran Choudhary (BJP, Haryana) said that despite global conflicts and economic downturns, India remains relatively unaffected due to the Government’s forward-looking approach. She added that the opposition should contribute constructively, and not participating in discussions reflects a lack of concern for national interests.
Shri Mallu Ravi (INC, Nagarkurnool, Telangana) criticised the Finance Bill, alleging that amendments are restricting foreign funding to NGOs and impacting support for vulnerable sections. He accused the Government of neither adequately serving the people nor allowing civil society organisations to assist them.
Shri Dinesh Sharma (BJP, Uttar Pradesh) praised Prime Minister Shri Narendra Modi Ji (BJP, Varanasi, Uttar Pradesh), highlighting his global stature and role in promoting peace through dialogue and coordination. He said the Prime Minister’s influence has enhanced India’s prestige internationally, with countries respecting his leadership during conflicts.
On the Women’s Reservation Bill, Smt. Hema Malini (BJP, Mathura, Uttar Pradesh) said that the move is important for further empowering women and increasing their participation in Parliament. On the Opposition raising questions over the all-party meeting on the West Asia situation, she said it is the Opposition’s role to question, but emphasised that unity is essential during times of conflict.
Shri Karti P. Chidambaram (INC, Sivaganga, Tamil Nadu) said the party supports the Women’s Reservation Bill but wants clarity on its provisions, urging parties to field more women candidates. He welcomed the all-party meeting on West Asia, asking the Government to consult the opposition.
On the all-party meeting and the West Asia conflict, Shri Amarinder Singh Raja Warring (INC, Ludhiana, Punjab) said the presence of Hon’ble Prime Minister Shri Narendra Modi Ji (BJP, Varanasi, Uttar Pradesh) is crucial for meaningful discussion and clarity on the Government’s plan of action. On the notice to vacate the Congress office at 24 Akbar Road, he alleged that such moves are aimed at intimidating the party.

The day’s proceedings underscored Parliament’s continued engagement with economic policy, regulatory reforms and social legislation. While the Lok Sabha concluded key fiscal business with the passage of the Finance Bill, discussions on the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code (Amendment) Bill, 2025 and the introduction of the FCRA Amendment Bill, 2026 reflected an ongoing reform agenda. In the Rajya Sabha, the Transgender Persons (Protection of Rights) Amendment Bill, 2026 was passed, while deliberations on the Central Armed Police Forces (General Administration) Bill, 2026 remain ongoing, indicating continued scrutiny of institutional and governance frameworks.

Thanks for reading Legislative Research - NFPRC’s Substack! This post is public so feel free to share it.

Annexure I - Matters Raised Under Rule 377 In The Lok Sabha

Annexure II - Reports And Statements Presented In The Lok Sabha

Annexure III - Members Who Opposed The Introduction of The Foreign Contribution (Regulation) Amendment Bill, 2026 in the Lok Sabha

Annexure IV - Members Who Participated In Debate on The Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code (Amendment) Bill, 2025, In The Lok Sabha

Annexure V - Reports And Statements Presented In The Rajya Sabha

Annexure VI - Matters Raised With Permission In The Rajya Sabha

Annexure VII - Bills Introduced In The Rajya Sabha

Annexure VIII - Bills Passed In The Rajya Sabha

Annexure IX - Members Who Participated In The Discussion On The Transgender Persons (Protection of Rights) Amendment Bill, 2026 In The Rajya Sabha

Annexure X - Members Who Participated In The Discussion On The Central Armed Police Forces (General Administration) Bill, 2026 in the Rajya Sabha

Annexure XI - Special Mentions In The Rajya Sabha

Kerala Budget Analysis 2026-27

Wed, 25 Mar 2026 12:45:15 GMT

Executive Summary :

Kerala’s 2026–27 Budget outlines several initiatives, including free higher education, Rare Earth Corridor, and infrastructure expansion. These announcements come alongside a constrained fiscal position, highlighting the balance the state must maintain between developmental commitments and fiscal space.
The state projects a fiscal deficit of 3.40% of GSDP, close to the permissible ceiling, alongside a revenue deficit of about 2.12% of GSDP. This indicates that routine expenditure continues to exceed recurring revenue, pointing to a structural fiscal imbalance rather than a short-term fluctuation.
A large portion of the state’s revenue is committed to salaries, pensions, and interest payments, leaving limited flexibility to expand capital expenditure. Simultaneously, borrowing overruns of 43.81% and Kerala’s ageing demography could further increase pension and welfare liabilities in the coming years.
Capital outlay remains modest at around 1.2% of GSDP, substantially below the levels typically associated with growth-oriented state budgets, which are closer to 3%. This suggests that mounting fiscal pressures are limiting the state’s ability to invest in long-term productive assets.
A significant portion of projected revenue relies on central transfers, estimated to increase by about 268%. Given the volatility observed in such transfers in recent years, this dependence introduces a potential downside risk if the anticipated inflows do not materialise fully.
Share

The Finance Minister, Shri K.N. Balagopal presented the Kerala Budget 2026-27 before the State Legislature on 29^th January, 2026.

I. Key Highlights :

Gross State Domestic Product (GSDP): Kerala’s GSDP for 2026–27 (at current prices) is projected to be ₹ 16,29,072.51 crore, amounting to a growth of about 14.15% over the revised estimates (RE) for 2025–26 (₹ 14,27,145.23 crore).
GSDP Per Capita: In 2024–25, Kerala’s per capita GSDP (at current prices) is estimated to be ₹ 3,46,437, an increase of 9.42% over 2023–24 (₹ 3,16,612). In 2023–24, per capita GSDP had grown by 8.86% over 2022–23.
Revenue Deficit (RD): RD in 2026–27 is estimated at 2.12% of GSDP (₹ 34,586.66 crore), as compared to an RD of 2.58% of GSDP (₹ 36,889.19 crore) in 2025–26 RE.
Image 1: Key Financial Highlights
Fiscal Deficit (FD): FD for 2026–27 is targeted at 3.40% of GSDP (₹ 55,419.51 crore) as compared to an FD of 3.78% of GSDP (₹ 53,949.50 crore) in 2025-26 RE.
Expenditure: Expenditure (excluding debt repayment) in 2026–27 is estimated to be ₹ 2,39,907.14 crore, an increase of about 25% over the revised estimates of 2025–26 (₹ 1,92,455.60 crore). In addition, debt repayment of ₹ 1,39,963.11 crore is estimated.
Receipts: Receipts (excluding borrowings) for 2026–27 are estimated to be ₹ 1,84,487.63 crore, an increase of about 33% as compared to the RE of 2025–26 (₹ 1,38,506.10 crore).

II. Policy Highlights :

Image 2: Key Policy Highlights

Free Graduate Education: Graduate degree education in Arts and Science state colleges has been made free for all students. Until now, free education existed only up to the Plus Two level.
Rare Earth Corridor: A new ‘Rare Earth Corridor’ connecting Vizhinjam Port to Chavara is planned to harness Kerala’s coastal deposits of rare earth elements. This is expected to attract ₹ 42,000 crore investment and generate 50,000 jobs. ₹ 100 crore is earmarked for a Rare Earth Critical Minerals Mission in partnership with KMML, KELTRON and NFTDC.
Defence Corridor: A new ‘Defence Technology Innovation Hub’ is planned to interlink defence institutions, including the Naval Command, Southern Air Command, Naval Academy, DRDO-NPOL, Brahmos Aerospace, VSCC, IIST, and IISER to develop a high-tech Defence Research Development Corridor to drive national security innovation. An amount of ₹ 50 crore has been earmarked for the commencement of this project.
Regional Rapid Transit System (RRTS): A high-speed rail corridor from Thiruvananthapuram to Kasaragod is planned in 4 phases, modelled on the Delhi-Meerut RRTS. The initiative has been supported by the Union Housing and Urban Affairs Ministry. Phase 1 covers Thiruvananthapuram to Thrissur.
Nativity Card: Kerala will enact a law to issue a Nativity Card to all citizens who have been residents of Kerala for generations. ₹ 20 crore has been earmarked for its implementation.
‘Ente Bhoomi’ Digital Land Survey Project: The Survey Department has launched a digital land survey project named ‘Ente Bhoomi’ to transform land administration by digitising all land-related services. The target is to complete the digital survey of all villages in Kerala within a fixed time limit. An amount of ₹ 26.80 crore is earmarked for the Survey Department, including this project.
Cyber Valley: A Cyber Valley has been planned in the Kochi InfoPark phase III. It will function as a hub of IT, IT-based services, Artificial Intelligence and other new technologies to promote entrepreneurship and create jobs. ₹ 30 Crore has been earmarked for it to be developed in a PPP model.

III. Kerala’s Economy :

GSVA Contribution Of Sectors: In 2024–25, agriculture, manufacturing, and services sectors are estimated to contribute 9.1%, 23.7%, and 67.3% of Kerala’s economy, respectively (at current prices).
Image 3: Sector-wise Share In Kerala’s Economy (2024–25, at Current Prices)

Image 4: Sectoral Growth In Kerala’s GSVA At Constant Prices (2011-12)

IV. Expenditure :

Revenue Expenditure: Revenue expenditure for 2026–27 is proposed to be ₹ 2,17,558.76 crore, an increase of about 25% over the revised estimate of 2025–26 (₹ 1,73,971.80 crore). This includes the expenditure on salaries, pensions, interest, grants, and subsidies.
Committed Expenditure:
In 2026–27, Kerala is estimated to spend ₹ 1,30,602.99 crore on committed expenditure, which is 71.38% of its estimated revenue receipts of ₹ 1,82,972.10 crore. In 2024–25, as per actual figures, 77.59% of revenue receipts were spent towards committed expenditure (₹ 96,886.15 crore out of revenue receipts of ₹ 1,24,861.07 crore).
1. This comprises spending on salaries (₹ 57,557.85 crore), pension (₹ 38,669.12 crore), and interest payments (₹ 34,376.02 crore). This high expenditure limits the state’s ability to reorient spending toward capital.
2. However, this reduction in projection assumes a 33% jump in revenue receipts in a single year, a target that would require every revenue head, including a 268% increase in central grants and a 54% increase in tax devolution, to materialise fully. Given Kerala’s track record of revenue underperformance in recent years, this is a very optimistic projection.
Image 5: Kerala’s Committed Expenditure Trend As % Of Revenue Receipts
Capital Outlay: Capital outlay for 2026–27 is proposed to be ₹ 19,451.16 crore, an increase of about 24% over the revised estimate of 2025–26 (₹ 15,670.22 crore).
1. In 2026–27, capital outlay accounts for about 8.1% of the total expenditure (₹ 2,39,907.14 crore) and around 1.2% of the GSDP (₹ 16,29,072.51 crore). This is significantly lower than the national average capital outlay of about 3.0% of GSDP in the 2025–26 Budget Estimates.
2. Compared to previous years, the proposed outlay reflects a moderate step-up in capital spending. Capital outlay was ₹ 15,082.41 crore in 2024–25 (actuals) and ₹ 13,584.45 crore in 2023–24, indicating a gradual increase over the last two years, with a sharper rise proposed in 2026–27.
3. However, the combination of low capex, which still remains significantly lower than national average, and high revenue commitments points to weakening of Kerala’s investment-led growth prospects over the medium term.
Loans And Advances: In 2026–27, loans and advances by the state are expected to be ₹ 2,897.22 crore, about 3% higher as compared to the revised estimate of 2025–26 (₹ 2,813.58 crore).
Image 6: Composition Of Kerala’s Expenditure (in ₹ crore)
V. Revenue Receipt :
1. Total Revenue Receipts
1. Total revenue receipts for 2026–27 are estimated to be ₹ 1,82,972.10 crore, an increase of about 33% over the revised estimate of 2025–26 (₹ 1,37,082.61 crore). Of this, ₹ 1,14,358.24 crore (about 63%) will be raised by the state through its own resources, and ₹ 68,613.86 crore (about 37%) will come from the centre.
2. Resources from the centre are the state’s share in central taxes (about 23% of revenue receipts) and grants-in-aid (about 14% of revenue receipts). This heavy reliance on a single year’s jump in transfers introduces downside risk because past years show large volatility in grants. This dependence reduces own-revenue resilience and increases vulnerability to grant volatility.
3. 16^thFinance Commission: In 2026–27, the state’s share in central taxes is estimated at ₹ 42,114.32 crore, an increase of about 54% over the revised estimate of 2025–26 (₹ 27,382.06 crore). This sharp increase is significant as higher tax devolution from the centre strengthens the state’s fiscal capacity, which is already high in debt, and provides greater resources for development expenditure and welfare programmes.
4. Central Grants: Grants from the centre in 2026–27 are estimated at ₹ 26,499.54 crore, an increase of about 268% over the revised estimates for 2025–26 (₹ 7,208.87 crore) which is, 45% less than the budget estimate of ₹ 13,074.90 crore. The 2024–25 actual grants from the centre (₹ 6,959.87 crore) represent a decline of about 42.33% compared to ₹ 12,068.26 crore in 2023–24. The projected jump in 2026–27 therefore represents a substantial increase over the recent trend of central grants and suggests expectations of higher transfers from the centre, potentially linked to scheme-based allocations or other grant components.
5. State’s Own Tax Revenue: Kerala’s total own tax revenue is estimated to be ₹ 94,002.47 crore in 2026–27, an increase of about 12% over the revised estimate of 2025–26 (₹ 83,730.96 crore). Own tax revenue as a percentage of GSDP is estimated at about 5.8% in 2026–27. As per the actual figures for 2024–25, own tax revenue as a percentage of GSDP was about 6.5%.

VI. Deficits And Debts :

Revenue Deficit: Revenue Deficit in 2026–27 is estimated to be 2.12% of GSDP (₹ 34,586.66 crore), as compared to a revenue deficit of 2.58% of GSDP (₹ 36,889.19 crore) at the revised estimate stage in 2025–26.
1. The state has recorded persistent revenue deficits in recent years, with the revenue deficit rising from 0.90% of GSDP in 2022–23 (actuals) to 1.60% in 2023–24, and further to 2.49% in 2024–25 (actuals). This trend indicates a widening gap between revenue receipts and revenue expenditure over time.
2. Kerala’s fiscal trends are also reflected in its slippage into the ‘Aspirational’ category in the Fiscal Health Index, indicating a deterioration in its relative fiscal position. This underscores that persistent deficits, rising debt, and high committed expenditure are not temporary issues but signs of structural fiscal stress.
3. Kerala’s revenue deficit levels are also significantly higher than the national average of about 0.2% of GDP, as reported in the RBI State Finances, suggesting that the state’s fiscal position on the revenue account remains comparatively weaker than that of most states.
4. The 2026-27 BE estimates revenue from electricity duty at ₹ 1,475 crore. In contrast, the RE for 2025–26 places electricity duty collections at ₹ 100 crore, which is only about 9.1% of the budget estimate of ₹ 1,100 crore for that year. This is a major revenue loss for the state which stems from KSEB withholding duty from the state.
Fiscal Deficit (FD): Fiscal Deficit for 2026–27 is targeted at 3.40% of GSDP (₹ 55,419.51 crore). In 2025–26, as per the revised estimates, the fiscal deficit is expected to be 3.78% of GSDP (₹ 53,949.50 crore).
1. Under the Kerala Fiscal Responsibility Act, 2003, the state’s base borrowing ceiling is 3.0% of GSDP. For 2026–27, an additional 0.5% relaxation has been permitted for power sector reforms, raising the operative ceiling to 3.5% of GSDP. Against this, the fiscal deficit of 2025–26 revised estimate is 3.78% which is already in breach of the ceiling by 28 basis points (bps).
2. Looking ahead, the trajectory of the fiscal deficit is projected as: 3.40% in 2026–27, 3.50% in 2027–28, and 3.49% in 2028–29. This estimate is already close to the 3.5% operative ceiling, thus leaves no buffer for any shocks to revenue receipts and could lead to borrowings.
3. Kerala is not projecting a return to the 3.0% base ceiling at any point in the three-year window. It is instead budgeting to use the full 3.5% ceiling (including the power sector carve-out) as the effective operating norm through 2028–29.
4. Kerala Infrastructure Investment Fund Board (KIIFB) is a state-sponsored financing entity revitalised in 2016 to fund large infrastructure projects such as roads, hospitals, schools, power transmission outside the state budget. The FD figures above do not capture borrowings raised by it as its borrowings are off budget.
5. RBI explicitly flags off-budget as an all-India transparency and fiscal risk problem, and calls for further improvements in the reporting. Such borrowings also put further stress on the state exchequer since KIIFB has no other source of income.
Primary Deficit (PD): PD for 2026–27 is targeted at 1.29% of GSDP (₹ 21,043.49 crore). In 2025–26, as per the revised estimates, the primary deficit is expected to be 1.55% of GSDP (₹ 22,133.49 crore).
Outstanding Debt: The outstanding debt of Kerala in 2026–27, is projected at ₹ 5,44,832.88 crore, equivalent to 33.44% of GSDP, which is slightly lower than the revised estimate of 34.26% of GSDP (₹ 4,88,910.46 crore) in 2025–26.

VII. Borrowings :

In 2024–25, Kerala’s actual borrowings were ₹ 1,53,944.31 crore against a BE of ₹ 1,07,046.58 crore, an overrun of 43.81%, which is not an isolated deviation. Kerala has consistently borrowed significantly more than budgeted, driven by a combination of own tax revenue underperformance and expenditure commitments, such as welfare spending, that cannot be compressed mid-year.
The revenue shortfall in 2024–25 is documented across every receipt head, own tax revenue came in 10% below BE, own non-tax revenue 10% below, and most severely, grants-in-aid from the centre fell 40% below the budgeted estimate.
The state has limited ability to reduce salary, pension, and interest payments in response to such shortfalls, so the adjustment falls entirely on the borrowing side. This structural asymmetry, committed expenditure on one side and revenue receipts on the other, is the cause of repeated borrowing overruns.
Another structural feature of Kerala’s economy is its heavy dependence on overseas remittances, particularly from migrants working in the Gulf region accounting for over 23.2% of Kerala’s Net State Domestic Product and exceeding the state’s annual revenue receipts. These inflows constitute a significant share of household income and consumption in the state.
However, remittances accrue primarily to private households and are therefore only indirectly captured by the state’s fiscal system. As a result, they generate relatively limited direct tax revenue for the state government. This weak fiscal capture of a major income stream limits the expansion of the state’s own revenue base, reinforcing the structural reliance on borrowings to finance expenditure.
Further, Kerala is the only state which breached the national inflation target in 2025-26 (April-December), at 8.05%, which is being driven by such private consumption. Thus, remittances do not directly contribute to revenue but also undermine the purchasing power of the State’s citizens by increasing inflation.
Debt repayment in 2024–25 amounted to ₹ 1,11,918.42 crore, a figure 57.5% above the budgeted ₹ 71,058.3 crore. The gap reflects a large volume of earlier borrowings maturing simultaneously, a pattern that compounds the state’s fiscal pressure.
By 2026–27, net new borrowing is estimated at ₹ 55,378.49 crore, meaning that for every rupee the state spends on education, roads, and welfare combined, it is borrowing roughly 23 paise of new debt. During 2024-25, 90% of borrowed funds was utilised for debt servicing. Net borrowed funds for Capital Expenditure was 9.80% only, which is the lowest over the 2020-21 to 2024-25 period.

IX. Welfare Spending

Kerala records high social development indicators by Indian standards, including near-universal literacy, relatively high life expectancy, and low infant mortality. These outcomes are the product of decades of sustained, high public expenditure on education, health, and social protection instead of capital assets (1.2% of GSDP against 3% national average).

Pension expenditure is a major long-term driver of Kerala’s revenue deficit and is likely to grow faster than revenue receipts over the next decade, increasing pressure on the state’s finances, especially as the elderly population is projected to reach about 23% by 2036.
The 2026–27 budget extends free education to the graduate level at Arts and Science state colleges. This continues Kerala’s long-standing model of universally accessible public education at every level. Until now, free education existed only up to Plus Two level.
Kerala’s Government Arts and Science colleges have historically charged modest fees, so making them free has limited immediate revenue impact. Despite producing a large pool of skilled graduates, Kerala witnesses significant outward migration which reduces the economic productivity of the state, with over 22 lakh Keralites pursuing economic opportunities outside the state.

Annexures

Annexure I - Overview Of Kerala’s Receipts And Expenditure For 2024-25

Annexure II - Break-up Of The State’s Expenditure Budget Over The Years

Annexure III - Break-up Of The State Government’s Receipts Over The Years

Annexure IV - Major Heads Of Sources For State’s Tax Revenue

Parliamentary Proceedings for 24th March, 2026

Wed, 25 Mar 2026 08:37:25 GMT

Parliament convened on 24 March 2026 with proceedings in both Houses reflecting a combination of legislative action and discussions shaped by evolving global developments. The Prime Minister’s address in the Rajya Sabha on the West Asia conflict set the broader context, outlining its implications for energy security, trade disruptions and India’s external engagements. Alongside this, the Lok Sabha engaged in Question Hour discussions on sectoral schemes and continued deliberations on the Finance Bill, 2026, indicating a sustained focus on fiscal policy and governance priorities.

I. Key Highlights of The Proceedings

The proceedings of the Lok Sabha and Rajya Sabha commenced at 11:00 AM.
In the Lok Sabha, Shri Om Birla Ji (Speaker, Lok Sabha; BJP, Kota, Rajasthan) commenced the proceedings of the House with Question Hour.
1. Shri Dushyant Singh (BJP; Jhalawar-Baran, Rajasthan) inquired about the reduced allocation under the Gender Budget component for the livestock sector. In response, Shri Rajiv Ranjan Singh alias Lalan Singh (Union Minister, Ministry of Fisheries, Animal Husbandry & Dairying; JD(U), Munger, Bihar) clarified that the actual expenditure towards Gender Budgeting has been upwards of ₹ 5000 crore with additional release of funds in the pipeline.
2. Shri Manoj Tiwari (BJP; North-East Delhi, NCT of Delhi) inquired about additional steps being taken to enhance the positive impacts of the Rashtriya Gokul Mission, such as IVF for cattle. In response, Shri Rajiv Ranjan Singh alias Lalan Singh (Union Minister, Ministry of Fisheries, Animal Husbandry & Dairying; JD(U), Munger, Bihar) stated that IVF techniques are being introduced in 604 new districts, with the coverage being increased from 20% to 40% as of date.
In the Lok Sabha, Shri Krishna Prasad Tenneti (TDP, Bapatla (SC), Andhra Pradesh) took up discussion on the Finance Bill, 2026.
1. Shri Manish Tewari (INC, Chandigarh, Chandigarh) raised concerns about the impact from the Strait of Hormuz blockade on India by stating that the International Energy Agency (IEA) has classified the closure as the most impactful incident on the oil industry in the past two centuries..
2. Shri Naveen Jindal (BJP, Kurukshetra, Haryana) stated that the tax principles adopted in the Budget are inspired from Chanakya’s Arthshastra. He further stated the contribution of the private sector citing examples of increased IT and pharmaceutical exports while highlighting that Corporate Social Responsibility (CSR) contributions from the sector impact every sphere of the society.
3. Shri Pushpendra Saroj (SP, Kaushambi, Uttar Pradesh) drew a contrast between low collections from corporate tax as opposed to income and indirect taxes, which places a direct burden on the common man.
In the Lok Sabha, Shri Kiren Rijiju (Union Minister, Ministry of Parliamentary Affairs; BJP, Arunachal West, Arunachal Pradesh) informed the House that the rest of the session could be dedicated towards discussion on tabled Bills, and proposed that the Government’s detailed reply to the discussion on the Finance Bill would be delivered tomorrow after the Question Hour.
In the Lok Sabha, Dr. Virendra Kumar (Union Minister, Ministry of Social Justice and Empowerment; BJP, Tikamgarh, Madhya Pradesh) moved the motion for consideration of the Transgender Persons (Protection of Rights) Amendment Bill, 2026. He emphasized that the Bill provides a precise definition of identity while criminalising the forced mutilation or exploitation of individuals into transgender identities. A key provision establishes a Medical Board chaired by health officials to evaluate cases and recommend the issuance of identity certificates by District Magistrates. He concluded by requesting the House’s cooperation in passing the Bill to strengthen social empowerment and administrative oversight.
1. Smt. S. Jothimani (INC, Karur, Tamil Nadu) argued that the Bill undermines the Supreme Court’s NALSA judgment by replacing the right to self-determination with a State-controlled approval process, fundamentally shifting the citizen-State relationship from rights to permission.
2. Shri Anand Bhadauria (SP, Dhaurahra, Uttar Pradesh) invoked the cultural dignity of the transgender community to argue that the Bill’s removal of self-identification violates constitutional rights to privacy. He expressed concern that the proposed Medical Board and District Magistrate oversight would create legal uncertainty for those who have already transitioned.
3. Smt. Supriya Sule (NCP-SP, Maharashtra) questioned the Bill’s timing during global supply shocks and requested it be referred to a Select Committee for further scrutiny. She criticized the proposed definition of transgender as arbitrary and narrow, arguing it excludes identities protected by the NALSA judgment and the 2019 Act. Also, she challenged the requirement for invasive medical reporting.
4. In response, Dr. Virendra Kumar (Union Minister, Ministry of Social Justice and Empowerment; BJP, Tikamgarh, Madhya Pradesh) defended the amendment as a necessary step to protect individuals facing severe social exclusion, emphasising that the Bill introduces strict new penalties, including life imprisonment, to criminalise the forced induction or exploitation of children and adults into transgender identities. He highlighted the government’s commitment to dignity and transparency, citing the symbolic inclusion of transgender persons in Republic Day celebrations as evidence of a mindset shift toward genuine social respect.
Following a voice vote, the Transgender Persons (Protection of Rights) Amendment Bill, 2026 was passed in Lok Sabha.
In the Rajya Sabha, Shri C.P. Radhakrishnan Ji (Chairman, Rajya Sabha) took up matters raised with permission.
1. Smt. Priyanka Chaturvedi (SS-UBT, Maharashtra) raised the urgent need to revise the penalties for animal cruelty in the country under the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals Act, 1960 and demanded better execution.
2. Smt. Sumitra Balmik (BJP, Madhya Pradesh) raised the issue of noise pollution caused by DJ music systems during examination season, noting that such high decibel levels adversely affect students.
3. Shri Mallikarjun Kharge (INC, Karnataka) enquired about the status of his notices for a short-duration discussion under Rule 176. In response, Shri C.P. Radhakrishnan Ji (Chairman, Rajya Sabha) stated that the matter was currently under process and that he would consult with the concerned individuals before providing a response.
In the Rajya Sabha, Shri Narendra Modi Ji (Prime Minister; BJP, Varanasi, Uttar Pradesh) addressed the House on the ongoing West Asia conflict.
1. He acknowledged how the current global conflict has triggered a severe energy crisis and disrupted trade routes, directly impacting India’s supply of petrol, gas, and fertilizers.
2. He stated that the Government has prioritized diplomatic dialogue with leaders from Israel, Iran, and the U.S. to ensure regional peace, considering approximately one crore Indians living in the Gulf and many crew members stranded in the Strait of Hormuz.
3. He also asserted that in order to bolster domestic resilience, the Government has significantly diversified its energy sources from 27 to 41 countries and expanded strategic petroleum reserves and refining capacity to mitigate supply shocks.
4. He urged for the consistent delivery of food security benefits and called on states to protect migrant workers and crack down on hoarding or black marketing.
5. He concluded by emphasising on a “Team India” spirit of unity across authorities and citizens to ensure a robust resilience to global shocks such as during Covid times.
In the Rajya Sabha, Shri C.P. Radhakrishnan Ji (Chairman, Rajya Sabha) took up discussion on the Appropriation (No. 2) Bill, 2026.
1. Shri Dinesh Sharma (BJP, Uttar Pradesh) supported the Appropriation Bill as a transparent foundation for national development, credited the Direct Benefit Transfer (DBT) mechanism for enhancing fiscal discipline, and highlighted the shift from historical corruption to strategic infrastructure and welfare spending.
2. Shri Haris Beeran (IUML, Kerala) criticized the Appropriation Bill for a 99.9% reduction in the means-based scholarship funds.. He also emphasised the urgent need for a rehabilitation package for expatriates whose return could threaten over ₹ 2 lakh crore in annual remittances.
3. Shri Raghav Chadha (AAP, Punjab) raised concerns over the ₹ 48 lakh crore loss in investor wealth during February 2024, emphasizing the disproportionate impact of West Asian volatility on 13.5 crore retail investors and the salaried class. To mitigate these external shocks, he proposed specific relief measures such as time-bound STT reductions, a one-time crisis tax relaxation, and extending the period for carrying forward capital losses from eight to fifteen years.
In the Rajya Sabha, Smt. S. Phangnon Konyak (BJP, Nagaland) took up Special Mentions.
1. Shri Akhilesh Prasad Singh (INC, Bihar) raised the issue of interlinking rivers in Bihar to address the state’s unique challenge of facing simultaneous floods and droughts, noting that that during the monsoon, approximately 70 to 80 billion cubic meters of water flows through Bihar and into the sea via the Ganga without being utilized.
2. Shri Raghav Chadha (AAP, Punjab) raised the issue of traffic congestion in major Indian metropolitan cities, resulting in substantial economic losses, fuel wastage, and increased environmental pollution. He urged the Government to establish a National Urban Decongestion Mission to tackle this issue.
The proceedings of Lok Sabha and Rajya Sabha were adjourned at 06:47 P.M. and 07:37 P.M. respectively to reconvene at 11:00 A.M on Wednesday, 25^th March, 2026.

II. Lok Sabha Proceedings:

The proceedings of the Lok Sabha commenced at 11:00 AM.
Shri Om Birla Ji (Speaker, Lok Sabha; BJP, Kota, Rajasthan) presided over the proceedings of the House and commenced the proceedings of the House with Question Hour.
1. Shri Dushyant Singh (BJP; Jhalawar-Baran, Rajasthan) inquired about the reduced allocation under the Gender Budget component for the livestock sector, from estimated expenditure of ₹ 540 crore in BE 2025 to ₹ 242 crore in BE 2026, while actual expenditure was ₹ 129 crore in 2024-25, and the steps taken to improve this aspect.
  1. In response, Shri Rajiv Ranjan Singh alias Lalan Singh (Union Minister, Ministry of Fisheries, Animal Husbandry & Dairying; JD(U), Munger, Bihar) clarified that the actual expenditure towards Gender Budgeting has been upwards of ₹ 5000 crore with additional release of funds in the pipeline. He added that reduction in expenditure in the past two years was primarily due to shortage of vaccines which resulted in less vaccination.
2. Shri Saugata Ray (AITC, Dum Dum, West Bengal) claimed that the Minister of Agriculture and Farmers Welfare is avoiding questions of doubling of farmers income and farmer suicide rates and asked to provide clear & definite timelines for the same.
  1. In response, Shri Shivraj Singh Chouhan (Union Minister, Ministry of Agriculture and Farmers Welfare; BJP, Vidisha, Madhya Pradesh ) stated that farmers’ incomes have doubled, and also tripled at certain places. He cited the example of Madhya Pradesh where three different crops are grown now as opposed to one in the past. He also pointed out the budgetary increase to ₹ 1.30 lakh crore while fertiliser subsidy has increased to ₹ 1.86 lakh crore..
3. Shri Neeraj Maurya (SP, Aonla, Uttar Pradesh) raised an issue regarding the closure of cooperative sugar mills in Uttar Pradesh. He questioned the Government’s inaction in reducing the losses faced by such mills and asked the Government to undertake modernisation measures to improve productivity.
  1. In response, Shri Krishna Pal (MoS, Ministry of Cooperation; BJP, Faridabad, Haryana) stated that in our federal setup, cooperatives are independent in decision-making, while productivity depends immensely on the local climatic conditions. He added that the Government has undertaken modernisation measures by pledging ₹ 10,000 crore towards 56 sugar mills, and reassured that the Government is steadfast in securing the livelihood of citizens in the cooperative sector, by citing that ₹ 5 lakh crore has been dispersed towards the Cooperative sector.
4. Shri Manoj Tiwari (BJP; North-East Delhi, NCT Delhi) started by acknowledging that milk production has increased by 69%, thanked the Prime Minister for his efforts, and enquired about the additional steps being taken to enhance the positive impacts of the Rashtriya Gokul Mission, such as IVF.
  1. In response, Shri Rajiv Ranjan Singh alias Lalan Singh (Union Minister, Ministry of Fisheries, Animal Husbandry & Dairying; JD(U), Munger, Bihar) stated that the income of 10 crore dairy farmers has consistently increased. He also noted that productivity per animal has increased by around 37%, while the profit per farmer has increased immensely as well. He stated that IVF techniques are being introduced in 604 new districts, with the coverage being increased from 20% to 40% now.
Following this, papers and reports were laid on the table.
In the Chair, Shri Krishna Prasad Tenneti (TDP, Bapatla (SC), Andhra Pradesh) resumed the discussion on the Finance Bill, 2026.
1. Shri Manish Tewari (INC, Chandigarh, Chandigarh) raised concerns about the impact from the Strait of Hormuz blockade on India by stating that the International Energy Agency (IEA) has classified the closure as the most impactful incident on the oil industry in the past two centuries. He further stated that the assumptions on which the Budget was prepared no longer hold ground and asked the Ministry to expand upon the impact of the war on our country in greater detail. He also cited data regarding a sharp increase in our debt-to-GDP ratio, which could be detrimental for the country. He also flagged issues of tax buoyancy across direct and indirect tax bases. He also expressed concern about the declining value of the Rupee and targeted the India-USA trade deal as being harmful for India’s strategic position.
2. Shri Naveen Jindal (BJP, Kurukshetra, Haryana) congratulated the Finance Minister on the Budget citing the success of the Credit Guarantee Scheme and the PM Awas Yojana, and that the tax principles adopted in the Budget are inspired from Chanakya’s Arthshastra. He further stated the contribution of the private sector citing examples of increased IT and pharmaceutical exports, and the success story of 100+ unicorns, while highlighting the Corporate Social Responsibility (CSR) contributions from the sector impacting every sphere of the society.
3. Shri Pushpendra Saroj (SP, Kaushambi, Uttar Pradesh) began by highlighting that in 2019, corporate tax was reduced from 30% to 22%, resulting in an estimated annual benefit of around ₹1.5 lakh crore to large companies. He contrasted this with the rising burden on the common public, stating that nearly 65% of Government revenue now comes from GST and income tax, while corporate contribution has declined from about 62% in 2015 to around 28%. He also highlighted the negligible wage growth rates and the steep rise in personal liabilities of citizens. Furthermore, he claimed a lack of transparency in schemes like Jal Jeevan Mission and Namami Gange. He emphasised on our economic dependency by citing the following import statistics: 85% of crude oil, 50% of natural gas, about 75% of electronic components, nearly 80% of solar cells (mostly from China), around 70% of edible oil, about 20% of pulse consumption, and 90% of key fertiliser components. Additionally, he also warned of the worrying brain and wealth drain, whereby the number of youth going abroad has doubled in the last ten years, and that 13,000 millionaires have left the country in the same time frame.
4. Shri Jagdambika Pal (BJP, Domariyaganj, Uttar Pradesh) supporting the Bill, stated that it reflects strong economic reforms, improved transparency, and sustained growth under the current Government. He highlighted the increase in Income Tax filers from 3.05 crore (FY 2014) to 6.97 crore (FY 2024), TDS collections from ₹ 2.5 lakh crore (2014) to ₹ 6.5 lakh crore (2024), direct tax-to-GDP ratio from 3.2% to 6.6%, among others. He also stated that India has moved from being among the “Fragile Five” economies to becoming the 4th largest economy globally, mentioning our FDI reserves of $709 billion. He also praised the Government for creating an Economic Stabilization Fund of about ₹ 1.04 lakh crore to handle global crises. He concluded that the Finance Bill promotes economic expansion, transparency, industrial growth, and global competitiveness.
5. Shri Sagar Eshwar Khandre (INC, Bider, Karnataka) evaluated the Finance Bill 2026, focusing on its impact on investors, workers, and pensioners, while raising concerns about policy consistency and fairness. He began by noting an increase in the Securities Transaction Tax (STT) on futures and options could discourage participation in stock markets at a time when more citizens are beginning to invest and trade, thereby acting as a deterrent to financial inclusion. He also highlighted the condition of Anganwadi workers, helpers, and ASHA workers, describing them as the backbone of India’s rural economy. Another concern he raised was policy inconsistency in taxation, particularly regarding Sovereign Gold Bonds (SGBs). He explained that earlier tax exemptions encouraged many investors to participate. However, the Government later restricted these benefits.
6. Smt. Iqra Choudhary (SP, Kairana, Uttar Pradesh) referred to the 2019 Corporate Tax cut and said the Government had justified the concession on the ground that reducing the tax burden on industrialists would increase investment and employment. However, she said that an RBI report had later shown that companies used the benefit of nearly ₹ 1.5 lakh crore to repay debt, accumulate cash and undertake share buybacks rather than create new investment or jobs. She argued that while the corporate tax-to-GDP ratio had fallen and profits had risen, jobs had disappeared, with automation and the gig economy replacing permanent employment. She also argued that similar relaxations in CSR would now affect basic development work in schools, roads and hospitals. She also commented on the trade agreement with the United States, claiming that India currently had a trade surplus of $ 40 billion with America, but that after the agreement it would have to import goods worth $ 100 billion every year, converting this surplus into a deficit.
7. Dr. K Sudhakar (BJP, Chikkballapur, Karnataka) stated that he saw the Bill not merely as a financial document but as a clear economic direction for the country. He argued that the Bill was structural in nature, aimed at simplifying taxation, strengthening compliance, expanding the tax base, reducing discretion and increasing transparency. He said that the rationalisation of income tax slabs and the surcharge structure reflected a balanced and thoughtful approach. He noted that the base exemption remained around ₹ 2.5 lakh, while surcharge was structured progressively, with 10 percent above ₹ 50 lakh, 15 per cent above ₹ 1 crore, and up to 37 per cent for ultra-high incomes.
8. Shri Deepender Singh Hooda (INC, Rohtak, Haryana) started by recalling that in the same House, the then Leader of the Opposition, the late Sushma Swaraj ji, had made a statement that as the rupee falls, the prestige of the country also falls, pointing towards the value of the Rupee currently. He then spoke about fuel and fertilizer prices. He also said that foreign direct investment had been declining and that overseas direct investment by Indian companies had increased, meaning Indian companies were investing more abroad. Finally, he spoke about public debt and said that if both central and state Government debt were combined, the total debt as a percentage of the economy was much higher than earlier years, which he described as another record.
Shri Kiren Rijiju (Union Minister, Ministry of Parliamentary Affairs; BJP, Arunachal West, Arunachal Pradesh) informed the House that the rest of the session could be dedicated towards discussion on tabled Bills, while the Government’s reply to the discussion on the Finance Bill, 2026 would be delivered tomorrow after the Question Hour.
With Smt. Kumari Selja (INC , Sirsa (SC), Haryana) in the Chair, Dr. Virendra Kumar (Union Minister, Ministry of Social Justice and Empowerment; BJP, Tikamgarh, Madhya Pradesh) moved the motion for consideration of the Transgender Persons (Protection of Rights) Amendment Bill, 2026.
1. He asserted that in order to ensure a proper and certain identity and protection for transgender persons so that they can receive the benefits of the Act, it was necessary to provide a precise definition, which the Bill does. He further stated that the abduction of adults and children to cause reversible or irreversible physical harm through mutilation, castration, hormone therapy, and other similar therapies or chemical changes, and forcing them to adopt a transgender identity, often for the purpose of begging or exploitation, has been recognized as a crime.
2. He added that a key decision has been to establish a Medical Board. In this board, the Chief Medical Officer or the Deputy Chief Medical Officer will be appointed on behalf of the States and Union Territories, and the board will make recommendations under their chairmanship. Following the board’s recommendation, identity certificates will be issued to transgender persons by the District Magistrate. He said that this step will strengthen and empower the administrative functioning. Through the Chair, he requested the House to consider the bill and extend its cooperation in passing it.
3. Smt. S. Jothimani (INC, Karur, Tamil Nadu) claimed that despite the Bill’s importance, it was being brought before Parliament without due consultation with transgender persons and other stakeholders. She referred to the landmark judgment of the Supreme Court, commonly known as NALSA, where gender identity was recognized as a matter of self-determination, deeply personal and deeply human. She also posited that the Bill removed the right of self-determination and made identity dependent on State approval. She said that this sequential approval layer for identification fundamentally changes the relationship between the citizen and the State from one of rights to one of permission. She further stated that the bill narrows the definition of transgender persons and excludes trans men and several gender-diverse identities that do not fit into rigid categories.
4. Shri Anand Bhadauria (SP, Dhaurahra, Uttar Pradesh) said that removing self-identification by amending Section 4(2) of the 2019 Act was effectively ending an individual’s right to identity, dignity, and personal decision-making, and that this weakens Articles 14, 15, 19, and 21 of the Constitution. He also claimed that provisions concerning the “Medical Board” were intrusive to privacy and gave excessive power to the District Magistrate. He further claimed that those who had transitioned and updated their official documents under the 2019 Act now faced the risk of being legally forced back to their birth-assigned gender, which would create deep concern and uncertainty regarding their identity, employment, and banking services. He then requested that the Transgender Persons (Protection of Rights) Amendment Bill be withdrawn, and if it could not be withdrawn, it should be sent to a Select Committee.
5. Dr. T Sumathy Alias Thamizhadi Thangapandian (DMK, Chennai South, Tamil Nadu) she was rising not merely to oppose the bill, but to oppose the idea that the State can decide who a person is, an idea that identity must be verified before dignity is granted, and an idea that rights are conditional upon certification. She also raised concern that the National Council for Transgender Persons was not meaningfully consulted before bringing this bill.
6. Smt. Supriya Sule (NCP (SP), Baramati, Maharastra) questioned the urgency of the bill stating there was no pressing need to introduce it at this time of global supply shocks, and requested it be sent to a select committee. Secondly, she spoke about the definition of transgender in the bill, calling it arbitrary and narrow, while claiming that it excludes many identities recognized under the 2019 Act, including transgender men, transgender women, and non-binary persons, in accordance with the NALSA judgment by the Supreme Court. Lastly, she raised the issue of invasive medical reporting and questioned why, if an individual chooses a gender and undergoes medical procedures, a magistrate or collector should be involved.
7. In response, Dr. Virendra Kumar (Union Minister, Ministry of Social Justice and Empowerment; BJP, Tikamgarh, Madhya Pradesh) expressed his gratitude to all the members who participated in the debate. He noted that the present amendment seeks to address certain sensitive and complex provisions so that better protection can be provided to those who face severe social exclusion due to their biological conditions, for which they are not responsible.
  1. He then referred to an event on 26^th January 2024, when around 60 transgender persons from 15 states were invited for the Republic Day celebrations, moving them to tears upon being shown such respect.
  2. He clarified that the new provisions strengthen protection and address the sensitivity of the issue, whereby any inducement, force, deception, or incitement that compels a person or child to adopt or display a transgender identity would now be a punishable offence under Section 18 (A to E) of the Bill.
  3. He also clarified that to deter harm to children, Clauses F and G have been added to Section 18 providing for strict punishment including life imprisonment and fines, as well as rigorous imprisonment ranging from 10 to 14 years.
  4. He concluded by urging the House to uphold the spirit of the Act and ensure that social inclusion becomes a real solution to existing challenges. He said that with the passage of the amendment, transparency will increase, legal recognition will be strengthened, and rights will be protected. He requested all members to support and pass the bill with consensus.
Following a voice vote, the Transgender Persons (Protection of Rights) Amendment Act, 2026 was passed.
The Lok Sabha was adjourned at 06:47 PM to reconvene at 11:00 A.M on Wednesday, 25^th March, 2026.

III. Rajya Sabha Proceedings:

The proceedings of the Rajya Sabha commenced at 11:00 AM.
Shri C.P. Radhakrishnan Ji (Chairman, Rajya Sabha) presided over the proceedings of the House.
Papers were laid on the table. Following this, matters raised with permission were taken up.
1. Smt. Priyanka Chaturvedi (SS-UBT, Maharashtra) raised the urgent need to revise the penalties for animal cruelty in the country under the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals Act, 1960 which sets maximum fines of ₹ 100, and highlighted the weak enforcement of the statute. She also lamented that the National Crime Records Bureau does not include animal cruelty in its annual report making the crime effectively invisible to policy-makers.
2. Smt. Phulo Devi Netam (INC, Chhattisgarh) raised an issue of personnel shortage at AIIMS Raipur highlighting that out of 305 sanctioned posts, only 190 are currently filled leading to immense hardship for patients in the region and requested the Government to expedite appointments.
3. Smt. Sumitra Balmik (BJP, Madhya Pradesh) raised the issue of noise pollution caused by DJ music systems during examination season, noting that such high decibel levels prevent students from getting necessary sleep before their examinations. She also referenced the Noise Pollution (Regulation and Control) Rules, 2000, noting that while regulations exist for residential areas during the peak examination months, enforcement by district administrations remains inadequate despite occasional fines, and urged stricter implementation of the statute.
4. Smt. Medha Vishram Kulkarni (BJP, Maharashtra) raised the issue of the increasing number of missing women and minor girls, specifically in Maharashtra. Citing data from the State’s Home Department, she stated that, on average, 132 women go missing every day in Maharashtra. She also highlighted the role of organized networks involved in “Love Jihad,” forced conversions through fraudulent marriage, and the misuse of social media to entrap minors..
5. Shri Mallikarjun Kharge (INC, Karnataka) enquired about the status of his notices for a short-duration discussion under Rule 176. He stated that he had written to the Chair twice on the matter and emphasized that nearly fourteen days had passed since the initial notice was submitted. He questioned the delay in processing the request, noting the urgency of the issue which he claimed affects the entire country. Shri C.P. Radhakrishnan Ji (Chairman, Rajya Sabha) replied that the matter was currently under process and that he would consult with the concerned individuals before providing a response.
Following this, Shri C.P. Radhakrishnan Ji (Chairman, Rajya Sabha) commenced the Question Hour.
1. Shri Shambhu Sharan Patel (BJP, Bihar) raised the question regarding the One Nation One Ration Card (ONORC) scheme. While describing the initiative as highly useful and beneficial for the public, he requested the Minister to elaborate on the future measures being undertaken to further strengthen the scheme and enhance its overall effectiveness.
  1. Smt. Nimuben Jayantibhai Bambhania (MoS, Ministry of Consumer Affairs, Food and Public Distribution; BJP, Bhavnagar, Gujarat) replied that the Government is bolstering the One Nation One Ration Card scheme through the Smart PDS platform. She noted that this platform facilitates real-time data integration between various States and Union Territories. Additionally, she highlighted the Sarthak PDS initiative, which includes AI-based analytics and a more robust grievance redressal system. She informed that 81 crore citizens are currently able to procure their rations from any fair price shop in any state under this scheme.
2. Shri Mahendra Bhatt (BJP, Uttarakhand) inquired about the mandatory linkage of Aadhaar cards with ration cards, stating that beneficiaries in regions facing internet connectivity issues or biometric machine malfunctions encounter significant difficulties. He asked the Minister to clarify the alternative arrangements provided by the Government and sought information on whether reports of citizens being deprived of rations due to such technical failures have been addressed.
  1. Shri Prahlad Joshi (Union Minister, Ministry of Consumer Affairs, Food and Public Distribution; BJP, Dharwad, Karnataka) responded that all state Governments have been directed to provide rations even if biometric verification fails. He noted that an offline distribution mode remains available to prevent any exclusion. He further detailed a new pilot initiative involving Central Bank Digital Currency (CBDC) currently being tested in Gujarat and Puducherry. He explained that this system allows beneficiaries to use a digital wallet and currency backed by the Reserve Bank of India, which can be scanned at ration shops. He highlighted the impact of digitization over the last decade, specifically mentioning the AI-driven route optimization tool, Anna Chakra. He stated that this initiative has resulted in savings of ₹ 250 crores. Additionally, he referred to the Depot Darpan system, which tracks transit and storage losses, noting they have been reduced to approximately 0.18% and 0.7% respectively.
3. Shri Shaktisinh Gohil (INC, Gujarat) inquired into the systemic failures that prevent Immunoglobulin and Anti-Rabies vaccines from reaching Government hospitals. He noted receiving frequent reports from districts in Gujarat where beneficiaries claim that vaccines are unavailable in public medical facilities. He asked if the Union Government would consider a mechanism to supply these vaccines directly to all state-run hospitals to ensure they are available to the poor.
  1. Shri Jagat Prakash Nadda Ji (Union Minister, Ministry of Health and Family Welfare; BJP, Gujarat) replied that health is a State subject under the constitutional framework. He explained that the Union Government provides the necessary technical and financial support, along with real-time tracking and alerts via a dedicated dashboard. However, he stated that the internal distribution of these vaccines to various district and local hospitals remains the administrative responsibility of the respective state Governments. He further mentioned that the Centre provides training to state officials to manage these processes effectively, but the execution of ground-level distribution rests with the state authorities.
4. Shri Brij Lal (BJP, Uttar Pradesh) expressed concern over the rising prevalence of lifestyle diseases in rural areas. He observed that conditions such as diabetes, cancer, kidney diseases, and high blood pressure, once primarily urban issues, are now increasingly common in villages, and whether the Government has made specific arrangements for providing medicines for these critical illnesses through the Jan Aushadhi Kendras.
  1. Shri Jagat Prakash Nadda Ji (Union Minister, Ministry of Health and Family Welfare; BJP, Gujarat) replied by highlighting the significant expansion of Jan Aushadhi Kendras from 80 to more than 14,000 centers to provide affordable healthcare to the common man. He stated that the current basket includes 2,110 medicines and 315 surgical medical consumables and devices. He elaborated that this range specifically includes cardiovascular, anti-cancer, anti-diabetic, anti-infective, anti-allergic, gastrointestinal, and nutraceutical products. He further noted that all medicines listed under the National List of Essential Medicines are included in the Jan Aushadhi scheme to ensure comprehensive coverage for life-threatening diseases.
The House was adjourned at 1:00 p.m to reconvene at 2:00 p.m.
The proceedings resumed with Shri C.P. Radhakrishnan Ji (Chairman, Rajya Sabha) in the Chair.
Shri Narendra Modi Ji (Prime Minister; BJP, Varanasi, Uttar Pradesh) addressed the House on the ongoing West Asia conflict.
1. He observed that this war has triggered a severe global energy crisis and expressed concern over its direct impact on India, specifically regarding the disruption of trade routes. He stated that the supply of essential commodities, including petrol, diesel, gas, and fertilizers, is being affected by these developments. Highlighting the demographic stakes, he pointed out that approximately one crore Indians reside and work in Gulf countries, making their safety and livelihoods a matter of significant concern for the Government.
2. He further informed the House that numerous ships are currently stranded in the Strait of Hormuz, many of which carry a substantial number of Indian crew members. He emphasized the necessity for the Upper House to project a united voice advocating for peace and dialogue to the international community. Regarding diplomatic efforts, he stated that he has held telephonic conversations with the heads of state of most West Asian nations since the commencement of the conflict. He confirmed that India remains in continuous contact with Gulf nations, as well as Iran, Israel, and the United States, with the primary objective of restoring regional peace through dialogue and diplomacy.
3. He shared that over 3.75 lakh Indians have returned safely to India since the beginning of the conflict. He specified that more than 1,000 Indians have returned from Iran alone, including over 700 students pursuing medical studies. He remarked that the Government is working with full sensitivity and has received assurances from various countries regarding the safety of Indian nationals.
4. He also clarified that while India previously imported its energy requirements, including crude oil, LNG, and LPG, from 27 countries, it now sources them from 41 countries, heavily diversifying our sources. He further elaborated on the country’s strategic petroleum reserves, noting that over 53 lakh metric tons of capacity have been developed in the last 11 years, with ongoing projects to add another 65 lakh metric tons. He assured the House that oil companies maintain sufficient stocks of petrol and diesel to manage potential disruptions. He also pointed out the significant increase in India’s refining capacity over the past decade. Regarding domestic energy security, he explained that the Government is reducing over-reliance on any single fuel source by promoting Piped Natural Gas (PNG) alongside Liquefied Petroleum Gas (LPG).
5. He specifically urged for the timely delivery of benefits under the PM Garib Kalyan Anna Yojana to ensure food security. Furthermore, he requested that states take proactive measures to assist migrant workers at their places of employment and establish specialized monitoring systems to address their grievances effectively. Addressing market stability, he warned against the activities of hoarders and those engaged in black marketing, noting that such elements often become active during periods of global instability. He called upon state authorities to take stringent action against these practices to ensure the uninterrupted supply of essential commodities.
6. Finally, he noted that despite varying political leadership across states, a unified approach to testing, vaccination, and supply chains was successfully achieved during the Covid period. He advocated for the same collaborative spirit of “Team India” to tackle the current global situation. He urged the nation to face the rapidly changing circumstances with patience and a calm resolve.
Shri P.C. Mody (Secretary-General, Rajya Sabha) reported a message from the Lok Sabha regarding its sitting held on 23rd March 2026. He stated that the Lok Sabha had adopted a motion to refer the Corporate Laws Amendment Bill 2026 to a Joint Committee of the Houses consisting of 21 Members to be nominated by the Speaker, Lok Sabha, and 10 Members of Rajya Sabha to be nominated by Chairman, Rajya Sabha.
Shri C.P. Radhakrishnan Ji (Chairman, Rajya Sabha) then transitioned the proceedings to further the discussion on the Appropriation (No. 2) Bill, 2026.
1. Shri Dinesh Sharma (BJP, Uttar Pradesh) spoke in support of the Appropriation Bill, characterizing it as a significant foundation for the nation’s development, transparency, and accountability. He stated that the Government has prioritized financial discipline by reducing the fiscal deficit through the Direct Benefit Transfer (DBT) mechanism. He addressed criticisms regarding increased expenditure, asserting that these funds are being utilized strategically for infrastructure, welfare programs, and nation-building. He emphasized the Government’s support for farmers through continuous increases in Minimum Support Price (MSP) and direct assistance via PM Kisan. He emphasized that India has emerged as a global leader in technology and digital payments, moving away from an era of corruption scandals such as 2G, CWG, and the Coal scam toward a period defined by transparent auctions.
2. Shri Haris Beeran (IUML, Kerala) raised concerns regarding the Government’s funding priorities in the Appropriation Bill, specifically highlighting a drastic reduction in the budget for minority welfare. He stated that the means-based scholarship fund had been reduced from ₹ 302.06 crore in 2024-25 to a mere ₹ 0.06 crore in the 2026-27 budget estimate, representing a 99.9% cut. Furthermore, he highlighted the absence of budgetary provisions for the West Asia crisis, noting the potential impact on annual remittances amounting to ₹2.16 lakh crore and the need for a rehabilitation package for returning expatriates.
3. Shri Lahar Singh Siroya (BJP, Karnataka) compared the Prime Minister’s leadership to that of historical wartime leaders, noting that India has successfully navigated multiple crises in the recent past. On the issue of energy security, he highlighted that the Government has maintained a strategic petroleum reserve of over 53 lakh metric tons. He further informed the House that efforts are underway to create an additional storage capacity of 65 million metric tons to protect the national economy from global energy fluctuations. Additionally, he lauded the focus on Carbon Capture, Utilization, and Storage (CCUS), noting a proposed investment of ₹ 20,000 crore over the next five years to repurpose industrial carbon emissions
4. Shri Mahua Maji (JMM, Jharkhand) stated that approving expenditures without adequate discussion compromises democratic principles and highlighted that a lack of transparency and off-budget borrowings are serious issues that weaken public trust and fiscal discipline. Turning her focus to Jharkhand, she emphasized that while the state provides the nation with essential mineral resources such as coal, iron, and uranium, it does not receive its fair share of financial allocations. She pointed out the irony that a state strengthening the national economy continues to struggle for basic amenities and remains ranked among the lowest in development indices.
5. Shri Satnam Singh Sandhu (BJP, Nominated) supported the Appropriation Bill, characterizing it as a significant milestone in the journey toward a developed India and noting the budget’s growth from ₹ 16.65 lakh crore in 2013-14 to ₹ 53.5 lakh crore in 2026-2027. He paid tribute to martyrs Bhagat Singh ji, Rajguru ji, and Sukhdev ji, asserting that the current focus on self-reliance and the repeal of 1,600 colonial-era laws fulfills their vision for a sovereign nation. He commended the symbolic decolonization of the country through the renaming of landmarks like Rajpath and the reform of the Indian legal system to remove colonial influences.
6. Shri Sat Paul Sharma (BJP, Jammu & Kashmir) highlighted the nation’s robust economic trajectory, characterized by a GDP of ₹ 337.14 lakh crore and foreign exchange reserves reaching $ 686 billion. He further noted the strategic importance of the Fiscal Stabilization Fund, amounting to ₹ 57,381.84 crore, in protecting the domestic economy from the volatility of global energy prices. He commended the government’s fiscal discipline, noting that the fiscal deficit is projected to fall below 4.5% by 2025-26, with a target of reducing the debt-to-GDP ratio to 50% by 2031.
7. Shri Raghav Chadha (AAP, Punjab) expressed concern over the heightened volatility in Indian financial markets resulting from the escalating conflict in West Asia. He noted that despite India’s strong economic fundamentals, the market witnessed a loss of approximately ₹ 48 lakh crore in investor wealth during the month of February, with the burden of this external shock falling heavily on over 13.5 crore retail investors, including the salaried class and SIP participants, who are already subject to various taxes such as STT, GST, and capital gains tax. He proposed several targeted measures to protect domestic investors, including time-bound relief on the Securities Transaction Tax (STT) and extending the period for carrying forward capital losses from eight years to fifteen years. He further suggested a one-time special crisis-period tax relaxation and called for low-friction rebalancing for mutual fund investors.
8. Smt. Rekha Sharma (BJP, Haryana) highlighted that the total expenditure for the fiscal year is estimated at ₹ 53 lakh crore, with capital expenditure at ₹ 12 lakh crore and effective capital expenditure at ₹ 17 lakh crore. She pointed out the improvement in fiscal health, with the fiscal deficit estimated at 4.3% of GDP and a debt-to-GDP ratio of 55.6%, reflecting responsible and strategic spending. She contrasted the current administration’s “national management” with the “narrative management” of previous governments, asserting that the restoration of public faith in government delivery is a major democratic achievement.
Shri P.C. Mody (Secretary-General, Rajya Sabha) reported a message from the Lok Sabha informing the House that it had passed the Transgender Persons (Protection of Rights) Amendment Bill, 2026, during its sitting today and laid a copy of the Bill on the Table of the House.
In the Chair, Smt. S. Phangnon Konyak (BJP, Nagaland) took up Special Mentions.
1. Shri Babubhai Jesangbhai Desai (BJP, Gujarat) raised questions regarding the growing concerns over the misuse of Artificial Intelligence (AI) on social media platforms and requested the Government to address these technological challenges by implementing stricter guidelines for AI usage.
2. Shri Akhilesh Prasad Singh (INC, Bihar) raised the issue of interlinking rivers in Bihar to address the state’s unique challenge of facing simultaneous floods and droughts, noting that that during the monsoon, approximately 70 to 80 billion cubic meters of water flows through Bihar and into the sea via the Ganga without being utilized.
3. Shri Raghav Chadha (AAP, Punjab) regarding the severe impact of traffic congestion in major Indian metropolitan cities, results in substantial economic losses, fuel wastage, and increased environmental pollution, while also causing mental stress and reducing the quality of life for citizens. He urged the Government to establish a National Urban Decongestion Mission to tackle this issue.
4. Dr. Sasmit Patra (BJD, Odisha) raised a matter of urgent concern regarding the disappearance of Indian seafarers in international waters. He noted that official records indicate nearly 100 Indian seafarers have been reported missing or dead under unclear conditions, with many investigations remaining pending for several years.
The proceedings of Rajya Sabha were adjourned at 7:37 PM to reconvene at 11:00 A.M on Wednesday, 25^th March, 2026.

IV. Events Outside The Parliament :

Shri Dharmendra Pradhan (BJP, Sambalpur, Odisha) said that MPs from Odisha met the Railway Minister to raise concerns about Odiya-speaking populations in the Kharagpur railway division. He added that they sought support for these communities, and the Railway Minister has assured that their concerns will be considered appropriately.
Smt. Kamaljeet Sehrawat (BJP, West Delhi, Delhi) criticized the excise policy, alleging that while such policies are generally intended to benefit Government revenue, in this case it failed and instead enabled doorstep delivery of alcohol. She accused the AAP-led Delhi Government of misusing the policy for facilitating wider alcohol distribution.
Smt. Sagarika Ghose (AITC, West Bengal) criticized the Central Government over the alleged LPG crisis, calling it unresponsive and dismissive. She accused the Government of being in denial and deliberately avoiding a discussion in Parliament on rising fuel costs and the difficulties faced by ordinary citizens due to increasing prices.
Smt. Rajani Ashokrao Patil (INC, Maharashtra) welcomed the move related to Women reservation, crediting former Prime Minister Rajiv Gandhi for his contributions to advancing reservation policies. She stated that the Congress party would continue to uphold and carry forward his legacy in promoting social justice and inclusive representation.
Shri Madan Rathore (BJP, Rajasthan) criticized Rahul Gandhi, stating that if he wanted to raise issues, he should do so through established parliamentary mechanisms such as the Business Advisory Committee. He argued that bypassing institutional procedures undermines the functioning and discipline of Parliament.
Shri Giriraj Singh (BJP, Begusarai, Bihar) criticized Rahul Gandhi, stating that he has previously had to apologize for his remarks and accused him of spreading misinformation during the COVID-19 pandemic. He also praised Prime Minister Narendra Modi Ji’s leadership, highlighting the Government’s handling of the crisis and its response measures.
Shri Pramod Tiwari (INC, Uttar Pradesh) commented on Jharkhand Mukti Morcha announcing candidates in Assam, stating that such developments are common in politics. He noted that political parties may choose to contest together or separately depending on circumstances, and emphasized that there is nothing unusual about such electoral decisions.
Shri Narhari Amin (BJP, Gujarat) responded to Arvind Kejriwal’s remarks about the Prime Minister by dismissing them as politically insignificant. He stated that AAP lacks substantial presence in Gujarat and asserted that the BJP will continue to dominate electorally, including in upcoming elections in states such as Bihar.
Shri Ravi Kishan (BJP, Gorakhpur, Uttar Pradesh) welcomed the Women’s Reservation Bill, describing it as a historic step toward empowering women in politics. He credited Prime Minister Narendra Modi for prioritizing women’s welfare and said the legislation would significantly enhance women’s representation in Parliament and state legislatures.
Smt. Mahua Maji (JMM, Jharkhand) welcomed the Women’s Reservation Bill, stating that women are prepared to take on greater leadership roles in Parliament and state assemblies. She added that the INDI Alliance would deliberate internally and extend support to the Bill with certain conditions after discussions among alliance partners.
Shri Anurag Thakur (BJP, Hamirpur, Himachal Pradesh) criticized the Congress Government in Himachal Pradesh, targeting Rahul Gandhi and Priyanka Gandhi Vadra. He alleged that their pre-election promises have resulted in increased VAT and additional cess on diesel, thereby placing a significant financial burden on the common people.
Shri Naresh Mhaske (SHS, Thane, Maharashtra) supported the Women’s Reservation Bill, stating that the Government is fulfilling its commitment to prioritizing women’s empowerment. He urged the Opposition to support the initiative and also criticized Rahul Gandhi, calling on him to act responsibly and avoid statements that could undermine the country.

The day’s proceedings reflected Parliament’s dual role in addressing immediate global challenges and advancing domestic legislative business. While the Lok Sabha concluded deliberations with the passage of the Transgender Persons (Protection of Rights) Amendment Bill, 2026, discussions in the Rajya Sabha covered governance concerns and fiscal priorities through debate on the Appropriation (No. 2) Bill, 2026. Together, the debates underscored a continued emphasis on economic resilience, institutional processes and policy responsiveness in a complex global environment.

Annexure I - Matters Raised Under Rule 377 In The Lok Sabha

Annexure II - Reports And Statements Presented In The Lok Sabha

Annexure III - Members Who Participated In Discussion On The Finance Bill, 2026 in The Lok Sabha

Annexure IV - Members Who Participated In Discussion on the Transgender Persons (Protection of Rights) Amendment Bill, 2026 In The Lok Sabha

Annexure V - Bills Passed In The Lok Sabha

Annexure VI - Statements Presented In The Rajya Sabha

Annexure VII - Matters Raised With Permission In The Rajya Sabha

Annexure VIII - Members Who Participated In The Discussion On The Appropriation (No.2) Bill, 2026 In The Rajya Sabha

Annexure IX - Special Mentions In The Rajya Sabha

Parliamentary Proceedings for 23rd March, 2026

Tue, 24 Mar 2026 08:07:26 GMT

Parliament convened on 23 March 2026, marking Shaheed Diwas, with proceedings in both Houses reflecting a combination of policy discussions, legislative business and strategic briefings. In the Lok Sabha, the Prime Minister Shri Narendra Modi Ji’s address on the West Asia conflict set the tone for the day, outlining its implications for India’s energy security, evacuation efforts and broader economic stability. Alongside this, members engaged with issues relating to fiscal policy, education funding and corporate regulation, indicating a continued focus on governance and economic management.

I. Key Highlights of The Proceedings:

The proceedings of the Lok Sabha and Rajya Sabha commenced at 11:00 AM.
In the Lok Sabha, Shri Om Birla Ji (Speaker, Lok Sabha; BJP, Kota, Rajasthan) paid tribute to freedom fighters Sardar Bhagat Singh Ji, Sukhdev Ji and Rajguru Ji on Martyrs’ Day (Shaheed Diwas) and then commenced the Question Hour.
1. Shri Manickam Tagore B. (INC, Virudhunagar, Tamil Nadu) raised concern over central grants to Kerala falling sharply from ₹22,559 crore in 2021–22 to ₹3,332 crore in 2025–26, questioning whether conditions were deliberately restricting funds to opposition-ruled states. In response, Smt. Nirmala Sitharaman (Union Minister, Ministry of Finance; BJP, Karnataka) clarified that fund releases depend on states utilizing funds and submitting compliance certificates. She also highlighted that ₹311.95 crore was approved under the National Disaster Mitigation Fund (NDMF) for Kerala, but zero funds have been released because the state has not yet applied for the drawing of the amount by providing the necessary documentation.
2. Dr. Kalanidhi Veeraswamy (DMK, Chennai North, Tamil Nadu) questioned the feasibility of the National Education Policy (NEP), noting that only 60% out of ₹47,310 crore under Samagra Shiksha Abhiyan has been released nationwide by March, with Tamil Nadu receiving just 30% of the funds allocated to the State. Shri Jayant Chaudhary (MoS, Ministry of Education; RLD, Uttar Pradesh) clarified that Tamil Nadu’s funding delays are due to the state not signing the PM-SHRI MoU, with ₹538 crore recently released and further funds dependent on compliance.
Following the conclusion of question hour, papers and reports were laid on the table.
Smt. Nirmala Sitharaman (Union Minister, Ministry of Finance; BJP, Karnataka) sought leave to introduce the Corporate Laws (Amendment) Bill, 2026.
1. Shri Manish Tewari (INC, Chandigarh, Chandigarh) opposed the introduction of the Bill, citing excessive delegation of powers to the executive. He argued that key aspects like Corporate Social Responsibility (CSR) norms and penalties being left to rules weakens Parliament’s role and reduces accountability.
2. Shri Sougata Roy (AITC, Dum Dum, West Bengal) also opposed the introduction of the Bill, raising concerns over broad discretionary powers to the Central Government and bodies like National Financial Reporting Authority (NFRA). He said this could lead to arbitrariness and weaken parliamentary oversight.
3. Smt. Nirmala Sitharaman (Union Minister, Ministry of Finance; BJP, Karnataka) defended the Bill, stating it is based on two years of consultation and expert recommendations. She clarified that rules are procedural and subject to parliamentary review, and highlighted reforms like raising CSR threshold to ₹10 crore and decriminalizing 21 offences will support ease of doing business and MSME growth.
The House approved the Bill’s introduction, and Smt. Nirmala Sitharaman (Union Minister, Ministry of Finance; BJP, Karnataka) referred it to a Joint Parliamentary Committee (JPC) after the voice vote.
Following this, matters raised with permission were taken up.
1. Dr. Indra Hang Subba (SKM, Sikkim) expressed gratitude for improved connectivity, including Sikkim’s first airport and the Sevoke–Rangpo railway project. He also congratulated the Prime Minister for becoming the longest-serving elected leader and highlighted the Northeast’s transformation.
2. Shri Gurjeet Singh Aujla (INC, Amritsar, Punjab) raised a law and order issue alleging that harassment of an Food Corporation of India (FCI) officer led to his suicide and sought a probe. Shri Amit Shah (Union Minister, Ministry of Home Affairs; BJP, Gandhinagar, Gujarat) replied that it is a state subject but can be transferred to the Central Bureau of India (CBI) upon request by the MPs.
3. Shri Jagdambika Pal (BJP, Domariyaganj, Uttar Pradesh) raised concerns over the low honorarium of ₹6,000–₹10,000 for Anganwadi workers and demanded a uniform pay scale, job security, and 26 weeks paid maternity leave for their welfare.
The proceedings of the House were adjourned at 01:40 PM to reconvene at 02:00 PM.
The proceedings of the House were reconvened at 02:00 PM, with Shri Om Birla Ji (Speaker, Lok Sabha; BJP, Kota, Rajasthan) in the Chair.
Prime Minister Shri Narendra Modi Ji (BJP, Varanasi, Uttar Pradesh) addressed the House on the West Asia conflict, highlighting its economic and security challenges and outlining steps to ensure energy security and citizen safety. He informed that over 3.75 lakh Indians have been evacuated, and India has expanded oil sourcing from 27 to 41 countries while maintaining close coordination with global partners.
1. He stated that the Government is maintaining a Strategic Petroleum Reserve of 5.3 MMT, with plans to add 6.5 MMT, and clarified that these reserves are in addition to the stocks held by oil companies. He also emphasised reducing import dependence through renewable energy and ethanol blending.
2. He further highlighted that India’s renewable energy capacity has crossed 250 GW, and called for an unanimous stance of the House for immediate cessation of hostilities. He also urged State Governments to strictly monitor supply chains to prevent black marketing and hoarding.
Subsequently, Smt. Nirmala Sitharaman (Union Minister, Ministry of Finance; BJP, Karnataka) sought leave to introduce the Finance Bill, 2026–27 to give effect to the financial proposals of the Central Government.
1. Dr. Nishikant Dubey (BJP, Godda, Jharkhand) praised Prime Minister Shri Narendra Modi Ji’s leadership, stating that India has become the fourth largest economy. He highlighted stable fuel prices despite global conflicts through diversified oil sourcing and said the Finance Bill reflects a vision of a $50 trillion economy by 2047, supported by key corporate reforms.
2. Shri Ravindra Waikar (SS, Mumbai North West, Maharashtra) supported the Finance Bill 2026, highlighting fiscal discipline, increased expenditure of ₹ 53.5 lakh crore, tax relief, and major infrastructure push for Maharashtra, while urging a ₹5,000 crore national mission for a Slum-Free Mumbai by 2030.
3. Smt. Supriya Sule (NCP(SP), Baramati, Maharashtra) raised concerns over India becoming a “debt-driven economy”, highlighting Liquified Petroleum Gas (LPG) shortages, rising costs for the middle class, and agricultural distress in Maharashtra. She questioned the Government’s fiscal transparency and criticized the Government’s reliance on a record dividend transfer of ₹ 3.16 trillion from the Reserve Bank of India (RBI).
4. Shri Basavaraj Bommai (BJP, Haveri, Karnataka) supported the Finance Bill 2026 for maintaining fiscal discipline 4.3% deficit, sustaining 10% GDP growth, and ensuring economic resilience through strategic oil management and contingency planning amid global disruptions.
5. Shri P.P. Chaudhary (BJP, Pali, Rajasthan) highlighted India’s strong fiscal position and stated that tax liability in India begins at a much higher level compared to the USA and UK. He noted that the ₹12 lakh threshold reflects a lower burden on citizens and emphasised increased Capital Expenditure (CapEx) as part of a long-term growth vision.
In the Rajya Sabha, Shri C. P. Radhakrishnan Ji (Chairman, Rajya Sabha) paid tribute to freedom fighters Sardar Bhagat Singh Ji, Sukhdev Ji and Rajguru Ji on Martyrs’ Day (Shaheed Diwas).
Papers and Reports were laid on the Table of the House, after which Shri C.P. Radhakrishnan Ji (Chairman, Rajya Sabha) took up Matters raised with Permission.
1. Shri Dorjee Tshering Lepcha (BJP, Sikkim) congratulated the Prime Minister for becoming the longest-serving elected leader and highlighted improved connectivity and infrastructure in the Northeast.
2. Shri Digvijay Singh (INC, Madhya Pradesh) raised concerns over rising railway costs and reduced accessibility, affecting common passengers and called for safer, affordable services.
3. Dr. Dinesh Sharma (BJP, Uttar Pradesh) highlighted the growing water crisis, stressing groundwater depletion and the need for better conservation and management.
Following this, the Hon’ble Chairman proceeded with the Question Hour.
1. Dr. Bhim Singh (BJP, Bihar) raised concerns about unequal bus distribution under the PM e-Bus Sewa scheme, noting Bihar received only 400 buses. In response, Shri Manohar Lal (Union Minister, Ministry of Housing and Urban Affairs; BJP, Karnal, Haryana) replied that allocations were based on eligibility and proposals, and more cities could be included in the second phase of 35,000 buses.
2. Dr. Sikander Kumar (BJP, Himachal Pradesh) asked about using treated sewage water in thermal power plants. Shri Shripad Yesso Naik (MoS, Ministry of Power; BJP, North Goa , Goa) replied that plants within 50 km of municipal sewage treatment plants are required to use treated water and said that the necessary infrastructure is being developed for reuse of treated sewage water.
3. Shri Arun Singh (BJP, Uttar Pradesh) asked about coal usage and. Shri G. Kishan Reddy (Union Minister, Ministry of Coal; BJP, Secunderabad, Telangana) stated that about 80% of coal goes to the power sector and highlighted redevelopment of 143 abandoned mines for livelihoods and local development.
The house reconvened at 2:00 PM with Shri Harivansh Ji (Deputy Chairman, Rajya Sabha) in the chair.
Shri Pankaj Chaudhary (MoS, Ministry of Finance; BJP, Maharajganj, Uttar Pradesh) moved the motion on behalf of Smt. Nirmala Sitharaman (Union Minister, Ministry of Finance; BJP, Karnataka) for the Appropriation (No. 2) Bill, 2026, enabling withdrawal from the Consolidated Fund of India. The motion was accepted and discussion began.
1. Shri Neeraj Dangi (INC, Rajasthan) raised concerns that ₹95,000 crore for MGNREGA is inadequate and said that the scheme needs an estimated amount of ₹2.3 lakh crore for proper implementation. He further highlighted under-utilisation of SC/ST scholarships and also highlighted rising fuel prices and disruption in LPG cylinders and fertiliser supply.
2. Shri H. D. Deve Gowda (JD(S), Karnataka) reflected on similar economic challenges during the 1971 Bangladesh war. He highlighted current issues like LPG shortages, fuel supply, and black-market practices, and urged Members to avoid politicising essential commodity matters.
3. Dr. John Brittas (CPI(M), Kerala) raised concerns over the Appropriation Bill’s failure to account for the economic fallout of the ongoing global conflict. He warned that rising oil prices could burden the Indian economy by ₹1.5 to 2 lakh crore and disrupt remittances worth ₹16 lakh crore.
4. Shri Shambhu Sharan Patel (BJP, Bihar) strongly backed the Appropriation (No. 2) Bill, 2026, and noted that under the Modi Government, Bihar has decisively shed its “bimaru” tag with massive improvements in road and air connectivity. He also highlighted that railway expansion under the Modi Government has surpassed the cumulative progress of the previous 75 years
In the Chair, Dr. Sasmit Patra (BJD, Odisha) adjourned the discussion on the Appropriation (No. 2) Bill, 2026 for the day and informed that it would resume on 24^th March, 2026, following which Special Mentions were taken up.
1. Dr. K. Laxman (BJP, Uttar Pradesh) highlighted the need to protect 2.89 crore domestic workers, noting lack of contracts and social security, and called for stronger welfare and grievance mechanisms.
2. Shri P. Wilson (DMK, Tamil Nadu) raised concerns over the high ₹5.9 per unit tariff for Kudankulam Nuclear Power Plant Units 3 and 4 and warned that this will impose financial burden on the State and urged the Government for rationalisation of nuclear power pricing.
3. Shri Satnam Singh Sandhu (BJP, Nominated) stressed the need for a Metro network in Chandigarh Tricity, citing rising population and traffic. He noted a metro could serve 2.5 lakh daily passengers by 2031.
The proceedings of Lok Sabha and Rajya Sabha were adjourned at 7:08 PM and 5:51 PM, on 23^rd March, 2026, respectively, to reconvene at 11:00 A.M on Tuesday, 24^th March, 2026.
Share Legislative Research - NFPRC’s Substack

II. Lok Sabha Proceedings:

The proceedings of the Lok Sabha commenced at 11:00 AM with Shri Om Birla Ji (Speaker, Lok Sabha; BJP, Kota, Rajasthan) in the Chair.
The Speaker paid tribute to freedom fighters Sardar Bhagat Singh Ji, Sukhdev Ji and Rajguru Ji on Martyrs’ Day (Shaheed Diwas) and then commenced the Question Hour.
1. Shri Manickam Tagore B. (INC, Virudhunagar, Tamil Nadu) raised concern over the fall in central grants to Kerala from ₹22,559 crore (2021–22) to ₹3,332 crore (2025–26), with only ₹1,664 crore released. He said key sectors received little or no funds and asked if delays and conditions were restricting funds, noting similar issues in Tamil Nadu.
  1. Smt. Nirmala Sitharaman (Union Minister, Ministry of Finance; BJP, Karnataka) clarified that approval and release are different, and states must first use funds and submit certificates. She also highlighted that ₹311.95 crore was approved under the National Disaster Mitigation Fund (NDMF) for Kerala, but zero funds have been released because the state has not yet applied for the drawing of the amount by providing the necessary documentation.
2. Shri Umeshbhai Babubhai Patel (Ind., Daman and Diu) raised concerns over severe pollution in Vapi, stating that industrial waste has turned the Kolak, Bilkhadi, and Damanganga rivers toxic, affecting health and livelihoods. He further asked about National Green Tribunal directions, compliance and investigation reports.
  1. Shri Kirti Vardhan Singh (MoS, Ministry of Environment, Forest and Climate Change; BJP, Gonda, Uttar Pradesh) replied that action plans are in place and monitoring is ongoing. He noted that in 2025–26, Gujarat Pollution Control Board (GPCB) issued 196 notices, 36 directions, 36 closures, and collected ₹ 1.39 crore, while Pollution Control Committee (PCC) conducted 196 inspections.
  2. Smt. Hema Malini (BJP, Mathura, Uttar Pradesh) raised concerns over fragmented air pollution control across states and supported an “airshed management” approach. She noted pollution crosses borders and asked about steps taken to address rising pollution in Delhi-NCR, Mumbai, and the Ganga basin.
  3. Shri Kirti Vardhan Singh (MoS, Ministry of Environment, Forest and Climate Change; BJP, Gonda, Uttar Pradesh) replied that the Central Pollution Control Board (CPCB) guides state boards and pollution bodies under a coordinated system. He agreed pollution has no boundaries and highlighted continuous monitoring through stations. He added that corrective action is taken whenever pollution levels rise.
3. Shri Chavan Ravindra Vashantrao (INC, Nanded, Maharashtra) raised concerns over stalled housing projects, forcing buyers to pay both EMIs and rent. He questioned delays under the Special Window for Affordable and Mid-Income Housing Fund (SWAMIH Fund) and lack of support to projects in Nanded. He sought review, relief for allottees, and more transparency in selection.
  1. Smt. Nirmala Sitharaman (Union Minister, Ministry of Finance; BJP, Karnataka) replied that SWAMIH Fund projects are selected based on fixed criteria like RERA status, stalled projects, affordability, and minimum completion. She noted the fund’s success and launch of a second phase. She added that eligible projects can be considered and specific issues can be raised with the Government.
4. Shri Lavu Shri Krishna Devarayalu (TDP, Narasaraopet, Andhra Pradesh) highlighted low access to education loans, noting only 4% of students get institutional credit. He noted only 1 lakh beneficiaries are eligible every year under PM Vidya Lakshmi and just 3,428 slots are allocated for Andhra Pradesh against 14 lakh students in the state and sought expansion of the beneficiaries.
  1. Shri Dharmendra Pradhan (Union Minister, Ministry of Education; BJP, Sambalpur, Odisha) said there are no state-wise quotas and schemes are merit-based. He explained PM Vidya Lakshmi provides collateral free loans and covers all families earning less than ₹ 8 lakh. He urged greater awareness to improve access.
  2. Dr. Kalanidhi Veeraswamy (DMK, Chennai North, Tamil Nadu) questioned the feasibility of National Education Policy (NEP), stating teaching 22 languages across 40,000 schools would need 8.8 lakh teachers and huge funds. He highlighted that only 60% of ₹ 47,310 crore under Samagra Shiksha Abhiyan was released, with Tamil Nadu receiving a mere 30% of the funds allocated to the State.
  3. Shri Jayant Chaudhary (MoS, Ministry of Education; RLD, Uttar Pradesh) replied that NEP language policy is flexible and demand-driven. He noted that the delays in Tamil Nadu are due to Tamil Nadu not signing the Pradhan Mantri Schools for Rising India (PM-SHRI) MoU and added that ₹538 crore was recently released and further funds depend on compliance.
5. Shri Manoj Tiwari (BJP, North East Delhi, Delhi) raised concerns over pollution and underuse of the 45 km Yamuna stretch. He asked about steps under Nagar Van Yojana to improve green cover and sought details of urban forests and gardens in Delhi.
  1. Shri Kirti Vardhan Singh (MoS, Ministry of Environment, Forest and Climate Change; BJP, Gonda, Uttar Pradesh) said the scheme is demand driven and depends on state proposals. He stated that projects get up to ₹2 crore funding, with ₹527 crore already released out of ₹666 crore and 627 projects already approved out of 1,000 projects that are planned.
Following the conclusion of question hour, papers and reports were laid on the table.
Smt. Nirmala Sitharaman (Union Minister, Ministry of Finance; BJP, Karnataka) sought leave to introduce the Corporate Laws (Amendment) Bill, 2026.
1. Shri Manish Tewari (INC, Chandigarh, Chandigarh) opposed the introduction of the Bill under Rule 72(1), citing excessive delegation of powers to the executive. He argued that key matters like company classification, Corporate Social Responsibility (CSR) norms, and penalties are left to rules, weakening Parliament’s role. He warned this violates constitutional principles and reduces accountability.
2. Shri Sougata Roy (AITC, Dum Dum, West Bengal) also opposed the Bill, citing excessive delegation and lack of clear legislative guidance. He criticized powers given to bodies like the National Financial Reporting Authority (NFRA) and the Central Government, including limited appeals and broad authority in “public interest.” He said this could lead to arbitrariness and weaken parliamentary oversight.
3. Smt. Nirmala Sitharaman (Union Minister, Ministry of Finance; BJP, Karnataka) said the Bill is based on two years of consultation and expert recommendations. She clarified that rules are procedural and subject to parliamentary review, and highlighted reforms like raising CSR threshold to ₹10 crore and decriminalizing 21 offences. She said the Bill will support ease of doing business and MSME growth.
The House approved the introduction of the Bill despite opposition from some members. Smt. Nirmala Sitharaman’s (Union Minister, Ministry of Finance; BJP, Karnataka) referred the Bill to a Joint Parliamentary Committee (JPC) after motion was accepted by voice vote.
Following this, matters raised with permission were taken up.
1. Dr. Indra Hang Subba (SKM, Sikkim) expressed gratitude for improved connectivity, highlighting Sikkim’s first airport and the ongoing Sevoke–Rangpo railway project. He also congratulated the Prime Minister Shri Narendra Modi Ji for completing 8,931 days in office, becoming the longest serving elected leader in India. He added that under the Modi Government, Northeast has transformed into a growth engine.
2. Shri Gurjeet Singh Aujla (INC, Amritsar, Punjab) raised a serious law and order issue in Punjab, alleging that a State minister of Punjab pressured and assaulted an Food Corporation of India (FCI) officer named Shri Gagandeep Singh Randhawa, leading to his suicide. He stated that threats, harassment, and delayed FIR reflected a breakdown of governance and demanded a central probe.
  1. Shri Amit Shah (Union Minister, Ministry of Home Affairs; BJP, Gandhinagar, Gujarat) replied that it is a state subject but assured that if Punjab MPs submit a formal request, the case will be transferred to the CBI to conduct an investigation.
3. Dr. Angomcha Bimol Akoijam (INC, Inner Manipur, Manipur) highlighted the human crisis in Manipur, citing deaths, displacement, and lack of basic freedoms. He said people are still seeking justice and questioned delays in inquiry and accountability. He urged the Government to act and restore rights, calling for justice and constitutional protection.
4. Shri Mallu Ravi (INC, Nagarkurnool, Telangana) raised concerns about exploitation of domestic workers lacking legal protection and basic rights. He said existing labour codes fail to address their conditions and access to justice. He urged a new law ensuring wages, safety, and welfare, calling it a matter of worker rights and dignity.
5. Shri Bhartruhari Mahtab (BJP, Cuttack, Odisha) urged the Government to repatriate Netaji Subhas Chandra Bose’s remains from Japan, citing a 12^thMarch, 2026, Supreme Court development involving Netaji’s daughter, Professor Anita Bose Pfaff. He called for official action to end Netaji’s “posthumous exile” noting that India has funded the upkeep of the remains since 1950 and that successive Prime Ministers have visited the site, acknowledging their significance.
6. Shri Ganpathy Rajkumar P. (DMK, Coimbatore, Tamil Nadu) raised concern over the ₹19,836 crore collected by Indian banks in minimum balance penalties between 2022 and 2025. He argued that these charges disproportionately burden the poor, including daily wage workers and students and urged the RBI to scrap minimum balance penalties for low-income accounts across all banks.
7. Shri Jagdambika Pal (BJP, Domariyaganj, Uttar Pradesh) raised an urgent matter regarding the welfare of India’s 13 lakh Anganwadi workers and helpers. He said that while they are the backbone of grassroots nutrition, healthcare, and education services, they only receive monthly honorariums as low as ₹6,000 to ₹10,000. He urged the government to establish a uniform national pay scale for these workers and demanded that they be granted job security and the 26 weeks of paid maternity leave currently denied to them under the Maternity Benefit (Amendment) Act 2017.
The proceedings of the House were adjourned at 01:40 PM to reconvene at 02:00 PM.
The proceedings of the House were reconvened at 02:00 PM, with Shri Om Birla Ji (Speaker, Lok Sabha; BJP, Kota, Rajasthan) in the Chair.
Prime Minister Shri Narendra Modi Ji (BJP, Varanasi, Uttar Pradesh) addressed the House on the West Asia conflict, highlighting the unprecedented economic and security challenges it poses while outlining India’s robust strategic measures to ensure energy security, citizen safety, and national resilience through diversification and domestic self-reliance.
1. He confirmed that over 3.75 lakh Indians have safely returned since the war began, including 700 medical students from Iran. He has held telephonic discussions with West Asian heads of state to ensure the continued safety of the 1 crore Indians living in the Gulf region and the crew members on commercial ships.
2. He further said that India has expanded its energy procurement network from 27 to 41 countries to reduce dependency on any single region. The Government is maintaining a Strategic Petroleum Reserve of 5.3 Million Metric Tonnes (MMT), with plans to add 6.5 MMT more through new facilities in Odisha and Karnataka, while monitoring the Strait of Hormuz to ensure the steady supply of crude oil, gas, and fertilizers. He also clarified that these Government held strategic reserves are in addition to the stocks maintained by the oil companies.
3. He informed that significant progress has been made in reducing import dependency through ethanol blending reaching 20% (E20) five years ahead of schedule. Additionally, the electrification of Railways and the expansion of the metro and electric bus networks are saving billions of liters of diesel annually.
4. He stated that to protect farmers from global price shocks, the Government is providing urea at less than ₹300 despite international prices hitting ₹3,000. Domestic production has been bolstered by six new urea plants and the Pradhan Mantri Kisan Urja Suraksha evam Utthaan Mahabhiyan (PM-KUSUM) scheme, which has provided 22 lakh solar pumps to reduce diesel dependence.
5. He also informed that India’s renewable energy capacity has crossed 250 Gigawatts (GW), with solar energy surging from 3 GW to 140 GW over 11 years. Initiatives like the Pradhan Mantri Surya Ghar Muft Bijli Yojana and the National Green Hydrogen Mission are being utilized as long-term buffers against global instability.
6. He called for an unanimous stance of the house on immediate cessation of hostilities through dialogue while placing security agencies on high alert against internal exploitation. He further urged the State Governments to strictly monitor supply chains to prevent black marketing and hoarding during this period of international crisis.
Smt. Nirmala Sitharaman, (Union Minister, Ministry of Finance, BJP, Karnataka) moved for leave to introduce the Finance Bill 2026-2027 to give effect to the financial proposals of the Central Government.
1. Dr. Amar Singh (INC, Fatehgarh Sahib, Punjab) criticized the Finance Bill for favoring large corporations with extended tax holidays while ignoring 27% graduate unemployment, declining FDI, and the absence of relief for individual taxpayers. He warned that fiscal centralization through the Agriculture Infrastructure Development Cess denies states their 40% revenue share and farmers facing Distillers Dried Grains with Solubles (DDGS) duty hikes from 15% to 100%. He also highlighted Punjab’s ₹2 lakh crore in untransferred funds and requested international-level infrastructure for the Fatehgarh Sahib martyrdom site and the operationalization of the Halwara Airport and Doraha overbridge.
2. Dr. Nishikant Dubey (BJP, Godda, Jharkhand) praised Prime Minister Shri Narendra Modi ji’s leadership for India becoming the fourth largest economy in the world. He stated that despite global challenges because of the Middle East conflict, the Government ensured stable fuel prices through diversified oil sourcing from 41 countries. He highlighted the Finance Bill’s vision of a $50 trillion economy by 2047, backed by corporate reforms including reducing Minimum Alternate Tax (MAT) from 18% to 14% and strengthening Corporate Social Responsibility (CSR) provisions to directly benefit mineral-rich regions like Jharkhand.
3. Shri Saugata Roy (AITC, Dum Dum, West Bengal) criticized the Finance Bill 2026 as a collection of incremental micro-reforms that fail to address everyday economic realities. He pointed to a policy contradiction between promoting domestic tourism while simultaneously reducing Tax Collected at Source (TCS) on foreign tour packages. He raised concerns over fiscal centralization through cesses and surcharges that bypass the divisible tax pool, alleging that funds for MGNREGA and PMAY have been withheld from West Bengal. He also warned that frequent changes in customs duties and the hike in Securities Transaction Tax (STT) on derivatives could discourage retail investors and hurt India’s export competitiveness.
4. Shri Ravindra Waikar (SS, Mumbai North West, Maharashtra) supported the Finance Bill 2026 for its fiscal discipline and increased expenditure to ₹53.5 lakh crore. He praised tax relief measures and significant infrastructure allocations for Maharashtra, including metro projects and ₹6,000 crore for the Mumbai–Ahmedabad High Speed Rail. He also urged the Government to grant national mission status to Slum-Free Mumbai by 2030 with a dedicated ₹5,000 crore redevelopment fund.
5. Smt. Supriya Sule (NCP(SP), Baramati, Maharashtra) raised concerns over India becoming a “debt-driven economy”, pointing to grassroots distress including LPG shortages, rising costs for the middle class and deep agricultural distress in Maharashtra’s soybean and cotton belts. She questioned the Government’s fiscal transparency by criticizing its reliance on record RBI dividends and urged that major structural reforms be scrutinized by a Joint Parliamentary Committee to ensure broader accountability and national consensus.
6. Shri Basavaraj Bommai (BJP, Haveri, Karnataka) praised the Finance Bill 2026, stating that it reflects strong fiscal discipline and economic growth, with a 4.3% fiscal deficit and steady GDP growth of 10%. He specifically lauded India’s resilience during the Middle East conflict, noting that strategic oil reserves and diplomatic engagement prevented the fuel shortages seen in previous decades, while also mentioning a ₹1 lakh crore contingency assessment to manage potential global economic disruptions.
7. Shri S. Sachithanantham (CPI(M), Dindigul, Tamil Nadu) criticized the Finance Bill 2026 for failing to address economic inequality and the employment crisis. He argued that the Government’s heavy reliance on cesses and surcharges has reduced states’ effective tax share to just 34%, fundamentally undermining fiscal federalism. He also raised serious concerns over the Viksit Bharat Guarantee for Rozgar and Ajeevika Mission (Gramin) (VB-G RAM G), warning that its 40% state funding requirement dilutes the rights-based nature of MGNREGA and shifts the burden of implementation onto already fiscally stressed states.
8. Shri P. P. Chaudhary (BJP, Pali, Rajasthan) highlighted that India’s tax-to-GDP ratio at 19.6% reflects strong fiscal performance. He argued that the tax burden on citizens is relatively lower compared to developed countries. He stated that tax liability begins at about 18% of per capita income in the United States and 28% in the United Kingdom, while in India, the income tax threshold has been increased to ₹ 12 lakh, which is significantly higher relative to the country’s per capita income, roughly around five times. He also highlighted the Government’s strong economic track record, pointing to CapEx doubling from 11% to 22% of the budget. He asserted that ongoing reforms reflect a clear vision of building a globally competitive Indian economy by 2047.
9. Shri Neeraj Maurya (SP, Aonla, Uttar Pradesh) criticised the Government’s economic approach, describing it as “jobless growth” with rising burden on common people. He argued that the budget favours only large corporations by giving them tax benefits, while the common man shoulders 65% of the total tax revenue.
The proceedings of the House were adjourned at 7:08 PM to reconvene at 11:00 AM on Tuesday, 24^thMarch, 2026.
Share

III. Rajya Sabha Proceedings:

The proceedings of the Rajya Sabha commenced at 11:00 AM with Shri C.P. Radhakrishnan Ji (Chairman, Rajya Sabha) in the chair.
The Chairman paid tribute to freedom fighters Sardar Bhagat Singh Ji, Sukhdev Ji and Rajguru Ji on the anniversary of their martyrdom.
Papers and Reports were laid on the table of the house. Following which, Shri C.P. Radhakrishnan Ji (Chairman, Rajya Sabha) proceeded with the Matters raised with Permission.
1. Shri Dorjee Tshering Lepcha (BJP, Sikkim) congratulated the Prime Minister Shri Narendra Modi ji for surpassing 8,938 days in public office to become the longest-serving elected leader. He noted that the Northeast has seen major growth in connectivity and infrastructure under the Modi Government.
2. Smt. Sudha Murthy (Nominated) spoke about the Buddha relics at Kila Rai Pithora, highlighting their historical and spiritual importance. She noted that the relics date back 2,500 years and also highlighted the efforts made by the Modi Government to bring the relics and related objects back for exhibition. She said such initiatives help preserve and showcase India’s heritage.
3. Smt. Maya Naroliya (BJP, Madhya Pradesh) highlighted key outcomes of the India AI Impact Summit 2026 and the need for a clear roadmap. She pointed to gaps in data access, computing resources, safety standards, and coordination with states. She called for a time-bound AI governance framework and better support for state-level AI development.
4. Shri Digvijay Singh (INC, Madhya Pradesh) raised concerns about rising railway costs and reduced access for common passengers. He said fewer general coaches and higher fares are affecting poor and middle-class travellers. He also highlighted delays and safety issues, and called for affordable and safe railway services.
5. Dr. Dinesh Sharma (BJP, Uttar Pradesh) highlighted the growing water crisis in the country. He said groundwater is depleting and cities may face shortages and stressed the need for better water management and conservation. He called for sustainable use of water resources.
Following this, the Hon’ble Chairman proceeded with the Question Hour.
1. Dr. Bhim Singh (BJP, Bihar) asked about the unequal distribution of buses under the PM e-Bus Sewa scheme, noting that Bihar received only 400 buses and that few cities from the state were selected.
  1. Shri Manohar Lal (Union Minister, Ministry of Housing and Urban Affairs; BJP, Karnal, Haryana) replied that allocations were based on proposals, population, and eligibility, and assured that more cities from Bihar could be included in the second phase of 35,000 buses.
2. Shri Ujjwal Deorao Nikam (BJP, Nominated) asked about steps taken to address untreated sewage, urban flooding, and water management, and requested data on outcomes.
  1. Shri Manohar Lal (Union Minister, Ministry of Housing and Urban Affairs; BJP, Karnal, Haryana) replied that the Government’s sanitation and water initiatives, including AMRUT and sewerage treatment projects, have improved health, saved 6.6 crore hours, and could prevent 4 lakh deaths. He highlighted the introduction of integrated measures like Sponge Cities, rainwater harvesting, groundwater recharge, and urban water body restoration to manage floods and ensure sustainable urban water management.
3. Shri Rajeev Shukla (INC, Chhattisgarh) raised concerns about waterlogging and drainage in Mumbai and Delhi and questioned the effectiveness of Smart Cities Mission funds.
  1. Shri Manohar Lal (Union Minister, Ministry of Housing and Urban Affairs; BJP, Karnal, Haryana) replied that ₹ 1 lakh crore is provided to 100 cities and noted that projects where the cities chose to implement the scheme had already been completed. He also noted that the programme is not meant to solve all urban infrastructure challenges but to create exemplary development projects that could later be replicated by State Governments.
4. Dr. Sikander Kumar (BJP, Himachal Pradesh) asked about the use of treated sewage water in thermal power plants and measures to reduce reliance on freshwater.
  1. Shri Shripad Yesso Naik (MoS, Ministry of Power; BJP, North Goa , Goa) replied that plants within 50 km of municipal sewage treatment plants are required to use treated water, and necessary pipelines and infrastructure are being developed to promote water reuse and conservation.
5. Shri Arun Singh (BJP, Uttar Pradesh) asked what percentage of the coal produced in the country is supplied to the power sector versus other sectors, and also sought information on the new methods being adopted to increase coal production and diversify its use in other sectors.
  1. Shri G. Kishan Reddy (Union Minister, Ministry of Coal; BJP, Secunderabad, Telangana) replied that about 80% of coal goes to the power sector, with the rest used in steel, cement, fertilizers, and other industries. He also noted the scientific closure and redevelopment of 143 abandoned mines to provide livelihood opportunities, tourism activities and drinking water facilities for nearby villages.
Following the Question Hour, Shri C.P. Radhakrishnan Ji (Chairman, Rajya Sabha) informed the House that notices from some Members opposing the Central Armed Police Forces (General Administration) Bill, 2026 would be addressed when the Bill is introduced by the concerned Minister. He said the House would first discuss the Appropriation (No. 2) Bill, 2026 and resume after lunch. Since the Finance Bill, 2026 is not yet received, he proposed three hours for the Appropriation Bill and four hours for the Finance Bill later.
The house reconvened at 2:00 PM with Shri Harivansh Ji (Deputy Chairman, Rajya Sabha) in the chair.
Shri Pankaj Chaudhary (MoS, Ministry of Finance; BJP, Maharajganj, Uttar Pradesh) moved the motion on behalf of Smt. Nirmala Sitharaman (Union Minister, Ministry of Finance; BJP, Karnataka) for the Appropriation (No. 2) Bill, 2026, allowing funds to be withdrawn from the Consolidated Fund of India for 2026–27. The motion was formally accepted, and the Chair invited Members to join the discussion.
1. Shri Neeraj Dangi (INC, Rajasthan) raised concerns about the Appropriation Bill, highlighting that allocations for rural and welfare schemes, particularly MGNREGA, had increased to ₹ 95,000 crore but remained insufficient to cover 125 days of employment, which would require nearly ₹ 2.3 lakh crore. He pointed out under-utilisation of SC/ST scholarship funds, noting that post-matric scholarships spent ₹ 5,476 crore against an allocation of ₹ 6,359 crore in 2023–24, and pre-matric scholarships spent only ₹ 446 crore against ₹ 500 crore. He also mentioned rising fuel prices of LPG, petrol, and diesel and also highlighted challenges in LPG delivery, fertiliser supply, and the impact of geopolitical developments on energy.
2. Shri H. D. Deve Gowda (JD(S), Karnataka) spoke on the Appropriation Bill, reflecting on his long political career and historical economic challenges, including high fuel and commodity prices following the 1971 Bangladesh war. He highlighted current issues like LPG shortages, fuel supply, and black-market practices, and urged Members to avoid politicising essential commodity matters while acknowledging the Prime Minister Shri Narendra Modi ji’s active role in addressing economic and international concerns. He also called for attention to development in Karnataka, including industrial clusters and revival of Bhadravati Iron and Steel Works with ₹ 650 crore support.
3. Shri Madan Rathore (BJP, Rajasthan) responded to Shri Neeraj Dangi, stating that claims of LPG shortages in Rajasthan were incorrect and created unnecessary public panic. He highlighted India’s economic growth under Prime Minister Shri Narendra Modi ji, with GDP rising from ₹ 106.55 lakh crore in 2014 to ₹331.3 lakh crore in 2026, total exports rising from $468 billion to $825 billion. He noted progress in digital payments, renewable energy , railway electrification, and science and technology. He also highlighted social reforms like abolition of triple talaq, 33% reservation for women and labour reforms under the BJP Government.
4. Shri Saket Gokhale (AITC, West Bengal) criticized the Government’s budget management, calling it a “glorious work of fiction,” citing a nearly ₹10 lakh crore gap between initial and revised estimates. He highlighted major cuts in schemes such as the Jal Jeevan Mission by 69%, Labour by 61%, Housing by 38%, and Tourism by 50% and noted that 40% of revenue goes to debt servicing. He also raised concerns about West Bengal’s outstanding dues of ₹ 2 lakh crore which is constraining the State Government and claimed that West Bengal is under undeclared emergency.
5. Dr. John Brittas (CPI(M), Kerala) raised concerns over the Appropriation Bill’s failure to account for the economic fallout of the ongoing global conflict. He warned that rising oil prices could burden the Indian economy by ₹ 1.5–2 lakh crore and disrupt remittances worth ₹ 16 lakh crore nationally, with Kerala alone contributing ₹ 2.2 lakh crore. He challenged the Government’s “Atmanirbhar” narrative, pointing out that India’s oil and gas import dependence has grown from 70% to nearly 90% over two decades. He further demanded that Parliament condemn the assasination of Iran’s former Ayatollah Ali Khamenei.
6. Shri Harsh Vardhan Shringla (BJP, Nominated) commended the Government’s macroeconomic management and praised the ₹ 1 lakh crore Economic Stabilization Fund as a vital buffer against global shocks. He highlighted that India has surpassed its 2030 renewable energy target four years ahead of schedule, with 51.5% of installed capacity now from clean sources. He countered Shri Saket Gokhale (AITC, West Bengal) by noting that the Central Government remains the sole driver of development, citing Prime Minister Shri Narendra Modi ji’s recent inauguration of ₹ 12,766 crore worth of infrastructure projects in West Bengal.
7. Shri Shambhu Sharan Patel (BJP, Bihar) strongly backed the Appropriation (No. 2) Bill, 2026, and noted that under the Modi Government, Bihar has decisively shed its “bimaru” tag with massive improvements in road connectivity alongside the modernisation of Patna airport and new airports in Darbhanga, Purnia, and Bhagalpur. He drew attention to the historical neglect of the region under UPA Government and highlighted that railway expansion under the Modi Government has surpassed the cumulative progress of the previous 75 years, citing new Vande Bharat routes connecting Bihar, West Bengal, and Assam including Bhagalpur–Howrah, Gaya–Howrah, and Patna–Howrah.
8. Dr. Parmar Jashvantsinh Salamsinh (BJP, Gujarat) highlighted that India’s health budget has grown by 194% from ₹36,180 crore in 2014–15 to ₹ 1,06,530 crore in 2026–27, with Ayushman Bharat covering 55 crore beneficiaries, 22 new All India Institute of Medical Sciences (AIIMS) established, and MBBS seats growing by 151% to 1.28 lakh. He noted significant health outcome improvements with the Maternal Mortality Ratio dropping from 250 to 97 (per 1,00,000 live births)and Infant Mortality Rate falling from 58 to 28 (per 1,000 live births), alongside customs duty exemptions on 17 life-saving cancer drugs. He also championed the ₹ 10,000 crore “Biopharma Shakti” initiative to reduce import dependence and position India as a global biologics manufacturing hub.
In the Chair, Dr. Sasmit Patra (BJD, Odisha) announced that the discussion on the Appropriation (No. 2) Bill, 2026 was adjourned for the day and informed that further discussion would resume on 24^th March, 2026. Following this he commenced Special Mentions.
1. Dr. K. Laxman (BJP, Uttar Pradesh) raised the urgent need to protect domestic workers, noting that despite 2.89 crore workers registered on the e-Shram portal, most lack written contracts, fixed wages, or social security. He urged the Government to strengthen welfare inclusion and establish grievance mechanisms to ensure dignity and fairness for this vulnerable workforce.
2. Shri P. Wilson (DMK, Tamil Nadu) raised concern over the steep tariff of ₹ 5.9 per unit fixed for Kudankulam Nuclear Power Plant Units 3 and 4, significantly higher than the ₹ 3–₹ 4.10 per unit charged for Units 1 and 2 and above current renewable energy benchmarks. He warned this would impose a heavy financial burden on Tamil Nadu and southern states, urging the Government to rationalize tariffs and bring nuclear power pricing under independent regulatory oversight.
3. Shri Satnam Singh Sandhu (BJP, Nominated) urged the Government to prioritize a Metro Rail Network for the Chandigarh Tricity region, warning that vehicle speeds could fall below 15 km/h as the population already exceeds 40 lakh. He noted a metro could serve 2.5 lakh daily passengers by 2031 and called it essential for sustainable urban mobility in North India.
The proceedings of the House were adjourned at 5:51 PM to reconvene at 11:00 AM on Tuesday, 24^th March, 2026.

IV. Events Outside The Parliament:

Shri Dinesh Sharma (BJP, Uttar Pradesh) praised Prime Minister Shri Narendra Modi Ji on becoming the longest-serving head of Government, calling him a global leader. Responding to Smt. Mamata Banerjee’s disparaging remarks against Prime Minister Shri Narendra Modi Ji, he said they reflect nervousness over her electoral prospects in West Bengal.
Shri Amra Ram (CPI(M), Sikar, Rajasthan), responding to Shri K. C. Venugopal’s (INC, Alappuzha , Kerala) allegation of a CPI(M)–BJP nexus, alleged an implicit alignment between the BJP and the INC. He said CPI(M) has consistently opposed BJP’s politics and recalled supporting the UPA Government led by Former Prime Minister Shri Manmohan Singh to keep BJP out of power.
Shri Manish Tewari (INC, Chandigarh) stressed giving diplomacy a chance amid escalating global tensions, noting disruptions to crude oil, natural gas, fertilisers, food, and pharmaceuticals are pushing global supply chains into a sensitive phase.
Shri Ram Gopal Yadav (SP, Uttar Pradesh) said the war is negatively impacting the global economy, including India. He pointed to rising commercial gas prices, potential shortages hitting businesses and oil companies, and alleged that fuel price hikes may be deferred due to upcoming elections.
Shri Nishikant Dubey (BJP, Godda, Jharkhand) referred to past India–Sri Lanka agreements and said that successive Congress-led Governments, from Shri Nehru to Smt. Indira Gandhi and later Shri Manmohan Singh and Smt. Sonia Gandhi, failed to address fishermen-related issues. He also criticized the role of regional parties in Tamil Nadu.
Shri Saugata Roy (TMC, Dum Dum, West Bengal) termed AIMIM’s alliance with Humayun Kabir a “bad development”, stating that Shri Asaduddin Owaisi’s (AIMIM, Hyderabad, Telangana) party could end up benefiting the BJP and isolating sections of voters.
Shri Ujjwal Raman Singh (INC, Allahabad, Uttar Pradesh) on reports of a possible electricity tariff hike in Delhi, said it would lead to a broader rise in the cost of goods and services, alleging increased financial burden on the public while benefiting the BJP.
Mian Altaf Ahmed Larvi (JKNC, Anantnag-Rajouri, Jammu and Kashmir) on the Jammu University committee’s recommendation to remove topics on Muhammad Ali Jinnah from the curriculum, said there is no justification for protests over the issue.
Smt. Priyanka Gandhi Vadra (INC, Wayanad, Kerala) welcomed Prime Minister Shri Narendra Modi Ji speaking in Parliament on the West Asia conflict, saying it is important to hear his views given its significant impact on India, while noting the discussion should have happened earlier. On reports of fast-tracking the Women’s Reservation Act, 2023, she said the Government should first clarify its position on the matter.
Smt. Aparajita Sarangi (BJP, Bhubaneswar, Odisha) expressed confidence in BJP improving its performance in the Kerala Legislative Assembly elections, highlighting groundwork by party workers and coordination with NDA partners. She credited the leadership of Prime Minister Shri Narendra Modi Ji for the party’s optimism.
Ms. Praniti Sushilkumar Shinde (INC, Solapur (SC), Maharashtra) criticized the Government’s statement on the West Asia crisis, calling it “hollow and shallow”. She said the ruling side is disconnected from ground realities, pointing to power shortages in Maharashtra, concerns of farmers, and inadequate preparedness.
Shri Ravneet Singh Bittu (MoS, Railways; BJP, Rajasthan) said that in the Punjab Warehousing Corporation (PWC) official suicide case, minister Shri Laljit Singh Bhullar exerted pressure on officials regarding an FCI tender, holding him responsible for driving the official to suicide.
Ms. Swati Maliwal (AAP, NCT of Delhi) said that three days after Gagandeep Singh Randhawa’s suicide, the Punjab Government moved to protect minister Shri Laljit Singh Bhullar, who was initially only made to resign and not arrested. She noted that following the intervention of Shri Amit Shah Ji (Union Minister, Ministry of Home Affairs; BJP, Gandhinagar, Gujarat) to transfer the case to the CBI, Bhullar was arrested within half an hour. She demanded full transfer of the case to the CBI.
Shri Dharamvira Gandhi (INC, Patiala, Punjab) said that the arrest of Punjab’s former minister Shri Laljit Singh Bhullar came late, but called it the right action.

The day’s proceedings underscored Parliament’s role in responding to both global developments and domestic policy priorities. While the Lok Sabha advanced key legislative business, including the introduction of the Corporate Laws (Amendment) Bill, 2026 and the Finance Bill, 2026–27, discussions in the Rajya Sabha addressed infrastructure, resource management and expenditure concerns through deliberations on the Appropriation (No. 2) Bill, 2026. Together, the debates reflected a continued emphasis on economic resilience, institutional processes and policy responsiveness in a changing global context.

Subscribe now

Annexure I - Matters Raised Under Rule 377 In The Lok Sabha

Annexure II - Reports And Statements Presented In The Lok Sabha

Annexure III - Members Who Participated In Discussion On The Finance Bill, 2026 In The Lok Sabha

Annexure IV - Bills Introduced In The Lok Sabha

Annexure V - Reports And Statements Presented In The Rajya Sabha

Annexure VI - Matters Raised With Permission In The Rajya Sabha

Annexure VI - Members Who Participated In The Discussion On The Appropriation (No.2) Bill, 2026 In The Rajya Sabha

Annexure VII - Special Mentions In The Rajya Sabha

Parliamentary Proceedings for 18th March, 2026

Fri, 20 Mar 2026 06:44:28 GMT

I. Key Highlights of The Proceedings:

The proceedings of the Lok Sabha and Rajya Sabha commenced at 11:00 AM.
In the Lok Sabha, Shri Om Birla Ji (Speaker, Lok Sabha; BJP, Kota, Rajasthan) presided over the proceedings of the house and commenced the question hour.
1. Shri N. K. Premachandran (RSP, Kollam, Kerala) asked whether the Government plans stricter regulation for e-commerce platforms, grievance redressal mechanisms and periodic inspections to ensure transparency and product authenticity to protect consumers. In response, Shri Pralhad Joshi (Union Minister, Ministry of Consumer Affairs, Food and Public Distribution; BJP, Dharwad, Karnataka) stated that the Consumer Protection Act, 2019 provides strong safeguards, supported by a multilingual Consumer Helpline and action by the Central Consumer Protection Authority. He added that 13 dark patterns have been identified, 477 notices issued, and grievance officers appointed to ensure time-bound complaint resolution.
2. Shri Dulu Mahato (BJP, Dhanbad, Jharkhand) requested additional passenger train services from Dhanbad, including direct trains to Delhi, Pune, Coimbatore and Bengaluru, more stoppages for special trains, and the creation of a separate railway zone, citing the region’s high revenue contribution. In response Shri Ashwini Vaishnaw (Union Minister, Ministry of Railways; BJP, Odisha) stated that railway allocation to Jharkhand has increased from ₹ 457 crore during the UPA period to ₹ 7,306 crore. He listed several completed and ongoing projects including new lines, doubling and third-line works.
In the Lok Sabha, Shri P. P. Chaudhary (BJP, Pali, Rajasthan) moved a motion to extend the deadline for presenting the Joint Committee report on the Constitution (129th Amendment) Bill, 2024 and the Union Territories Laws (Amendment) Bill, 2024 to the first day of the last week of the Monsoon Session, 2026 which was thereby adopted by the House.
In the Lok Sabha, Shri Om Birla Ji (Speaker, Lok Sabha; BJP, Kota, Rajasthan) commenced the discussion on the Demands for Grants under the control of the Ministry of Agriculture and Farmers Welfare.
1. Shri Amrinder Singh Raja Warring (INC, Ludhiana, Punjab) stated that farmers are facing insecurity over fair prices and demanded a legal guarantee for MSP, compensation for farmers who died during the agitation, and resolution of pending farm law issues. He highlighted issues of agricultural distress in Punjab, including environmental degradation, need for crop diversification with a proposed ₹ 50,000 crore corpus and challenges related to stubble burning, suggesting incentives for farmers and better infrastructure instead of punitive action.
2. Shri Naresh Chandra Uttam Patel (SP, Fatehpur, Uttar Pradesh) highlighted the challenges faced by farmers due to rising input costs, low crop prices and delayed payments. He demanded a legal MSP guarantee as per the Swaminathan Commission, increase in PM-Kisan assistance to ₹ 20,000, loan waivers, restoration of urea bags from 40 kg to 50 kg, free electricity for irrigation and clearance of sugarcane dues.
3. Shri Dushyant Singh (BJP, Jhalawar–Baran, Rajasthan) noted that ₹ 1,40,529 crore has been allocated for agriculture in 2026–27 (5.4% increase), compared to about ₹ 27,600 crore earlier. He cited allocations under Agriculture Infrastructure Fund (₹ 910 crore) and PM-AASHA (₹ 7,200 crore), and increases in procurement of paddy from 45.90 to 84.18 crore metric tonnes, wheat from 22.54 to 33.58 crore metric tonnes, and oilseeds from 47 lakh metric tonnes to about 1 crore metric tonnes.
4. Smt. Dimple Yadav (SP, Mainpuri, Uttar Pradesh) raised concerns over agrarian distress, stating that while GDP growth was about 6%, agriculture grew by only 4% and small farmers by 2%, with average monthly farmer income at ₹ 8,000–₹ 10,000 and about ₹ 3,800 for those solely dependent on cultivation.
5. Shri Shivraj Singh Chouhan (Union Minister, Ministry of Agriculture and Farmers Welfare; and Minister of Rural Development; BJP, Vidisha , Madhya Pradesh) thanked the House for the discussion and noted Prime Minister Shri Narendra Modi Ji’s repeated references to farmers reflects a stronger Government commitment. He highlighted increased agriculture budgetary allocation from ₹ 21,933 crore (2013–14) to about ₹ 1.3 lakh crore, with total sectoral support of ₹ 3.22 lakh crore. He reported improved agricultural output: foodgrain production rising from 265 MT to 357.7 MT and horticulture from 277 MT to 370 MT, with India becoming the largest rice producer.
  1. He emphasized farmer welfare measures such as ₹ 4.27 lakh crore transferred under PM-KISAN, fertilizer subsidy rising to ₹ 1.77 lakh crore, agricultural credit increasing to ₹ 28 lakh crore, and MSP ensured at ≥50% above cost.
  2. He further highlighted procurement and reforms: paddy procurement rising from 45 crore MT (UPA) to 84.18 crore MT (NDA), MSP procurement reaching ₹ 18.39 lakh crore, alongside irrigation expansion (99 projects), regulatory reforms, and initiatives like MIDH and river-linking, aimed at building an Atmanirbhar and Viksit Bharat.
In the Lok Sabha, the Demands for Grants for the Ministry of Agriculture and Farmers’ Welfare was passed by the House. Further, the consolidated list of Demands for Grants for remaining ministries and departments for the financial year 2026–27 was also passed by the house.
In the Lok Sabha Smt. Nirmala Sitharaman (Union Minister, Ministry of Finance; BJP, Karnataka) moved the Appropriation Bill (No. 2), 2026 for consideration that would authorize the withdrawal of funds from the Consolidated Fund of India to meet the government’s expenditure. Following the clause-by-clause consideration the Bill was passed.
In the Rajya Sabha, Shri C.P. Radhakrishnan Ji (Chairman, Rajya Sabha) dispensed the question hour for today and commenced the farewell of the retiring members of the House.
1. Shri Narendra Modi Ji (Prime Minister; BJP, Varanasi, Uttar Pradesh) stated that as members conclude their terms, some will seek re-election while others will continue serving the nation, noting there are no “full stops” in politics. He praised senior leaders like Shri H. D. Deve Gowda, Shri Mallikarjun Kharge and Shri Sharad Pawar, urging new members to learn from them. He also acknowledged Shri Harivansh Ji (Deputy Chairman, Rajya Sabha; JDU, Bihar) as soft-spoken and effective in managing the House, especially during challenging moments.
2. Shri Mallikarjun Kharge (INC, Karnataka) expressed gratitude for participating, noting continuous learning and efforts to strengthen the House. He reflected on his long parliamentary experience, acknowledged contributions from leaders across parties, including Shri Sharad Pawar, Shri Digvijaya Singh, Shri Tiruchi Siva, Shri Ramdas Athawale, Shri Parshottam Rupala, Shri Shaktisinh Gohil, Shri Neeraj Dangi, Smt. Phulo Devi Netam, Smt. Fauzia Khan, Smt. Priyanka Chaturvedi, and Shri Saket Gokhale, and commended Shri Harivansh Ji (Deputy Chairman, Rajya Sabha; JDU, Bihar) for his dignified and courteous conduct.
3. Shri Harivansh Ji (Deputy Chairman, Rajya Sabha; JD(U), Bihar) expressed gratitude for the appreciation received from the Prime Minister, Chairman, and Shri Mallikarjun Kharge, calling it a lasting honour, and extended best wishes to retiring members while welcoming new members. He reflected on his 12-year tenure as a transformative phase marked by India’s rising global stature, and highlighted initiatives such as a paperless Parliament and the vision of Viksit Bharat@2047.
4. Shri Kiren Rijiju (Union Minister, Ministry of Parliamentary Affairs; BJP, Arunachal West, Arunachal Pradesh) stated that 59 Members were retiring, 36 in April, 22 in June and 1 in July, with 9 Members re-elected, and assured that arrangements for pensions, healthcare and other services would be facilitated for them. He further highlighted the technological transformation of Parliament and emphasized on building consensus beyond political differences. He clarified that “Vande Mataram” is permissible unless it disrupts proceedings, and encouraged retiring Members to remain connected with the House.
The proceedings of Lok Sabha and Rajya Sabha were adjourned at 6:14 PM and 4:50 PM, 18^th March, 2026, respectively, to reconvene at 11:00 A.M on Monday, 23^rd March, 2026.

II. Lok Sabha Proceedings:

The proceedings of the Lok Sabha commenced at 11:00 AM
Shri Om Birla Ji (Speaker, Lok Sabha; BJP, Kota, Rajasthan) presided over the proceedings of the house and commenced the question hour.
1. Shri N. K. Premachandran (RSP, Kollam, Kerala) raised concerns over consumer rights violations in e-commerce, highlighting unfair contracts, payment fraud, misleading advertisements, data breaches and non-disclosure of seller identity. He asked whether the Government plans stricter regulation, grievance redressal mechanisms and periodic inspections to ensure transparency and product authenticity.
  1. In response, Shri Pralhad Joshi (Union Minister, Ministry of Consumer Affairs, Food and Public Distribution; BJP, Dharwad, Karnataka) stated that the Consumer Protection Act, 2019 provides strong safeguards, supported by a multilingual Consumer Helpline and action by the Central Consumer Protection Authority. He added that 13 dark patterns have been identified, 477 notices issued, and grievance officers appointed to ensure time-bound complaint resolution.
2. Shri Manickam Tagore B. (INC, Virudhunagar, Tamil Nadu) raised concerns over counterfeit products on e-commerce platforms and questioned the Government’s reliance on voluntary compliance, asking whether direct liability would be fixed on platforms like Amazon India.
  1. In response Shri Pralhad Joshi (Union Minister, Ministry of Consumer Affairs, Food and Public Distribution; BJP, Dharwad, Karnataka) stated that raids, notices and heavy penalties have been imposed, unsafe products withdrawn, and action taken against misleading advertisements and fake certification marks. He added that 997 notices have been issued since 2020 and ₹ 1,440 crore have been refunded to consumers.
3. Shri Dulu Mahato (BJP, Dhanbad, Jharkhand) requested additional passenger train services from Dhanbad, including direct trains to Delhi, Pune, Coimbatore and Bengaluru, more stoppages for special trains, and the creation of a separate railway zone, citing the region’s high revenue contribution.
  1. In response Shri Ashwini Vaishnaw (Union Minister, Ministry of Railways; BJP, Odisha) stated that railway allocation to Jharkhand has increased from ₹ 457 crore during the UPA period to ₹ 7,306 crore. He listed several completed and ongoing projects including new lines, doubling and third-line works, stating these reflect increased investment and completion of long-pending projects.
4. Shri Ummeda Ram Beniwal (INC, Barmer, Rajasthan) raised concerns over poor mobile connectivity in rural and border villages affecting digital payments, gram panchayat functioning and MGNREGA work, and pointed out gaps in BSNL network coverage.
  1. In response Shri Jyotiraditya M Scindia (Union Minister, Ministry of Communications; BJP, Guna, Madhya Pradesh) stated that average data costs have fallen from ₹ 290 to ₹ 8 (about 97% reduction), base transceiver stations have increased from 6 lakh in 2014 to 32 lakh, and 5G has reached 99.9% of districts with 40 crore users. He added that telecom connectivity in border villages has increased from 42% in 2014 to about 98% (17,222 of 17,600 villages), with remaining villages being covered under the 4G saturation scheme, along with policy reforms to ease infrastructure rollout.
Shri Om Birla Ji (Speaker, Lok Sabha; BJP, Kota, Rajasthan) informed that he has received several adjournment motions submitted by several members. He stated that he had denied permission for all such notices.
Following this papers and reports were laid on the table.
Shri P P Chaudhary (BJP, Pali, Rajasthan) moved a motion for extending the time for presentation of the Joint Committee report on the Constitution (129th Amendment) Bill, 2024 and the Union Territories Laws (Amendment) Bill, 2024 till the first day of the last week of the Monsoon Session, 2026, which was adopted by the House.
Shri Om Birla Ji (Speaker, Lok Sabha; BJP, Kota, Rajasthan) commenced the discussion on the Demands for Grants under the control of the Ministry of Agriculture and Farmers Welfare.
1. Shri Amrinder Singh Raja Warring (INC, Ludhiana, Punjab) stated that farmers are facing insecurity over fair prices and demanded a legal guarantee for MSP, compensation for farmers who died during the agitation, and resolution of pending farm law issues. He also raised concerns over the reduction of PM-Kisan beneficiaries in Punjab and sought reconsideration. He highlighted issues of agricultural distress in Punjab, including environmental degradation, need for crop diversification with a proposed ₹ 50,000 crore corpus and challenges related to stubble burning, suggesting incentives for farmers and better infrastructure instead of punitive action. He further raised concerns about pending flood relief, crop insurance, funding for Punjab Agricultural University and demanded one-time debt relief for small and medium farmers.
2. Shri Naresh Chandra Uttam Patel (SP, Fatehpur, Uttar Pradesh) highlighted the challenges faced by farmers due to rising input costs, low crop prices and delayed payments. He stated that while a farming family’s labour could be worth about ₹ 1,500 per day (₹ 45,000 per month), small and marginal farmers earn only about ₹ 10,000–₹ 12,000 per month, with net savings of just ₹ 5,000–₹ 6,000 after expenses. He demanded a legal MSP guarantee as per the Swaminathan Commission, increase in PM-Kisan assistance to ₹ 20,000, loan waivers, restoration of urea bags from 40 kg to 50 kg, free electricity for irrigation and clearance of sugarcane dues. He also sought ₹ 1 crore compensation for families of farmers who died during protests, inclusion of crop losses due to stray animals under insurance, increase in accident insurance from ₹ 5 lakh to ₹ 10 lakh, removal of GST on farm machinery.
3. Smt. Pratima Mondal (AITC, Jayanagar (SC), West Bengal) questioned the Government’s commitment to farmers, citing the year-long protests against the three farm laws and the Lakhimpur Kheri incident, raising concerns over accountability. She also noted that despite multiple schemes, outcomes remain unclear and highlighted declining research intensity, calling for higher investment in agricultural research and Central Agricultural University status for Bidhan Chandra Krishi Viswavidyalaya and better funding for Krishi Vigyan Kendras. She also highlighted the Krishak Bandhu scheme, delayed fund transfers, demanded a National Floriculture Export Hub for the Mullikghat flower market, and proposed a chemical-free agriculture zone in the Sundarbans.
4. Shri Daggumalla Prasada Rao (TDP, Chittoor (SC), Andhra Pradesh) stated that the ₹2.42 lakh crore agriculture budget reflects a strong focus on farmers, highlighting schemes such as PM-KISAN benefiting over 11 crore farmer families, National Mission on Natural Farming covering 14.32 lakh farmers and 5.45 lakh hectares, and the Annadata Sukhibhava scheme providing ₹ 7,000 to 47 lakh farmers, while noting crop coverage in Andhra Pradesh including 1.3 lakh hectares of cashew, 1.08 lakh hectares of coconut, and 35,261 hectares of cocoa. He further raised concerns regarding soil health schemes, coconut growers’ challenges, and project guidelines favouring large farmers, and requested measures such as 20,000 additional natural farming clusters, declaration of Andhra Pradesh as a National Resource State for natural farming, establishment of a ₹ 2,585 crore Central Agricultural University, and expediting nine Krishi Vigyan Kendras.
5. Shri Rajesh Verma (LJSP-RV, Khagaria, Bihar) described farmers as the backbone of the nation and credited them for feeding 140 crore people. He praised the government’s focus on agriculture and stated that the agriculture budget has increased from ₹ 27,633 crore during the UPA period to ₹ 1,40,528 crore. He highlighted increases in MSP, stating that paddy MSP rose from ₹ 1,310 to ₹ 2,369 and jowar from ₹ 1,500 to ₹ 3,699, along with higher procurement of paddy from ₹ 4.40 lakh crore to ₹ 12.51 lakh crore and overall farmer support rising from ₹ 1.51 lakh crore to ₹ 10.75 lakh crore. He also noted the shift to direct benefit transfers to farmers and India’s rise as a leading rice producer, while criticising opposition claims on farmer issues.
6. Shri Dushyant Singh (BJP, Jhalawar–Baran, Rajasthan) supported the Demands for Grants, noting that ₹ 1,40,529 crore has been allocated for agriculture in 2026–27 (5.4% increase), compared to about ₹ 27,663 crore earlier. He highlighted ₹ 63,500 crore under PM-Kisan with ₹ 6,000 DBT support, and credit support to 7.7 crore farmers through Kisan Credit Cards with limits raised from ₹ 3 lakh to ₹ 5 lakh. He cited allocations under Agriculture Infrastructure Fund (₹ 910 crore) and PM-AASHA (₹ 7,200 crore), and increases in procurement, paddy from 45.90 to 84.18 crore metric tonnes, wheat from 22.54 to 33.58 crore metric tonnes, and oilseeds from 47.75 lakh metric tonnes to about 1 crore metric tonnes. He also referred to FPO support (one FPO growing from ₹ 11 lakh to ₹ 8 crore), neem-coated urea, e-NAM, irrigation expansion, and schemes such as PM-KUSUM, Digital Agriculture Mission, Namo Drone Didi, National Mission on Natural Farming, Soil Health Cards and the National Mission on Oil and Palm Oil to strengthen farmer incomes and productivity.
7. Smt. Dimple Yadav (SP, Mainpuri, Uttar Pradesh) raised concerns over agrarian distress, stating that while GDP growth was about 6%, agriculture grew by only 4% and small farmers by 2%, with average monthly farmer income at ₹ 8,000–₹ 10,000 and about ₹3,800 for those solely dependent on cultivation; she noted that 46% of the population depends on agriculture, about half of farmers are in debt, and nearly 10 lakh farmer suicides had occurred in the last decade, and demanded a farm loan waiver similar to ₹ 16 lakh crore corporate waivers. She further highlighted that MSP is announced for 23 crops but procurement is largely limited to wheat and rice. She raised concerns over a 25% cut in PM Fasal Bima Yojana despite 2 crore hectares of crop damage and noted import dependence of about 20% for pulses and 70% for edible oils, along with fertilizer shortages and black marketing of DAP.
8. Shri Rahul Singh Lodhi (BJP, Damoh, Madhya Pradesh) highlighted that foodgrain production increased from 265 million tonnes (2013–14) to about 330 million tonnes and pulse production from 19 million tonnes to 27 million tonnes, while noting India’s leading position in agricultural output. He praised initiatives such as PM-KISAN, PM Fasal Bima Yojana, National Mission on Natural Farming, Agriculture Infrastructure Fund, formation of 10,000 FPOs, use of drones and the “Lab to Land” initiative. He referred to the ₹ 44,000 crore Ken–Betwa Link Project as transformative for Bundelkhand while proposing an Agricultural University in Damoh.
9. Shri Hanuman Beniwal (RLP, Nagaur, Rajasthan) highlighted severe agrarian distress, stating that farmers face debt of about ₹ 36–37 lakh crore, including ₹ 1.95 lakh crore in Rajasthan, and demanded a complete farm loan waiver, a legal guarantee for MSP, and raised concerns over rising input costs and alleged irregularities in the PM Fasal Bima Yojana. He further proposed measures such as establishing a Central Agricultural University in Nagaur, increasing PM-KISAN assistance to ₹ 1 lakh per year, setting up KVKs in Deedwana and Kuchaman, and creating a national Moong Research Centre in collaboration with ICAR.
10. Smt. Harsimrat Kaur Badal (SAD, Bathinda, Punjab) expressed concern over the Government’s agricultural policies, stating that agriculture’s share in the Union Budget had declined from 5.5% in 2019 to nearly half by 2026 and criticizing a ₹ 12,500 crore cut in fertilizer subsidies, while highlighting that 80–90% of Punjab’s farmers are under debt and paying tribute to 600 farmers who died during the protests. She further raised issues relating to water sharing, BBMB representation, the 2025 floods, and stalled Basmati exports to Iran worth about ₹ 4 lakh crore, and warned about a possible urea shortage, seeking clarity on the Government’s preparedness.
11. Shri Shivraj Singh Chouhan (Union Minister, Ministry of Agriculture and Farmers Welfare; BJP, Vidisha, Madhya Pradesh) thanked the Chair and Members for participating in the discussion on agriculture, while noting the absence of some senior Opposition leaders during the debate.
  1. He stated that in Independence Day speeches, Shri Jawaharlal Nehru mentioned farmers six times, whereas Prime Minister Shri Narendra Modi Ji referred to farmers 207 times, which he argued reflected the present government’s stronger commitment to farmers.
  2. He expressed gratitude to members across parties, including smaller parties, and assured the House that their suggestions had been carefully noted and would be sincerely considered. He emphasised that the Government remains open to constructive proposals from both Treasury and Opposition benches. He reiterated his commitment to farmers and thanked the Prime Minister Shri Narendra Modi Ji for entrusting him with the responsibility of the Agriculture Ministry.
  3. He noted that the Ministry was renamed as the Ministry of Agriculture and Farmers’ Welfare to reflect a broader focus on farmers’ well-being. He further stated that the agriculture budget increased from ₹ 21,933 crore (2013–14) to approximately ₹ 1.3 lakh crore, and with allied sectors included, total support stands at about ₹ 3.32 lakh crore. He outlined three key objectives: ensuring food security, increasing farmers’ income and livelihoods, and providing nutritional security.
  4. He reported that foodgrain production increased from 265 million tonnes (2014–15) to 357.7 million tonnes, while horticulture production rose from 277.35 million tonnes to 370 million tonnes. He added that productivity of major crops such as rice, wheat, maize, pulses, and oilseeds has improved, and India has become the world’s largest rice producer.
  5. On PM-KISAN, he stated that about ₹ 4.27 lakh crore has been transferred directly to farmers through 22 installments, ensuring transparency and reducing dependence on moneylenders.
  6. He noted that fertilizer prices have been stabilized despite global increases, with DAP being provided at about ₹ 1,350 per bag and fertilizer subsidies increased from about ₹ 18,460 crore (2005–06) to over ₹ 1.77 lakh crore, reflecting government support.
  7. On institutional credit, he stated that agricultural credit increased from ₹ 7.3 lakh crore (2014) to ₹ 28 lakh crore, with over 7.81 crore Kisan Credit Card holders, and ₹ 1.80 lakh crore provided as interest subvention with KCC benefits have been extended to allied sectors and relief measures introduced for farmers affected by natural calamities.
  8. He highlighted that GST on agricultural machinery was reduced from 12–18% to 5%, reducing tractor prices by ₹ 41,000–₹ 63,000, contributing to a near doubling of tractor sales since 2013–14. Furthermore, he asserted that the BJP Government ensures MSP at least 50% above cost of production, citing increases for crops such as paddy, jowar, ragi, pulses, cotton, mustard, and sunflower for the 2026–27 season.
  9. He further stated that procurement of Paddy increased from 45 crore MT in UPA Era to 84.18 crore MT in NDA whereas procurement for wheat stands at 33.58 crore MT. The procurement for Pulses increased from 6 lakh MT to 1.93 crore MT and oilseeds rose from 17 lakh MT to 1.57 crore MT. He also stated that procurement expenditure increased from ₹ 6.98 lakh crore to over ₹ 12.29 lakh crore. MSP procurement rose from ₹ 4.75 lakh crore (UPA) to about ₹ 18.39 lakh crore (NDA).
  10. He mentioned a pulses self-reliance mission offering subsidies up to ₹ 25 lakh for processing units and referred to the Mission for Integrated Development of Horticulture (MIDH). He also stated that new Pesticide and Seed Acts are being developed to strengthen regulation. On irrigation, he stated that 99 pending projects are being expedited under the Pradhan Mantri Krishi Sinchayee Yojana. He highlighted the Ken–Betwa River Linking Project, describing it as fulfilling the vision of Atal Bihari Vajpayee.
  11. He concluded by stating that the Government aims to build an Atmanirbhar and Viksit Bharat, where agriculture is strengthened through technology, policy support, and farmer-centric reforms.
Shri Om Birla Ji (Speaker, Lok Sabha; BJP, Kota, Rajasthan) placed the Demands for Grants for the Ministry of Agriculture and Farmers’ Welfare for vote which was passed by the house. Further he read out the consolidated list of Demands for Grants for remaining ministries and departments for the financial year 2026–27, which were also passed by the house.
Following the passage of the Demands for Grants, Smt. Nirmala Sitharaman (Union Minister, Ministry of Finance; BJP, Karnataka) moved the Appropriation Bill (No. 2), 2026 for consideration. She stated that the Bill was intended to authorize the withdrawal of funds from the Consolidated Fund of India to meet the government’s expenditure. Following the clause-by-clause consideration the Bill was passed.
The proceedings of the House were adjourned at 6:14 pm to reconvene at 11:00 am on Monday, 23^rdMarch, 2026.

III. Rajya Sabha Proceedings:

The proceedings of the Rajya Sabha commenced at 11:00 AM with Shri C.P. Radhakrishnan Ji (Chairman, Rajya Sabha) in the chair.
Papers and Reports were laid on the table of the house. Following which, Shri C.P Radhakrishnan Ji (Chairman, Rajya Sabha) informed the House that the Questions hour for the day has been dispensed for today. All the Questions would be treated as laid on the table of the House.
Following this, Shri C.P. Radhakrishnan Ji (Chairman, Rajya Sabha) commenced the farewell of the retiring members of the House.
1. Shri Narendra Modi Ji (Prime Minister; BJP, Varanasi, Uttar Pradesh) stated that as members conclude their terms, some would seek re-election while others would move on to contribute to public life, emphasising that there are no “full stops” in politics and that their experience would continue to serve the nation. He highlighted the lifelong contributions of senior leaders such as Shri H.D. Deve Gowda, Shri Mallikarjun Kharge and Shri Sharad Pawar, urging new Members to learn from their dedication and commitment to parliamentary work. He further noted the departure of the Shri Harivansh Ji (Deputy Chairman, Rajya Sabha; JD(U), Bihar) while describing him as soft-spoken and someone who consistently sought to win the confidence of the House while conducting its proceedings. He remarked that the responsibility of managing the House during challenging moments often fell upon the Deputy Chairman.
2. Shri Mallikarjun Kharge (INC, Karnataka) expressed gratitude for the opportunity to participate in the proceedings, stating that he had learned continuously through interactions with members and had made efforts to fulfil his responsibilities while strengthening the functioning of the House. He reflected on his long parliamentary experience and acknowledged the contributions of several members across parties, including Shri Sharad Pawar, Shri Digvijaya Singh, Shri Tiruchi Siva, Shri Ramdas Athawale, Shri Parshottam Rupala, Shri Shaktisinh Gohil, Shri Neeraj Dangi, Smt. Phulo Devi Netam, Smt. Fauzia Khan, Smt. Priyanka Chaturvedi and Shri Saket Gokhale, while commending the Deputy Chairman Shri Harivansh for his dignified and courteous conduct.
3. Shri Harivansh Ji (Deputy Chairman, Rajya Sabha; JD(U), Bihar) expressed gratitude for the appreciation received from the Prime Minister, Chairman and Shri Mallikarjun Kharge, stating that their words would remain a lasting part of his life, and extended his best wishes to retiring members while welcoming new members with renewed energy and vision. He acknowledged the support of leaders including Shri Nitish Kumar and Shri Amit Shah, reflected on his twelve-year tenure as a transformative period marked by increasing global recognition of India, and highlighted initiatives such as making Parliament paperless and advancing the vision of Viksit Bharat@2047.
4. Shri Digvijaya Singh (INC, Madhya Pradesh) expressed gratitude to the Chairman and reflected on his political journey from an early age, stating that he remained committed to his ideology without allowing differences to turn into personal animosity, and apologised if any of his remarks had caused offence. He emphasized that dialogue is essential to democracy, urged the government to build consensus with the Opposition, and expressed concern over rising communal discord, describing it as harmful to India’s culture, democracy and the Constitution, while thanking the Congress Party for the opportunities given to him.
5. Shri Praful Patel (NCP, Maharashtra) welcomed re-elected members and bid a heartfelt farewell to those retiring, noting that years of shared service foster deep personal bonds. He specifically welcomed his leader, Shri Sharad Pawar, citing his extensive experience as a vital source of wisdom for the House. Paying tribute to colleagues from Maharashtra, he lauded Smt. Fauzia Khan was a distinguished educationist and Smt. Priyanka Chaturvedi as an intellectual legislator. He reaffirmed the Rajya Sabha’s unique role as a “House of Elders” that maintains sanity and functionality, serving as a guiding force for Indian democracy.
6. Smt. Priyanka Chaturvedi (SS-UBT, Maharashtra) expressed gratitude to her party leadership, Shri Uddhav Thackeray and Shri Aaditya Thackeray, while acknowledging the deep bonds formed with colleagues across the aisle. She highlighted the guidance of senior leaders and the varying leadership styles of former Chairmen Shri Venkaiah Naidu and Shri Jagdeep Dhankhar. Offering a humble apology to the Deputy Chairman for a past suspension, she credited the House for her growth as a legislator. She concluded by thanking the parliamentary staff, media, and her family, expressing immense pride in the Women’s Reservation Bill as a potential pathway for her return.
7. Shri Javed Ali Khan (SP, Uttar Pradesh) extended best wishes to his colleagues, highlighting the dedication of lifelong political workers like Shri Praful Patel. Drawing from his personal experience as a former MP, he urged the government to improve welfare for retired members. Specifically, he requested that CGHS healthcare protocols ensure ex-MPs are treated with the same dignity as sitting members and that telephonic railway reservations be extended to them. He emphasized that these logistical reforms would impose no financial burden but would provide significant relief and honor to elderly former legislators.
8. Shri Shaktisinh Gohil (INC, Gujarat) reflected on his journey from the Panchayat level to Parliament, paying tribute to Shri Rajiv Gandhi and the current Congress leadership for his tenure. He emphasized the importance of objective conduct and respecting the Opposition. While noting the loss of Central Hall access, he praised the House’s “family-like” atmosphere that transcends ideological differences. Concluding with a hopeful verse, he urged for a democracy dedicated to public service rather than the misuse of power.
9. Dr. Bhagwat Karad (BJP, Maharashtra) reflected on his journey from a medical professional and Mayor to a Rajya Sabha member and Union Minister. He thanked Shri Narendra Modi Ji, Shri Amit Shah Ji, and Shri J.P. Nadda Ji for the opportunity to serve as Minister of State for Finance, where he focused on financial inclusion and the PM SVANidhi scheme. He highlighted the honor of passing the Nari Shakti Vandan Adhiniyam and credited senior members for teaching him the value of patient, logical debate. Reaffirming his commitment to “Viksit Bharat 2047,” .
10. Dr. Ashok Kumar Mittal (AAP, Punjab) reflected on the transient nature of parliamentary service, noting that all representatives eventually become former members. During his four-year tenure, he valued the cooperation received from his own party, the treasury benches, and senior opposition leaders like Smt. Sonia Gandhi and Shri Mallikarjun Kharge. He highlighted instances of cross-party support during debates and international delegations..
11. Shri Bhubaneswar Kalita (BJP, Assam) expressed gratitude to the Chair and noted that this was his second farewell from the Rajya Sabha, following a long legislative career spanning the Vidhan Sabha, Lok Sabha, and Upper House. Reflecting on his journey from a college lecturer and advocate to a “career politician,” he thanked members across party lines for their cooperation during his time presiding over the House. While departing the Rajya Sabha, he affirmed his unwavering commitment to the nation and stated that he would continue his active political career in other capacities.
12. Smt. Kiran Choudhry (BJP, Haryana) expressed gratitude to the BJP leadership and reflected on her family’s three-generation parliamentary legacy. She highlighted her international representation of India and her pride in the Nari Shakti Vandan Adhiniyam. Emphasizing that Parliament is a “temple of democracy,” she called for harmony with the Opposition and lauded the government’s stance on national security. Concluding with literary quotes, she affirmed that while her House tenure ends, her 35-year commitment to public life remains lifelong.
13. Shri Ram Chander Jangra (BJP, Haryana) thanked the BJP leadership for his tenure, highlighting his advocacy for the Gadiya Lohar and nomadic tribes, who view 1952 as their true “Day of Deliverance”. He noted the global reach of his speeches on the Gayatri Mantra and his role in the Rajbhasha Samiti. Reflecting on landmark events like the abrogation of Article 370, he praised the personal camaraderie among colleagues despite ideological differences. He concluded by proposing a dedicated space in the Central Hall for retired members to share their collective experiences and continue their engagement with parliamentary life.
14. Shri Ramdas Athawale (MoS, Ministry of Social Justice and Empowerment; RPI (ATWL), Maharashtra) expressed mixed emotions over the retirement of members, remarking in a poetic style that while some were leaving, their spirit remained strong, and affirmed his intent to return for another term while praising the leadership of the Prime Minister and crediting Dr. B.R. Ambedkar’s ideology for guiding parliamentary functioning. He highlighted his long parliamentary journey, acknowledged fellow members, emphasized the need to avoid excessive disruptions, and expressed confidence that collective efforts would help advance national development and elevate India’s global economic position.
15. Shri Kiren Rijiju (Union Minister, Ministry of Parliamentary Affairs; BJP, Arunachal West, Arunachal Pradesh) stated that 59 Members were retiring, 36 in April, 2026, 22 in June, 2026 and 1 in July, 2026, with one already retired. He also noted that 9 Members had been re-elected, while assuring that the Government and Rajya Sabha Secretariat would facilitate pensions, healthcare and other services for retiring Members. He further reflected on the technological transformation of Parliament, highlighted the spirit of consensus at retirement despite political differences, and clarified that chanting of “Vande Mataram” is permissible unless it disrupts proceedings, while appreciating members like Shri Harivansh and Shri Jairam Ramesh and encouraging retiring Members to remain connected with the House.
The proceedings of the House were adjourned at 4:50 PM to meet again at 11:00 AM on 23^rd March, 2026.

IV. Events Outside The Parliament

Smt. Priyanka Gandhi Vadra (INC, Wayanad, Kerala) stated that the resignation of Shri Pradyut Bordoloi was very unfortunate, adding that he had been upset over a ticket allocation and that she wished there had been a chance to discuss the matter with him.
Shri Nishikant Dubey (BJP, Gooda, Jharkhand) said that there was “nothing left” in the Congress, while commenting on Shri Pradyut Bordoloi quitting the party ahead of the Assam polls, and suggested that Shri Gaurav Gogoi could be the next to leave.
Shri Arun Govil (BJP, Meerut, Uttar Pradesh) said that Shri Pradyut Bordoloi’s resignation reflected the situation within the Congress party, adding that if anyone felt stifled or pressured, they were free to leave.
Shri Pramod Tiwari (INC, Rajasthan) said that those who wished to leave could not be stopped, while commenting on Nagaon MP Shri Pradyut Bordoloi quitting ahead of the polls, and expressed confidence that the Congress would form the government in Assam.
Sushri Kangana Ranaut (BJP, Mandi, Himachal Pradesh) criticized Shri Rahul Gandhi’s (INC, Rae Bareli, Uttar Pradesh) conduct, describing it as “uncomfortable,” while commenting on the public letter by former bureaucrats, veterans, and lawyers, and contrasted it with Smt. Priyanka Gandhi Vadra’s behaviour while making sharp remarks against him.
Smt. Sulata Deo (BJD, Odisha) accused the BJP of orchestrating alleged horse-trading in the Rajya Sabha polls in Odisha, citing claims that an MLA had been forcibly moved and pointing to irregularities such as a legislator receiving two ballots, thereby raising concerns over the fairness of the election process.
Shri Yogendra Chandolia (BJP, North West Delhi (SC), NCT Of Delhi) termed the Palam fire incident a serious tragedy, expressed condolences to the victims, and called for a thorough investigation to determine the cause, whether it was due to an electrical short circuit or other reasons, and to fix responsibility.
Shri Kirti Azad (AITC, Bardaman-Durgapur, West Bengal) said that the candidates for the West Bengal polls had been selected based on performance and public service, expressing confidence that the party would win over 250 seats. He claimed that there was no anti-incumbency and alleged that the BJP lacked ground presence and public support.
Shri Shashank Mani (BJP, Deoria, Uttar Pradesh) said that under the leadership of Hon’ble Prime Minister Shri Narendra Modi, air travel had become more accessible to people from small towns due to the decentralisation of the aviation sector. He welcomed the action against airlines charging extra for seat selection, calling it a step against unfair practices.
Shri Ashok Mittal (AAP, Punjab) said that if the reports were true, there was no need for a luxury boat for inspection, while commenting on the Delhi government’s boat tender, and stressed that public money should be spent responsibly as ministers and officials were servants of the people.
Smt. Mahua Maji (JJM, Jharkhand) said that horse-trading in elections was evident, questioned the role of agencies like the Enforcement Directorate and the CBI, and raised concerns about whether institutions had become biased.
Shri S. P. Singh Baghel (BJP, Agra (SC), Uttar Pradesh) welcomed the Centre’s directive to airlines to offer at least 60% of seats without seat selection charges, calling it a move in favour of passengers.
Shri Ujjwal Raman Singh (INC, Allahabad, Uttar Pradesh) accused the BJP of engaging in polarisation politics, termed the incident condemnable, referenced a similar situation in Sambhal, and said that people of all religions had the constitutional right to celebrate festivals like Eid freely.

Annexure I - Matters Raised Under Rule 377 In The Lok Sabha

Annexure II - Reports And Statements Presented In The Lok Sabha

Annexure III - Members Who Participated In Discussion On Demand For Grants Under The Control Of Ministry Of Agriculture And Farmers Welfare

Annexure IV - Bills Passed In The Lok Sabha

Annexure V - Reports And Statements Presented In The Rajya Sabha

Annexure VI - Members Who Took Part In The Farewell Of Retiring Members From Rajya Sabha

Parliamentary Proceedings for 17th March, 2026

Thu, 19 Mar 2026 07:55:59 GMT

I. Key Highlights Of The Proceedings:

The proceedings of the Lok Sabha and Rajya Sabha commenced at 11:00 AM.
In the Lok Sabha, Shri Om Birla Ji (Speaker, Lok Sabha; BJP, Kota, Rajasthan) presided over the House and commenced the proceedings of the House with Question Hour.
1. Shri Arun Nehru (DMK, Perambalur, Tamil Nadu) sought details on the total funds released to Tamil Nadu over the last three years for major schemes like MGNREGA and PMAY-G and urged the Government to revise the cost-sharing pattern to a 60:40 ratio for all schemes, noting that some programs currently receive less than a 60% contribution from the Central Government. In response, Shri Kamlesh Paswan (MoS, Ministry of Rural Development; BJP, Uttar Pradesh) explained that for the new Viksit Bharat–Guarantee for Rozgar and Ajeevika Mission Gramin (VB-G RAM G) scheme, the cost-sharing ratio is set at 60:40, stating that this partnership strengthens the spirit of cooperative federalism and increases accountability.
2. Shri Darshan Singh Chaudhary (BJP, Hoshangabad, Madhya Pradesh) sought information regarding the work done under the Watershed Development Component of Pradhan Mantri Krishi Sinchayee Yojana(WDC-PMKSY). Shri Kamlesh Paswan (MoS, Ministry of Rural Development; BJP, Uttar Pradesh) replied that 6,376 projects have been completed, creating over 7.6 lakh water harvesting structures and bringing approximately 16.4 lakh hectares of additional land under protective irrigation.
Following Question Hour, Shri Kodikunnil Suresh (INC, Mavelikkara, Kerala) raised the issue of the suspension of eight Members from the Opposition. Shri Kiren Rijiju (Union Minister, Ministry of Parliamentary Affairs; BJP, Arunachal Pradesh) stressed the need to uphold parliamentary discipline and maintain the “Laxman Rekha” of acceptable conduct. Subsequently, he moved a motion to revoke the suspension of the eight Members, which was adopted by the House.
Shri Piyush Goyal (Union Minister; BJP, Rajya Sabha) moved a motion seeking leave to withdraw The Jan Vishwas (Amendment of Provisions) Bill, 2025, which was granted by the House and the Bill was subsequently withdrawn.
Thereafter, discussion commenced on the Demands for Grants under the Ministry of Railways for 2026-27.
1. Smt. Shatabdi Roy (AITC, Birbhum, West Bengal) raised concerns highlighting the absence of pantry cars and poor hygiene due to outsourced catering services and the withdrawal of senior citizen concessions.
2. Shri Rajmohan Unnithan (INC, Kasaragod, Kerala) raised concerns about rail track cracks and congestion in Kerala citing that trains were running at an average speed of about 45 km per hour.
3. Shri Sougata Ray (AITC, Dum Dum, West Bengal) criticized railway safety citing 678 deaths in railway accidents between 2014–15 and 2023–24 and delays of 6–8 hours in train services.
4. Shri Shankar Lalwani (BJP, Indore, Madhya Pradesh) supported the budget, highlighting a 90% reduction in train accidents due to the ‘Kavach’ safety system.
5. Shri Tapir Gao (BJP, Arunachal East, Arunachal Pradesh) highlighted that the Northeast railway budget increased from ₹2,100 crore to ₹11,000 crore. He further highlighted achievements in Mizoram, including 87 bridges and a 10.85 km tunnel, and ongoing projects such as the Dimapur–Kohima line.
Shri Ashwini Vaishnaw (Union Minister, Ministry of Railways; BJP, Odisha) responded to the debate, stating it reflected a shift toward “politics of performance.”
1. He highlighted the record allocation of ₹2.78 lakh crore for 2026–27 and noted that 35,000 km of tracks have been built since 2014, with electrification covering nearly the entire network. He emphasized safety through the rollout of the Kavach system across 20,000 km and underscored that sleeper and general coaches constitute 70% of total coaches to ensure affordability.
2. He noted strong freight growth, with cargo increasing from 1,055 million tonnes in 2013–14 to around 1,650–1,670 million tonnes, significantly enhancing logistics capacity and positioning Indian Railways among the largest freight carriers globally.
3. He highlighted modernisation initiatives including expansion of Vande Bharat services, Amrit Bharat trains, station redevelopment, and the Mumbai–Ahmedabad Bullet Train project.
4. He also raised concerns over delays in project implementation due to land acquisition issues in Opposition-ruled states such as Kerala, Tamil Nadu, and West Bengal, leading to several stalled projects.
5. Following the discussion, the motion was passed and the Demands for Grants for the Ministry of Railways was approved.
Shri C.P. Radhakrishnan Ji (Chairman, Rajya Sabha) commenced the Question Hour.
Shri C.P. Radhakrishnan Ji (Chairman, Rajya Sabha) commenced the Question Hour.
1. Shri Govindbhai Laljibhai Dholakia (BJP, Gujarat) asked about the expansion of Ayushman Bharat (PM-JAY) to rural sectors. Smt. Nirmala Sitharaman (Union Minister, Ministry of Finance, BJP, Karnataka) responded that the policy objective is to achieve “Insurance for All” by 2033 and noted that GST has been removed from individual health insurance premiums to improve affordability.
2. Smt. Swati Maliwal (AAP, NCT of Delhi) raised concerns about major food chains failing to display calorific values. Shri J.P. Nadda (Union Minister, Ministry of Health & Family Welfare; BJP, Gujarat) responded that under FSSAI regulations, it is mandatory to display nutritional information and reported that in 2024-25, 164 out of 165 central establishments inspected were compliant.
The proceeding of the house was adjourned at 1:00 PM to reconvene at 2:00 PM.
The proceedings of the house resumed at 2:00 PM with Shri Harivansh (Deputy Chairman, Rajya Sabha; JD(U), Bihar) presiding over as the Chair. He took up the Union Minister’s reply to the discussion on the working of the Ministry of Rural Development, which had been held from 10^th to 12^th March, 2026.
Shri Shivraj Singh Chouhan (Union Minister, Ministry of Rural Development and Agriculture and Farmers Welfare; BJP, Vidisha, Madhya Pradesh) responded to the discussion on the Demands for Grants for the Ministry of Rural Development.
1. He outlined the vision for Viksit Bharat G-RAM G framework with a central allocation of ₹95,692 crore, emphasising enhanced employment (up to 125 days), decentralised planning, and improved transparency.
2. He rejected allegations of discrimination against certain states, stating that funds to West Bengal were withheld due to irregularities identified through audits.
3. He highlighted the “Lakhpati Didi” initiative, noting that the target of 3 crore women has been achieved ahead of schedule, with a revised goal of 6 crore.
4. He also highlighted the empowerment resulting from these missions, noting that in Madhya Pradesh alone, 17,000 women from self-help groups have been elected to various positions.
5. He described the PM Surya Ghar Muft Bijli Yojana as a visionary scheme that provides free electricity with dignity and self-respect, noting that this benefit will now also be extended to the poor living in PM Awas Yojana houses.
6. He also noted that to ensure no one is left behind, the government has introduced four major changes to the eligibility criteria for the PM Awas Yojana: Income Limit (increased from ₹10,000 to ₹15,000), Two-Wheelers (families with two wheelers not excluded), Mobile Phones (owning a mobile phone is no longer a bar to receiving a home) and land ownership (farmers with up to 2.5 acres of irrigated land or 5 acres of unirrigated land will now also be eligible for the PM Awas Yojana).
Thereafter, discussion commenced on the Appropriation Bill, 2026.
1. Shri Rajiv Shukla (INC, Chhattisgarh) emphasised the need for greater accountability in fund utilisation, raising concerns that rising economic inequality may undermine the equitable impact of government spending and calling for closer scrutiny of outcomes.
2. Shri Saket Gokhale (AITC, West Bengal) highlighted pending dues under Mahatma Gandhi National Rural Employment Guarantee Act and questioned transparency in public expenditure, stressing delays in payments to states and beneficiaries.
3. Smt. Priyanka Chaturvedi (Shiv Sena-UBT, Maharashtra) questioned the adequacy of parliamentary scrutiny of the Appropriation Bill, expressing concern that limited debate may weaken legislative oversight over public finances.
4. Smt. Mahua Maji (JMM, Jharkhand) questioned whether the Bill adequately ensured equitable distribution of resources for mineral-rich states and emphasized the need for greater investment while expressing support for the Bill.
5. Shri Sadanand Mhalu Shet Tanavade (BJP, Goa) supported the Bill stating that it authorises over ₹2.81 lakh crore to sustain development and reflects strong economic management.
Smt. Nirmala Sitharaman (Union Minister, Ministry of Finance; BJP, Rajya Sabha), replying to the discussion on the Appropriation Bill, 2026, addressed concerns on the Supplementary Demands for Grants, noting that several Members had focused more on the upcoming Budget rather than the demands under consideration.
1. She outlined major allocations, including ₹57,381.84 crore for the Economic Stabilization Fund, ₹41,430 crore for defence with ₹6,140 crore for Ex-Servicemen Contributory Health Scheme (ECHS), ₹37,886 crore in transfers to States, and ₹30,000 crore for Mahatma Gandhi National Rural Employment Guarantee Act to clear dues.
2. She emphasised strong macroeconomic fundamentals, highlighting the rise in capital expenditure from ₹2.63 lakh crore (2017–18) to ₹12.20 lakh crore (2026–27), alongside fiscal consolidation with deficit reduced to 4.4% and repayment of ₹2.92 lakh crore in oil bonds.
3. She highlighted energy transition and infrastructure push, noting installed power capacity at 520.5 GW with over 52% from non-fossil sources, and reaffirmed transparency and parliamentary oversight.The Bill was subsequently passed by voice-voting.
The proceedings of Lok Sabha and Rajya Sabha were adjourned at 08:26 PM and 07:50 PM, respectively, to reconvene at 11:00 A.M on Wednesday, 18^thMarch, 2026.

II. Lok Sabha Proceedings:

The proceedings of the Lok Sabha commenced at 11:00 AM.
Shri Om Birla Ji (Speaker, Lok Sabha; BJP, Kota, Rajasthan) presided over the proceedings of the House and commenced the proceedings of the House with Question Hour.
1. Shri Arun Nehru (DMK, Perambalur, Tamil Nadu) sought details on the total funds released to Tamil Nadu over the last three years for major schemes like MGNREGA and PMAY-G, specifically asking if any dues are pending and how they might be affecting the state’s progress. He further urged the government to revise the cost-sharing pattern to a 60:40 ratio (Centre-State) for all schemes to ensure parity, noting that some programs currently receive less than a 60% contribution from the Central Government.
  1. Shri Kamlesh Paswan (MoS, Ministry of Rural Development; BJP, Uttar Pradesh) explained that for the new Viksit Bharat–Guarantee for Rozgar and Ajeevika Mission Gramin (VB-G RAM G) scheme, which is replacing MGNREGA, the cost-sharing ratio is set at 60:40 between the Centre and States. He stated there is currently no plan to change this ratio. He noted that sharing costs between the Centre and States has been a standard practice in past rural employment programs like National Rural Employment Programme (NREP), Sampoorna Grameen Rozgar Yojana (SGRY), and Jawahar Rozgar Yojana (JRY). The Minister emphasized that this 60:40 partnership strengthens the spirit of cooperative federalism and increases the accountability of all parties involved.
2. Shri Darshan Singh Chaudhary (BJP, Hoshangabad, Madhya Pradesh) sought information about the work done under the Watershed Development Component of Pradhan Mantri Krishi Sinchayee Yojana (WDC-PMKSY) for developing rainfed and degraded lands. He also inquired if the scheme has successfully increased farmers’ income, improved water conservation, and created rural jobs.
  1. Shri Kamlesh Paswan (MoS, Ministry of Rural Development; BJP, Uttar Pradesh) replied that the scheme is being effectively implemented to develop degraded land and strengthen farmer livelihoods. Under WDC-PMKSY 1.0, a total of 6,382 projects were approved to cover 2.95 crore hectares across the country, with 6,376 projects already completed. Key achievements include the creation of over 7.6 lakh water harvesting structures and bringing approximately 16.4 lakh hectares of additional land under protective irrigation.
3. Shri Rajeev Rai (SP, Ghosi, Uttar Pradesh) inquired whether the Government has studied the condition of small-scale farmers, specifically those holding very small plots of half to one acre, who often face debt due to crop losses from floods or droughts in traditional farming. He asked if there is a plan to provide training in alternative farming, particularly for small farmers in the Purvanchal region, to help them get better prices for their products and improve their living standards.
  1. Shri Shivraj Singh Chouhan (Union Minister, Ministry of Agriculture and Farmers Welfare; BJP, Vidisha, Madhya Pradesh) responded that the government is promoting alternatives to tobacco to protect both health and farmer income. He identified specific crop shifts such as hybrid maize, chili, sweet potato, cotton, and ragi for tobacco-growing areas, and sugarcane, soybean, and groundnut for bidi-tobacco regions. To support farmers with small landholdings, the government has introduced Integrated Farming Models. These models encourage farmers to diversify beyond single crops into a mix of grain, vegetables, fruits, animal husbandry, fisheries, beekeeping, and agroforestry to ensure that small-scale farming becomes a profitable and sustainable business.
4. Shri Murari Lal Meena (INC, Dausa, Rajasthan) raised concerns regarding reports of large-scale fraud in crop insurance, specifically mentioning a case in Salasar, Churu district, and questioned the gap between the high premiums collected by insurance companies and the relatively low claims received by farmers in Rajasthan.
  1. Shri Shivraj Singh Chouhan (Union Minister, Ministry of Agriculture and Farmers Welfare; BJP, Vidisha, Madhya Pradesh) responded by stating that the Government maintains a zero-tolerance policy toward corruption and actively identifies irregularities. He highlighted that in the last three years, ₹ 9,930 crore was paid out to 2.5 crore farmers in Rajasthan and emphasized the role of the ‘Krishi Rakshak Portal’, which has registered 2,71,708 complaints to date. The Minister assured the House that every complaint is investigated and strict action is taken against anyone found guilty of misconduct to ensure farmers receive their rightful dues.
5. Dr. Prabha Mallikarjun (INC, Davanagere, Karnataka) inquired whether the financial assistance for specially-abled persons has been revised recently to account for rising costs and sought the current status of job reservations for Persons with Disabilities (PwDs) in Government sectors.
  1. Dr. Virendra Kumar (Union Minister, Ministry of Social Justice and Empowerment; BJP, Tikamgarh (SC), Madhya Pradesh) responded that the government is focusing on economic empowerment through skill development and low-interest loans from the National Handicapped Finance and Development Corporation (NHFDC). To help rural and slum-dwelling artisans sell their products, the government has organized 30 Divya Kala Melas across the country. Regarding reservations, the Minister informed the House that the quota for PwDs in Government-recognized schools has been increased from 3% to 5%, and in Government jobs, it has been raised from 3% to 4%.
After Question Hour, Shri Kodikunnil Suresh (INC, Mavelikkara, Kerala) raised the issue of the suspension of eight Members from the INC and CPI(M) the previous day refuting the claim that any banners were displayed at the Makar Dwar and requested the Chair to ensure equal opportunity for the Opposition, following which Shri Om Birla Ji (Speaker, Lok Sabha; BJP, Kota, Rajasthan) allowed a discussion on the matter.
1. Shri Dharmendra Yadav (SP, Azamgarh, Uttar Pradesh) supported the proposal for revocation and called upon both the Opposition and the Treasury Benches to cooperate for the smooth functioning of the House.
2. Shri Kiren Rijiju (Union Minister, Ministry of Parliamentary Affairs; BJP, Arunachal Pradesh) stressed on the need to uphold parliamentary discipline and decorum, invoking Rule 374(2) which empowers the Chair to act against disorderly conduct. He stated that repeated disruptions undermine the functioning of the House and the dignity of Parliament, and emphasised that members are elected to engage in debate rather than create disorder. He urged both the Treasury and Opposition benches to respect the authority of the Chair, adhere to the established procedures, and maintain the “Laxman Rekha” of acceptable conduct to ensure smooth legislative functioning.
3. Shri Om Birla Ji (Speaker, Lok Sabha; BJP, Kota, Rajasthan) directed that no fake or AI-generated images, banners, or placards be used, and urged Members to support the proceedings of the House.
4. Shri Kiren Rijiju (Union Minister, Ministry of Parliamentary Affairs; BJP, Arunachal Pradesh) moved a motion to revoke the suspension of eight Members, which was adopted by the House, thereby revoking their suspension.
Following this, papers and reports were laid on the table.
Shri Kiren Rijiju (Union Minister, Ministry of Parliamentary Affairs; BJP, Arunachal Pradesh) and Shri Kodikunnil Suresh (INC, Mavelikkara, Kerala) moved a motion that the House agree with the 15th Report of the Business Advisory Committee, which had been presented to the House the previous day, outlining the allocation of time and scheduling of legislative business. The resolution was taken up for consideration and subsequently passed.
Matters under Rule 377 were laid on the Table of the House.
Shri Piyush Goyal (Union Minister; BJP, Rajya Sabha) moved a motion seeking leave to withdraw The Jan Vishwas (Amendment of Provisions) Bill, 2025, as reported by the Select Committee, aimed at decriminalising and rationalising offences to promote trust-based governance and ease of living and doing business. The House granted leave, and the Bill was withdrawn.
In furtherance to this, the debate on the Demands for Grants under the control of the Ministry of Railways for 2026-27 commenced.
1. Smt. Shatabdi Roy (AITC, Birbhum, West Bengal) raised concerns regarding passenger amenities, highlighting the absence of pantry cars and poor hygiene due to outsourced catering services. She cited figures such as ₹1,229.8 crore earned from cancellation charges (2021–2024), ₹133.13 crore from dynamic pricing, ₹1,669 crore from Tatkal, and ₹163 crore from Premium Tatkal to argue that passengers able to pay premium fares receive better services, while ordinary passengers face difficulties. She also referred to the withdrawal of senior citizen concessions generating about ₹8,913 crore, and raised concerns regarding inadequate seat allocation for elderly passengers, urging more inclusive measures.
2. Shri Arun Bharti (LJP (RV), Jamui, Bihar) supported the Government and highlighted contributions of former railway ministers from Bihar such as Shri Jagjivan Ram, Shri Nitish Kumar, and Shri Ram Vilas Paswan. He stated that track construction increased from 4.4 km per day during the UPA period to about 8.5 km per day currently, and that 164 Vande Bharat Express trains are now operational. He noted improvements in railway infrastructure, including increased track construction and expansion of Vande Bharat services, and requested stoppages at Jamui while also urging that the proposed Banaras–Siliguri high-speed corridor include connectivity to Patna.
3. Shri Rajmohan Unnithan (INC, Kasaragod, Kerala) stated that trains in Kerala were running at an average speed of about 45 km per hour, citing rail track cracks and congestion. He raised concerns about inadequate services in Kasaragod and demanded better scheduling, new train services, stoppages for the Parashuram Express and daily operation of the Antyodaya Express, along with faster implementation of the Amrit Bharat Station Scheme.
4. Shri Krishna Prasad Tenneti (TDP, Bapatla, Andhra Pradesh) welcomed the ₹2.93 lakh crore railway allocation, highlighting 100% electrification progress, ₹2,200 crore projects for Amaravati, and modernization of 73 railway stations in Andhra Pradesh. He stated that 17 stations in the state would be connected by Vande Bharat Express and called for better connectivity to cities such as Bengaluru and Chennai to boost tourism and IT-sector travel.
5. Shri Abdul Rashid Sheikh (Ind., Baramulla, Jammu and Kashmir) emphasized the importance of rail connectivity in North Kashmir, noting that about 5 lakh security personnel are deployed in the region. He praised the engineering achievement of the Chenab Rail Bridge and called railways the “airplane of the poor,” urging expansion of connectivity in the region.
6. Shri Malvinder Singh (AAP, Anandpur Sahib, Punjab) thanked the Railway Minister for the development of a modern railway station in the region and acknowledged the ₹900 crore allocation for the Mohali semiconductor initiative. He highlighted that Chamkaur Sahib remains unconnected to the railway network and urged that it be linked at the earliest. He also called for faster and more frequent train services for devotees visiting Takht Sri Kesgarh Sahib.
7. Shri Sougata Ray (AITC, Dum Dum, West Bengal) criticized railway policies and raised concerns over safety, stating that 678 people died in railway accidents between 2014–15 and 2023–24, while questioning the claim that only 18 deaths occurred in 2024–25. He highlighted delays of 6–8 hours in train services, poor sanitation in trains and stations, and inadequate services for ordinary passengers. He urged the Government to focus more on improving services for common people rather than prioritizing high-speed and premium trains.
8. Shri Kanwar Singh Tanwar (BJP, Amroha, Uttar Pradesh) welcomed the Railway Budget exceeding ₹2 lakh crore for 2025–26 and noted that capital expenditure had reached a record ₹2.93 lakh crore. He stated that railway connectivity has expanded from 21,014 km earlier to about 99.4% coverage. He highlighted an investment of ₹20,012 crore in Uttar Pradesh’s railway sector and referred to projects such as the Varanasi–Siliguri railway network, while requesting longer halts for trains like the Faridabad Express and Ranikhet Express.
9. Shri G. Kumar Naik (INC, Raichur, Karnataka) criticized the Railway Budget, stating that the claimed 98% performance does not reflect real improvement and that nearly 80% of earlier railway projects remain incomplete. He raised concerns about regional disparities, stating that Karnataka received about ₹7,500 crore while Uttar Pradesh received over ₹10,000 crore. He called for the establishment of a Gati Shakti cargo terminal in Raichur, improved passenger facilities, and a survey for the Almatti railway line.
10. Shri Anand Bhadauria (SP, Dhaurahra, Uttar Pradesh) raised concerns about railway connectivity in the Sitapur and Lakhimpur Kheri regions. He proposed new rail lines including Jharekhapur (Sitapur)–Bahraich via Laharpur and Isanagar and Gola Gokarannath–Shahjahanpur via Mohammadi. He noted that the region has a population of nearly 1 crore, 17 Assembly constituencies, and 5 Members of Parliament, yet lacks direct connectivity to Delhi.
11. Shri Shankar Lalwani (BJP, Indore, Madhya Pradesh) supported the Railway Budget and highlighted national achievements such as 99.4% electrification of the railway network, a 90% reduction in train accidents over the past 11 years due to the ‘Kavach’ safety system, and modernization of over 1,300 railway stations. He stated that currently, more than 80% of Indian railway tracks are capable of supporting train speeds of 110 kmph and above. According to a recent survey, the operation of trains on these high-speed tracks is saving passengers approximately one lakh hours every single day.
12. Shri Tapir Gao (BJP, Arunachal East, Arunachal Pradesh) highlighted major railway expansion in the Northeast, noting that the region’s railway budget increased from around ₹2,100 crore earlier to ₹11,000 crore now. He referred to engineering achievements in Mizoram, including 87 bridges and a 10.85 km tunnel, and noted ongoing projects such as the Dimapur–Kohima line, rail connectivity towards Byrnihat in Meghalaya, and expansion of rail infrastructure in Arunachal Pradesh. He also mentioned survey work for a rail link from Silchar towards the international border near Maungdaw.
13. Adv. K. Francis George (KEC, Kottayam, Kerala) criticised the gap between railway targets and actual performance, noting that only 573 km of track doubling had been completed against a 2,000 km target (22%), while progress on new lines was about 50%. He raised concerns over the operating ratio exceeding 98%, declining net earnings, and growing dependence on budgetary support and Public-Private Partnership (PPP) models. He also highlighted delays in Road Over Bridges (ROBs) and Road Under Bridges (RUBs) due to land acquisition issues and limited implementation of the Kavach system. He demanded development of Kottayam as a terminal station, a Mumbai–Kanyakumari high-speed rail corridor, and early construction of the Angamaly–Sabarimala line for better access to Sabarimala Temple.
14. Smt. Jyotsna Charandas Mahant (INC, Korba, Chhattisgarh) criticised the imbalance between freight revenue and passenger facilities, stating that railways function as a “profit line” in her region due to heavy coal freight traffic. She said passenger trains are often delayed because freight trains are prioritised. While noting that Korba and Baikunthpur stations were included under the Amrit Bharat Station Scheme, she criticised slow implementation and demanded operationalisation of the Korba pit line, extension of trains like Narmada Express, and additional stoppages for Humsafar Express and Jan Shatabdi Express.
15. Shri Dilip Saikia (BJP, Darrang–Udalguri, Assam) highlighted the long-pending Sarbhog–Abhayapuri railway line, noting that it has received Railway Ministry approval and is awaiting Cabinet clearance, and expressed hope for its approval in the near future. He urged the sanctioning of ROBs at Mazbat, Tangla, and Khairabari to improve safety and reduce congestion, and raised concerns regarding land encroachment delays in sections such as Nagaon–Tangla. He also emphasised the importance of enhancing connectivity in the region and appreciated ongoing railway expansion and station redevelopment initiatives in the Northeast.
16. Dr. Nishikant Dubey (BJP, Godda, Jharkhand) reflected on the transformation of Indian Railways, contrasting its colonial legacy and uneven post-independence expansion with recent efforts to improve connectivity in backward and tribal regions of Jharkhand. He highlighted the state’s significant contribution to railway revenues through mineral transport while noting its historical neglect, and emphasised reforms such as merit-based recruitment, increased investment after the Railway Budget merger, and technological advancements like faster trains. He also underscored the importance of improved rail connectivity for regional development and access to essential services, citing developments in areas like Deoghar as corrective steps toward addressing past imbalances.
Shri Ashwini Vaishnaw (Union Minister, Ministry of Railways; BJP, Odisha), addressing the House on the Demands for Grants for Railways, responded to Members’ observations and outlined the Government’s approach to railway development and policy priorities.
1. Addressing the House on the Demand for Grants For the Ministry Of Railways, he highlighted the participation of over 210 Members and stated that the debate reflected a shift toward “politics of performance” under the leadership of Prime Minister Shri Narendra Modi ji, with members across parties acknowledging development in their constituencies.
2. He highlighted the merger of the Railway Budget with the General Budget as a key reform that enabled a significant rise in funding from ₹24,000–30,000 crore earlier to over ₹ 2.72 lakh crore, along with continuous project approvals and improved transparency through IT-based monitoring. He stated that a record allocation of ₹2.78 lakh crore for 2026–27 has been provided, benefiting all states.
3. He emphasised improvements in financial management, noting transparent accounting practices and major expenditure heads including staff, energy, and pensions, while maintaining a modest surplus. He highlighted strong growth in freight performance, with cargo increasing from 1,055 million tonnes in 2004–14 to around 1,650 million tonnes, positioning Indian Railways among the largest freight carriers globally.
4. He further detailed infrastructure expansion, stating that 35,000 km of tracks have been built since 2014 and electrification has reached over 47,000 km, covering nearly the entire network, along with significant increases in ROBs, RUBs, and Linke-Hofmann-Busch (LHB) coaches, and completion of major projects such as the Eastern Dedicated Freight Corridor and strategic bridges like the Chenab Bridge and Anji Bridge.
5. He emphasised the scale of technological advancement and operational capacity, noting that over 2 lakh wagons have been inducted in recent years compared to 1.33 lakh in 2013-14, which has significantly enhanced freight capacity, efficiency, and logistics movement across the railway network.
6. He also highlighted the rapid expansion of tunnel infrastructure, stating that 486 km of tunnels have been constructed since 2014 compared to just 125 km earlier, enabling improved connectivity in geographically challenging regions such as the Northeast and Jammu & Kashmir and facilitating strategic and economic integration.
7. He highlighted modernisation initiatives including the Mumbai–Ahmedabad Bullet Train project, large-scale station redevelopment, expansion of Vande Bharat services, and the introduction of Amrit Bharat trains as affordable options for common passengers. On safety, he emphasised the rollout of the Kavach system across 20,000 km and 8,000 locomotives, noting a significant reduction in accidents. He also underscored inclusivity, stating that general and sleeper coaches constitute around 70% of total coaches and that substantial subsidies ensure affordable fares for passengers.
8. On employment, he stated that 5 lakh jobs have been provided in the last decade, with 1.43 lakh recruitments underway and a new annual recruitment calendar ensuring transparency. He also raised concerns regarding delays in project implementation due to land acquisition issues in certain states.
9. He raised concerns regarding delays in project implementation in Kerala, stating that out of 476 hectares required for railway projects, only 65 hectares (around 14%) have been acquired, and noted that over 100 ROBs and RUBs projects have remained pending for more than 15 years due to lack of permissions and land acquisition from the State Government.
10. He also highlighted slow progress in Tamil Nadu, stating that only about 24% of the required 4,326 hectares of land has been acquired, and pointed to several stalled projects such as Tindivanam–Tiruvannamalai, Attipattu–Puttur, Mannargudi–Pattukkottai, and Thanjavur–Pattukkottai, where land acquisition remains minimal or yet to commence.
11. He raised concerns regarding delays in railway and metro projects in West Bengal, stating that around 60 projects remain stalled due to lack of land acquisition and permissions from the State Government. He highlighted that while only 28 km of Kolkata Metro was completed between 1972 and 2014, around 45 km has been developed post-2014, and pointed to specific bottlenecks such as delays at Chingrighata on the New Garia–Airport line due to pending state approvals, urging greater cooperation to expedite infrastructure development.
12. He reiterated the Government’s commitment to transforming Indian Railways into a world class network by 2047 while acknowledging the contributions of railway employees and emphasising continued focus on safety, affordability, and infrastructure expansion.
13. The Speaker placed the Demands for Grants for the Ministry of Railways for the year 2026-2027 before the House for a vote. Despite some interruptions, the motion was moved to authorize the payment of specific sums from the Consolidated Fund of India to the President of India to cover expenses for revenue and capital accounts ending March 31, 2027. The motion was adopted, and the Demands for Grants for the Ministry of Railways were passed by the House.
The Lok Sabha was adjourned at 08:26 PM to reconvene at 11:00 A.M on Wednesday, 18^th March, 2026.

III. Rajya Sabha Proceedings:

The proceedings of the Rajya Sabha commenced at 11:00 AM.
Shri C.P. Radhakrishnan Ji (Chairman, Rajya Sabha) presided over the proceedings of the House, and Papers were laid on the Table.
Following this, matters raised with permission were taken up.
1. Shri Sadanand Mhalu Shet Tanavade (BJP, Goa) raised a matter regarding the depiction of tobacco use in media, noting its influence on youth and the glamorization of smoking. He cited studies linking such exposure to increased smoking initiation, and urged the Government to introduce stricter regulations to curb content that normalizes tobacco use.
2. Shri Manoj Kumar Jha (RJD, Bihar) raised a public health concern regarding the unregulated sale of prescription medicines through online platforms. He cited reports indicating that restricted drugs are being sold on the basis of fake or inadequate prescriptions, leading to risks of self-medication and substance abuse. He pointed out that E-pharmacy rules have been pending since 2018 and called for a robust regulatory framework for online consultations and drug sales. He urged the Government to implement stricter regulations to ensure public safety.
3. Shri Mohammad Ramzan (J&KNC, Jammu and Kashmir) raised concerns in the Rajya Sabha over the safety of Indians in West Asia, urging the Government to ensure their security and relocation from conflict zones. He also expressed concern over escalating tensions in the region and called for adherence to India’s traditional policy of peace and non-alignment.
Following this, Shri C.P. Radhakrishnan Ji (Chairman, Rajya Sabha) commenced the Question Hour.
1. Shri Govindbhai Laljibhai Dholakia (BJP, Gujarat) asked about the lack of health insurance in rural and unorganized sectors, asking if the government plans to expand the reach of Ayushman Bharat (PM-JAY) to these remote areas.
  1. Smt. Nirmala Sitharaman (Union Minister, Ministry of Finance, BJP, Karnataka) responded by stating that health insurance is a key priority, with a policy objective to achieve “Insurance for All” by the year 2033. She noted that in December 2025, legislation was introduced to increase FDI coverage to 100% to deepen market penetration. Regarding rural application, she informed the House that the Gram Panchayat has been designated as the primary unit of measurement for coverage, with 25,000 Gram Panchayats to be covered in the current phase to provide insurance to the farthest rural regions.
2. Smt. Rajani Ashokrao Patil (INC, Maharashtra) raised concerns from medical bodies regarding the lack of large-scale clinical trials for AYUSH therapies and flagged international safety advisories over heavy metals like lead and mercury in Ayurvedic products. She sought clarity on the Government’s scientific evaluation and regulatory steps to ensure the safety and global credibility of these traditional medicines.
  1. Shri Prataprao Ganpat Jadhav (MoS, Ministry of Ayush, SS, Buldhana, Maharashtra) responded that the regulation of practitioners is covered under the National Commission for Indian System of Medicine (NCISM) Act 2020 and the National Commission for Homoeopathy (NCH) Act 2020, though enforcement remains a State subject. He informed the House that a three-tier Pharmacovigilance system has been established to monitor adverse effects. He explained that Ayurvedic medicines containing heavy metals undergo intensive purification using scientific methods and are regulated under the Drugs and Cosmetics Act, 1940. He concluded by highlighting that five central research councils, including Central Council for Research in Ayurvedic Sciences (CCRAS), continuously conduct clinical and toxicity studies to ensure the scientific efficacy and global reliability of Ayush systems.
3. Shri Mahendra Bhatt (BJP, Uttrakhand) asked about the status of Non-Performing Asset (NPAs) under the Pradhan Mantri Mudra Yojana, the reasons for defaults, and if any relief policies are planned for small industries.
  1. Smt. Nirmala Sitharaman (Union Minister, Ministry of Finance; BJP, Karnataka) replied that the scheme is highly popular, having sanctioned ₹39.48 lakh crore across 57.26 crore loans since its launch without requiring collateral. Addressing the default concerns, she clarified that the figures represent outstanding amounts that banks are currently pursuing. As of 31^st March 2025, the outstanding amounts as a percentage of total lending stood at 12.4% for the Shishu category, 9.48% for Kishore, and 7.92% for Tarun. She emphasized that these are outstandings rather than final NPAs and that the banks are actively working to recover them.
4. Kum. Swati Maliwal (AAP, NCT of Delhi) raised concerns that major food chains like Domino’s, Pizza Hut, KFC, and Haldiram are violating laws by failing to display calorific values on their menus, noting that a single pizza can contain up to 2,000 calories.
  1. Shri J.P. Nadda (Union Minister, Ministry of Health & Family Welfare; BJP, Gujarat) responded that under FSSAI regulations from 2020, it is mandatory for establishments to display nutritional information, including calories and allergens, on menu cards or websites. He explained that the Central Government oversees chains with more than 10 outlets and reported that in 2024-25, out of 165 central establishments inspected, 164 were compliant and only one was issued a notice. He assured the House that a regular monitoring system, aligned with Indian Council of Medical Research (ICMR) guidelines, is in place to ensure these food chains provide accurate information to consumers.
Shri C.P. Radhakrishnan Ji (Chairman, Rajya Sabha) informed the House that the discussion on the working of the Ministry of Rural Development, initiated on 10^th March, 2026 and concluded on 12^th March, 2026, was pending the reply of the Minister of Rural Development. He stated that, with the consent of the House, the Minister would reply at 2:00 PM, after which the discussion on the Appropriation Bill, 2026 would resume.
The proceeding of the house was adjourned at 1:00 PM to reconvene at 2:00 PM.
The proceedings of the house resumed at 2:00 PM with Shri Harivansh (Deputy Chairman, Rajya Sabha; JD(U), Bihar) presiding over as the Chair. He took up the Union Minister’s reply to the discussion on the working of the Ministry of Rural Development, which had been held from 10^th to 12^th March, 2026.
Shri Shivraj Singh Chouhan (Union Minister, Ministry of Rural Development and Agriculture and Farmers Welfare; BJP, Vidisha, Madhya Pradesh) noted in his response to the discussion on the Demands for Grants (2026–27) pertaining to the Ministry of Rural Development that the discussion spanned nearly four days and thanked the 54 participating members. He assured that constructive suggestions would be considered and stressed the importance of meaningful debate.
1. Shri Shivraj Singh Chouhan (Union Minister, Ministry of Rural Development and Agriculture and Farmers Welfare; BJP, Vidisha, Madhya Pradesh) responded to Opposition criticism alleging dilution of MGNREGA and discrimination against certain states. He rejected these claims, citing increased expenditure from ₹ 2,12,409 crore (2006–14) to over ₹8.58 lakh crore, and stated that funds to West Bengal were withheld due to irregularities such as fake job cards and misuse of funds identified through audits. He also outlined the VB G-RAM G framework, highlighting a central budget allocation of ₹95,692 crore, support from multiple states except Karnataka, extension of employment up to 125 days, and a focus on decentralised planning, transparency, and improved monitoring.
2. He further addressed concerns regarding labour availability, stating that provisions allow states to pause work during peak agricultural seasons to support small and marginal farmers. He cited a rise in rural development expenditure from ₹ 4.90 lakh crore (2004–14) to about ₹ 15.20 lakh crore since 2014, and highlighted infrastructure expansion under the Pradhan Mantri Gram Sadak Yojana, along with improved connectivity in border, tribal, and Left Wing Extremism affected areas as part of a broader push toward inclusive rural development.
3. Focusing on women-led development, he highlighted the “Lakhpati Didi” initiative, noting that the initial target of creating 3 crore women earning over ₹1 lakh annually has been achieved ahead of schedule, with a revised goal of 6 crore. He stated that efforts are underway to enable women to transition into entrepreneurs through large-scale bank linkages and financial support, and emphasized that this has led to increased participation of women in local governance.
4. The Minister also highlighted welfare and housing initiatives, stating that assistance under the Pradhan Mantri Awas Yojana, combined with convergence benefits, provides comprehensive support for rural housing. He outlined expanded eligibility criteria, including higher income limits and relaxed asset conditions, and stressed the need for states to ensure land availability for beneficiaries. He further underscored the role of schemes related to clean cooking, electrification, financial inclusion, and direct benefit transfers, positioning these efforts as aligned with the broader vision of inclusive growth and improved living standards in rural India.
Shri Rajiv Shukla (INC, Chhattisgarh) initiated the discussion on the Appropriation Bill, 2026, emphasising that while it authorises substantial additional expenditure, greater accountability is required in fund utilisation, along with concerns regarding defence preparedness, misuse in welfare schemes, and rising economic inequality.
1. Shri Saket Gokhale (AITC, West Bengal) noted that the scale of supplementary demands indicates shortcomings in initial budget estimates. He questioned the legal and institutional framework of the Economic Stabilization Fund and raised concerns regarding energy security, fertilizer subsidies, pending MGNREGA dues, and overall transparency in public expenditure.
2. Dr. Kanimozhi NVN Somu (DMK, Tamil Nadu) raised concerns over rising unemployment and uneven job creation, questioning whether fiscal allocations are translating into tangible livelihood gains. She criticised the impact of demonetisation and GST on MSMEs and the informal sector, and highlighted issues of centralisation and weakening consultative processes, calling for greater transparency, federal cooperation, and more inclusive development.
3. Smt. Priyanka Chaturvedi (SS-UBT, Maharashtra) drew attention to the legislative process, noting that the Bill was passed in the Lok Sabha within a short duration without detailed discussion. She expressed concern over the adequacy of parliamentary scrutiny and questioned allocations, particularly in relation to economic stabilization and rural support.
4. Shri Mahendra Bhatt (BJP, Uttarakhand) supported the Bill, stating that supplementary grants are a standard fiscal instrument to address evolving requirements. He highlighted allocations towards fertilizer subsidies, LPG support, defence, agriculture, and infrastructure, and emphasised the Government’s commitment to fiscal discipline alongside development.
5. Shri Ramji (BSP, Uttar Pradesh) focused on the education sector, noting that public expenditure remains below recommended levels. He highlighted issues such as teacher shortages, dropout rates, and access to education, and called for increased investment in line with policy targets.
6. Shri Deepak Prakash (BJP, Jharkhand) emphasised the resilience of the Indian economy, citing growth in GDP, foreign exchange reserves, infrastructure, and digital transactions. He stated that the provisions under the Bill would support continued economic stability and development.
7. Shri Haris Beeran (IUML, Kerala) raised concerns regarding the implications of the West Asia crisis on India’s economy, particularly in relation to energy supplies, remittances, and the welfare of Non-Resident Indians. He also highlighted issues relating to agricultural distress and the need for more effective implementation of welfare measures.
8. Smt. Mahua Maji (JMM Jharkhand) questioned whether the Appropriation Bill adequately ensured equitable distribution of resources for mineral-rich states like Jharkhand. She highlighted pending dues, GST-related revenue losses, and the financial burden of security deployments, while emphasising the need for greater investment in tribal areas, education, healthcare, and infrastructure, and called for addressing regional disparities even as she expressed support for the Bill.
9. Shri Sadanand Mhalu Shet Tanavade (BJP, Goa) supported the Appropriation Bill, stating that it authorises over ₹2.81 lakh crore to sustain development and reflects strong economic management. He highlighted allocations for agriculture, railways modernisation, defence, healthcare, and energy resilience, and emphasised transparency in welfare delivery, stating that the Bill advances the goal of a self-reliant and developed India.
10. Shri Harsh Vardhan Shringla (BJP, Nominated) supported the Appropriation Bill, highlighting strong macroeconomic indicators such as GDP growth, low inflation, and robust foreign exchange reserves. He outlined that the Bill authorises ₹2.81 lakh crore with a focus on fiscal discipline, and emphasised key allocations for fertilizers, food security, defence, infrastructure, and rural employment, stating that it reflects balanced and responsive fiscal management.
Smt. Nirmala Sitharaman (Union Minister, Ministry of Finance; BJP, Rajya Sabha), replying to the discussion on the Appropriation Bill, 2026, addressed concerns on the Supplementary Demands for Grants, noting that several Members had focused more on the upcoming Budget rather than the demands under consideration.
1. She outlined major allocations, including ₹57,381.84 crore for the Economic Stabilization Fund, ₹41,430 crore for defence services with ₹6,140 crore for the Ex-servicemen Contributory Health Scheme (ECHS), clarifying that ex-servicemen are not being denied treatment and that delays are due to billing issues being addressed. She also noted ₹37,886 crore in transfers to States, ₹19,230 crore for fertilizer subsidy, ₹5,000 crore for Jammu and Kashmir, ₹3,000 crore via SIDBI for MSMEs, and ₹30,000 crore for MGNREGA to clear dues, with ₹95,000 crore to follow from April.
2. She emphasised that India’s macroeconomic fundamentals remain strong despite global challenges, supported by rising capital expenditure from ₹2.63 lakh crore (2017–18) to ₹12.20 lakh crore (2026–27), and highlighted Aatmanirbhar Bharat, including measures such as a 25% increase in domestic LPG production to strengthen energy security.
3. She highlighted energy and fiscal progress, stating that installed power capacity has reached 520.5 GW, with non-fossil sources at 271.97 GW (over 52%), achieving targets ahead of schedule, alongside record renewable expansion and solar tariffs declining to about ₹2.15 per unit.
4. She noted that ₹2.92 lakh crore in oil bonds has been repaid and fiscal deficit reduced to 4.4%, while allocations across education, health, rural development, and centrally sponsored schemes have increased, with spending on key sectors exceeding cess collections.
5. She also highlighted employment and welfare measures, noting provisions for gig workers under labour codes and the creation of a Social Security Fund, with plans to register around 1 crore gig workers on the e-Shram portal using unique IDs to extend coverage.
6. She further emphasised improvements in infrastructure and service delivery under the Jal Jeevan Mission, stating that ₹67,670 crore has been allocated for 2026–27, with the total outlay enhanced to ₹8.69 lakh crore and central assistance increased to ₹3.59 lakh crore to expand rural tap water coverage.
7. She also referred to banking sector strengthening, noting that around ₹2.8 lakh crore was infused for recapitalisation, enabling banks to return to profitability and support increased lending and welfare expenditure.
8. She clarified the distinction between the Economic Stabilization Fund and the Contingency Fund, emphasising transparency and parliamentary oversight.
Following her reply, the motion to consider the Appropriation Bill, 2026, as passed by the Lok Sabha, was adopted. The House then took up clause-by-clause consideration, during which the clauses and the Schedule were put to vote and adopted. Thereafter, the Bill was passed by voice vote.
Shri C.P. Radhakrishnan Ji (Chairman, Rajya Sabha) informed the House that there are 14 permitted Special Mentions for the day, and stated that the Special Mentions of members present would be deemed to be laid on the Table of the House.
The proceedings of Rajya Sabha were adjourned at 07:50 PM to reconvene at 11:00 A.M on Wednesday, 18^th March, 2026

III. Events Outside The Parliament:

Shri Ramdas Athawale (MoS, Ministry of Social Justice and Empowerment; RPI (A), Maharashtra), during the discussion on Rajya Sabha elections and related allegations, dismissed Opposition claims of malpractice, stating that parties should focus on managing their own MLAs rather than attributing blame to others.
Shri Rajiv Ranjan Singh (Union Minister, Ministry of Panchayati Raj; JD(U), Munger, Bihar), responding to remarks made by Shri Tejashwi Yadav on electoral conduct, asserted that recent Assembly election results had already provided a clear public mandate rejecting such allegations.
Shri Amar Singh (INC, Fatehgarh Sahib (SC), Punjab) accused BJP of using tactics like intimidation and inducement to influence outcomes, citing recent developments in West Bengal as an example of administrative changes being driven by political motives.
Shri Ravi Kishan (BJP, Gorakhpur, Uttar Pradesh) speaking on Parliamentary functions stated that it should function with mutual respect, calling it the country’s biggest Panchayat. He emphasized that it is a platform for debate and ideas, where members must avoid personal remarks and focus on public issues.
Shri S. P. Singh Baghel (MoS, Ministry of Fisheries, Animal Husbandry and Dairying; BJP, Uttar Pradesh), in the context of allegations regarding Rajya Sabha election integrity, stated that the electoral process is conducted in a free, fair, and transparent manner, rejecting claims of malpractice or external influence.
Shri Manish Tewari (INC, Anandpur Sahib, Punjab), speaking on concerns arising from recent Rajya Sabha elections, highlighted instances of cross-voting and alleged horse-trading, and called for a review of the anti-defection law to preserve democratic norms.
Smt. Priyanka Gandhi Vadra (INC, Wayanad, Kerala), in the context of the suspension of eight Opposition Members from the Lok Sabha over disorderly conduct, welcomed the decision to revoke the suspension, stating that it was essential for restoring normal parliamentary functioning.
Shri Shashi Tharoor (INC, Thiruvananthapuram, Kerala), also referring to the revocation of suspension of Opposition MPs, described the move as a positive step, emphasising the importance of allowing elected representatives to raise public issues freely in Parliament.
Smt. Priyanka Chaturvedi (Shiv Sena (UBT), Maharashtra), during the discussion on Rajya Sabha elections, alleged widespread horse-trading and the increasing influence of money power, warning that such practices undermine institutional credibility.
Shri Sougata Roy (AITC, Dum Dum, West Bengal), in the context of administrative changes ahead of elections in West Bengal, criticised the midnight transfer of key officials, stating that such actions raise concerns about procedural fairness and neutrality.
Shri Nishikant Dubey (BJP, Godda, Jharkhand), responding to Opposition criticism during the broader political discussion, criticised the Congress party’s past governance, alleging institutional weakening while highlighting India’s recent economic progress.
Shri K. Suresh (INC, Mavelikkara, Kerala), referring to consultations between the Government and Opposition following disruptions, stated that consensus was reached to revoke the suspension of eight Opposition MPs, and stressed the need to maintain decorum in the House.
Shri Sanjay Jaiswal (BJP, Paschim Champaran, Bihar), in the context of Opposition criticism over electoral processes, alleged lack of coordination and leadership within Opposition parties, citing their absence during key political developments.
Smt. Sagarika Ghose (AITC, West Bengal), referring to election-related developments in West Bengal, alleged bias in decisions taken by the Election Commission, particularly in administrative matters, and expressed confidence in public support for her party.

Annexure I - Matters Raised Under Rule 377 in The Lok Sabha

Annexure II - Members Who Participated In The Discussion On Demands Of Grants Under Ministry of Railways In The Lok Sabha.

Annexure III - Reports And Statements Presented In The Lok Sabha

Annexure IV - Matters Raised With Permission In The Rajya Sabha

Annexure V - Reports And Statements Presented In The Rajya Sabha

Annexure VI - Members Who Participated In The Discussion On The Appropriation Bill, 2026 In The Rajya Sabha

Annexure VII - Special Mentions In The Rajya Sabha

Parliamentary Proceedings for 16th March, 2026

Tue, 17 Mar 2026 08:35:37 GMT

I. Key Highlights Of The Proceedings:

The proceedings of the Lok Sabha and Rajya Sabha commenced at 11:00 AM.
In the Lok Sabha, during the question hour, Shri Manoj Kumar (INC, Sasaram, Bihar) raised concern regarding the tourism development, particularly at important heritage sites such as the Mundeshwari Temple and Rohtasgarh Fort. In response, Shri Gajendra Singh Shekhawat (Union Minister, Ministry of Tourism; BJP, Jodhpur Rajasthan) noted that over ₹ 1 crore was spent on conservation at Mundeshwari Temple and Sher Shah Suri’s Tomb over three years, but stressed tourism as a State subject.
In the Lok Sabha, during the question hour, Shri Anurag Singh Thakur (BJP, Hamirpur, Himachal Pradesh) flagged the low 23.39% credit-deposit ratio in his region, urging steps to boost credit access, employment in hill states, and faster Debt Recovery Tribunals (DRT) case resolutions. In response, Smt. Nirmala Sitharaman (Union Minister, Ministry of Finance; BJP, Karnataka) responded that the Government is directing banks to enhance engagement with industries and small businesses for better credit flow. She added measures to strengthen DRTs, including more benches and timely appointments to cut pendency.
In the Lok Sabha, Shri Krishna Prasad Tenneti (TDP, Bapatla (SC), Andhra Pradesh) commenced the discussion on the Demand for Grants under the control of the Ministry of Railways.
1. Shri Tariq Anwar (INC, Katihar, Bihar) flagged the Railways’ financial shortfall, noting passenger revenue of ₹ 80,000 crore against a ₹ 92,800 crore target and a ₹ 10,000 crore gap in freight earnings. He raised concerns over the unspecified operating ratio, delays in the Kavach safety system, and the continued suspension of senior citizen concessions.
2. Shri Ramvir Singh Bidhuri (BJP, South Delhi, NCT of Delhi) lauded the 2026–27 Railway Budget, highlighting track construction speeds rising from 4.2 km/day (2004–2014) to 14.5 km/day. He commended the modernization of Delhi’s stations with 70+ lifts and escalators, alongside the Delhi-Varanasi High-Speed Corridor, which will cut travel to three hours.
3. Smt. Kumari Selja (INC, Sirsa, Haryana) expressed disappointment with the Union Budget 2026–27, stating that it did not adequately reflect inclusive development in the railway sector and called for greater focus on passenger services, freight growth and safety. She highlighted pending railway projects in Haryana, including rail connectivity to Hisar Airport.
4. Shri N. K. Premachandran (RSP, Kollam, Kerala) stated that the 2024–25 railway plan outlay was about ₹ 2.92 lakh crore, but raised concerns over rising revenue expenditure (₹ 1.39 lakh crore in 2022–23 to ₹ 2.99 lakh crore in 2024–25) and a high operating ratio of around 98%.
5. Shri Janardan Mishra (BJP, Rewa, Madhya Pradesh) stated that the railway budget had risen from about ₹ 29,000 crore in 2013–14 to ₹ 2.52 lakh crore in 2024–25, reflecting a strong push for modernization, high-speed corridors, freight infrastructure, electrification, and safety measures such as Kavach. He also raised constituency demands, completion of the Rewa–Sidhi line and improved connectivity from Rewa to major cities.
6. Shri Gopal Jee Thakur (BJP, Darbhanga, Bihar) appreciated the ₹ 2.93 lakh crore allocation for Railways, stating that it reflects the Government’s commitment to railway development. He noted that Bihar has been allocated ₹ 10,389 crore, with railway projects worth ₹ 1.02 lakh crore under implementation, including track construction, station redevelopment and safety works.
In the Rajya Sabha, Shri C. P. Radhakrishnan Ji (Chairman, Rajya Sabha) took up matters raised with permission.
1. Shri Mallikarjun Kharge (Leader of Opposition; INC, Karnataka) highlighted a nationwide LPG crisis in Zero Hour, citing 60% imports via the Strait of Hormuz, price hikes, black-market premiums up to ₹ 5,000 and industrial shortages. He accused the Government of lacking alternatives. In response, Shri Jagat Prakash Nadda Ji (Union Minister, Ministry of Health and Family Welfare, Ministry of Chemicals and Fertilizers) assured serious action to stabilize supplies and prioritize national interests over politics.
2. Shri Sanjay Seth (BJP, Uttar Pradesh) warned of rising cancer cases from 14.36 lakh (2021) to 15.7 lakh (2025) and deaths from 7.8 lakh to 8.6 lakh annually, posing health and financial burdens. He welcomed 11 new cancer centres and duty waivers on 17 drugs but raised concerns on Ayushman Bharat’s ₹ 5 lakh cap as insufficient for ₹ 30–40 lakh treatments. He urged raising the cap, adopting vial-sharing and dose-rounding to cut costs by 35%, and curbing chemo wastage from fixed vials.
In the Rajya Sabha, during the question hour, Shri. Manoj Kumar Jha (RJD, Bihar) flagged recent airport roof collapses in Rajkot, Ahmedabad, and Jabalpur, citing prior warnings from professionals, and sought a comprehensive safety management system for infrastructure. In response, Shri K. Rammohan Naidu (Union Minister, Ministry of Civil Aviation; TDP, Srikakulam, Andhra Pradesh) assured comprehensive audits, systematic maintenance, and top priority on passenger safety. He highlighted AAIB's ICAO-compliant investigations, in-house Flight Data Recorder decoding, and plans to bolster AAIB for fully domestic safety processes.
In the Rajya Sabha, during the question hour, Shri P. Wilson (DMK, Tamil Nadu) raised Jal Jeevan Mission funding delays, noting Tamil Nadu’s 90% coverage (1.25 crore tap connections) but only ₹ 5,914 crore released out of ₹ 13,112 crore pending. Shri C.R. Patil (Union Minister, Ministry of Jal Shakti; BJP, Navsari, Gujarat) replied that the Jal Jeevan Mission deadline has been extended from 2024 to 2028. He clarified that central funding will be provided only for projects whose Detailed Project Reports were approved and work initiated before 2024.
In the Rajya Sabha, Shri C.P. Radhakrishnan Ji (Chairman, Rajya Sabha) commenced the discussion on the Appropriation Bill, 2026.
1. Shri P. Wilson (DMK, Tamil Nadu) opposed the ₹ 2.81 lakh crore supplementary demands for 2025–26, questioning allocations for fertilizers, food, and highways, and adequacy for welfare. He alleged delays in state funds, including ₹ 3,548 crore (Samagra Shiksha) and ₹ 3,100 crore (Jal Jeevan Mission) dues to Tamil Nadu. He warned of risks to $ 600–650 million Indian cotton/yarn exports from US-Bangladesh trade deal, hitting Tamil Nadu’s Tiruppur cluster, plus LPG price surges amid import dependence and weak storage.
2. Dr. John Brittas (CPI(M), Kerala) questioned budget reliability amid West Asia conflict pressures, highlighting LPG shortages hitting households, restaurants, college canteens, and hospitals, with hoarding and black-marketing. He noted India needs three LNG ships every two days, the fertilizer sector at 70% gas supply, others down 20–30%, risking food security and output. He criticized rising cess/surcharge collections from ₹ 1.99 lakh crore (2016–17) to ₹ 6.3 lakh crore (2026–27), shrinking states’ divisible tax pool.
3. Shri Ghanshyam Tiwari (BJP, Rajasthan) backed the ₹ 2.81 lakh crore Appropriation Bill for 2025–26 (₹ 2 lakh crore net cash outgo), deeming it vital amid global uncertainties like energy price hikes and prudent fiscal planning. He highlighted key allocations: ₹ 23,641 crore for food security (80 crore beneficiaries), ₹ 41,430 crore extra defence spending, fiscal deficit at 4.3%, ₹ 14,000 crore for ex-servicemen with One Rank One Pension (OROP). Defence exports surged from ₹ 886 crore (2013–14) to ₹ 23,622 crore, imports fell; rural wins include SVAMITVA (3+ crore property cards), housing, and irrigation.
In the Chair, Smt. S Phangnon Konyak (BJP, Nagaland) commenced the Special Mentions:
1. Shri Brij Lal (BJP, Uttar Pradesh) urged adoption of nature-based and risk-informed urban planning, citing a 2026 National Disaster Management Authority report linking poor land-use planning to disaster severity.
2. Dr. Laxmikant Bajpayee (BJP, Uttar Pradesh) urged granting Central University status to Chaudhary Charan Singh University, Meerut.
The proceedings of Lok Sabha and Rajya Sabha were adjourned at 08:05 PM and 05:53 PM, on 16^th March, 2026, respectively, to reconvene at 11:00 A.M on Tuesday, 17^th March, 2026.
Subscribe now

II. Lok Sabha Proceedings:

The proceedings of the Lok Sabha commenced at 11:00 AM with Shri Om Birla Ji (Speaker, Lok Sabha; BJP, Kota, Rajasthan) presiding over the house.
Shri Om Birla Ji (Speaker, Lok Sabha; BJP, Kota, Rajasthan) commenced the Question Hour.
1. Shri Manoj Kumar (INC, Sasaram, Bihar) raised concern regarding the broader issue of tourism development in his constituency, particularly at important heritage sites such as the Mundeshwari Temple and Rohtasgarh Fort. He urged the Government to provide a clear timeline for the development of essential tourism infrastructure and visitor amenities.
  1. In response, Shri Gajendra Singh Shekhawat (Union Minister, Ministry of Tourism; BJP, Jodhpur, Rajasthan) stated that the Government supports the development of tourist amenities at high-footfall sites and informed that over ₹ 1 crore has been spent in the past three years on conservation works at Sher Shah Suri’s Tomb and the Mundeshwari Temple. He emphasized that since tourism is a State subject, the primary responsibility for the development of tourist destinations rests with the respective state governments.
2. Smt. Priya Saroj (SP, Machhlishahr (SC), Uttar Pradesh) noted that the Government cited increase of daily wage rates over the last ten years about 66% for men and 72% for women in the agricultural sector, and 56.7% for men and 58.4% for women in non-agricultural sectors. She pointed out that these figures represent nominal wage growth and do not account for inflation, and asked whether the Government has conducted any assessment of inflation-adjusted real wages to determine if the purchasing power and living standards of workers have actually improved.
  1. In response, Shri Mansukh Mandaviya (Union Minister, Ministry of Labour and Employment; BJP, Porbandar, Gujarat) stated that the new labour code provides for a “floor wage” as the baseline for minimum wages and that trends are monitored through the Labour Force Survey. He added that the average income of casual labourers has increased from ₹ 295 in 2017–18 to about ₹ 418 at present, indicating an overall rise in earnings.
3. Dr. Supriya Sule (NCP-SP, Baramati, Maharashtra) raised concern over the pendency of about 2.45 lakh cases before Debt Recovery Tribunals (DRTs). Citing data that nearly 75% of these cases involve amounts between ₹ 20 lakh and ₹ 1 crore, she noted that the country currently has only 39 DRTs and 5 Debt Recovery Appellate Tribunals (DRATs) despite around 60,000 new cases being filed annually. She attributed the backlog to staff shortages and inadequate infrastructure and sought clarification on how the Government would address these issues.
  1. In response, Smt. Nirmala Sitharaman (Union Minister, Ministry of Finance; BJP, Karnataka) stated that the Government has adopted a two-pronged approach to reduce pendency. She informed that high-value cases of ₹ 100 crore and above have been assigned to specific DRTs for focused disposal, while banks are also being encouraged to resolve disputes through alternative mechanisms such as Lok Adalats, with special drives conducted in coordination with the National Legal Services Authority.
4. Shri Anurag Singh Thakur (BJP, Hamirpur, Himachal Pradesh) raised concern over the low credit–deposit ratio of around 23.39 percent in his region, stating that despite high deposits, credit availability remained limited. He asked what steps the Government was taking to address this imbalance and to improve access to credit and employment opportunities in hill states. He also sought measures to reduce delays in case resolution in Debt Recovery Tribunals (DRTs).
  1. In response, Smt. Nirmala Sitharaman (Union Minister, Ministry of Finance, Ministry of Corporate Affairs; BJP, Karnataka) stated that the Government has been working with banks to address regional imbalances between deposits and credit by encouraging stronger engagement with industry and small businesses to improve credit flow. She added that steps are also being taken to strengthen the functioning of DRTs by increasing bench strength and ensuring timely appointments to reduce case pendency.
5. Shri Manguta Reddy (TDP, Ongole, Andhra Pradesh) raised concern regarding the need to strengthen advanced skilling opportunities for youth in emerging sectors such as Artificial Intelligence, Quantum Computing, Drones, and Renewable Energy. He asked whether the Government would consider establishing a Skill Centre of Excellence in Amaravati.
  1. In response, Shri Jayant Chaudhary (MoS (I/C), Ministry of Skill Development and Entrepreneurship; RLD, Uttar Pradesh) stated that under the ₹ 60,000 crore PM SETU scheme, five Centres of Excellence are planned across the country. He informed that centres are already associated with the National Skill Training Institutes and added that the guidelines for such centres are being revised in consultation with stakeholders.
Shri Om Birla Ji (Speaker, Lok Sabha; BJP, Kota, Rajasthan) informed that he has received several adjournment motions submitted by several members. He stated that he had denied permission for all such notices.
Following this, papers and reports were laid on the table.
In the Chair, Shri Krishna Prasad Tenneti (TDP, Bapatla (SC), Andhra Pradesh) commenced the discussion on the Demand for Grants under the control of the Ministry of Railways.
1. Shri Tariq Anwar (INC, Katihar, Bihar) initiated the discussion on the Demands for Grants for the Ministry of Railways for 2026–27 and questioned the financial performance of the Railways. He noted that passenger revenue was about ₹ 80,000 crore against a target of ₹ 92,800 crore and freight earnings ₹ 1,78,457 crore against ₹ 1,88,000 crore, and expressed concern that the operating ratio for 2026–27 had not been specified. He also raised issues related to railway safety, delays in projects such as the Kavach system and the Amrit Bharat Station Scheme, and underutilisation of allocated funds. He urged the Government to improve financial management, strengthen safety measures, and ensure better services for passengers.
1. Shri Ganesh Singh (BJP, Satna, Madhya Pradesh) stated that the estimated revenue receipts for 2026–27 stand at ₹ 3.02 lakh crore, with freight contributing ₹ 1.88 lakh crore, and highlighted the proposed capital expenditure of ₹ 2.93 lakh crore. He further highlighted improvements in railway safety, stating that accidents have declined significantly and that the safety budget has increased to over ₹ 1.20 lakh crore with the expansion of the Kavach train protection system. Referring to infrastructure initiatives, he noted that 1,337 stations are being redeveloped under the Amrit Bharat Station Scheme and that free Wi-Fi has been provided at over 6,117 stations. He also requested the Government to expedite rail projects in the Vindhya region.
1. Smt. June Maliah (AITC, Medinipur, West Bengal) raised concern over disparities in railway investment, noting that while several states witnessed large increases in allocations, West Bengal received comparatively limited growth. She also pointed to slow progress of projects in the State, stating that under the Amrit Bharat Station Scheme only a small number of sanctioned stations had been completed and that the coverage of the Kavach safety system and electrification progress remained limited. She further highlighted the lack of basic facilities at Kharagpur station and urged the Ministry to expedite a road overbridge at Gate No. 24 on the Belda–Contai road.
1. Shri Benny Behanan (INC, Chalakudy, Kerala) noted that after Independence, the government integrated 42 separate railway systems, created regional zones in 1952, and expanded manufacturing capacity through institutions such as Chittaranjan Locomotive Works, Integral Coach Factory in Chennai, and the Rail Coach Factory in Kapurthala. He stated that earlier Governments also introduced major technological and operational advances, including the Rajdhani Express in 1969, the Shatabdi Express in 1988, and the development of projects such as the Konkan Railway. He further stated that Kerala contributes significantly to railway passenger revenue but continues to face inadequate infrastructure and modernization. He highlighted long-pending demands such as a separate railway zone, a coach factory, automatic signalling, and full double-tracking in the state.
2. Shri Ramvir Singh Bidhuri (BJP, South Delhi, NCT of Delhi) commended the Government for modernising the railway system through technological upgrades, improved passenger services, and high-speed trains. He highlighted the acceleration in infrastructure development, noting that track laying has increased from about 4.2 km per day during 2004–2014 to around 14.5 km per day in recent years, with over 31,000 km of tracks constructed in the past decade. Furthermore, he detailed the improvements in passenger amenities at Delhi’s railway stations, including the installation of over 30 lifts, more than 40 escalators, and the provision of WiFi at over 26 stations. He welcomed the inclusion of the Delhi-Varanasi High-Speed Corridor in the budget, which is expected to reduce travel time between the two cities to just three hours.
3. Smt. Kumari Selja (INC, Sirsa, Haryana) expressed disappointment with the Union Budget 2026–27, stating that it did not adequately reflect the vision of inclusive development in the railway sector. She argued that greater attention was needed to passenger services, freight growth, and railway safety, noting that the Kavach train protection system currently covers only about 1,300–1,500 km of the network. She also highlighted several pending railway projects in Haryana, including rail connectivity to Hisar Airport, strengthening of the Hisar–Sirsa corridor, and the Yamunanagar-Chandigarh railway line, which has an estimated cost of ₹ 901 crore but has seen little progress. Referring to her constituency, she called for improved rail connectivity through a new Hisar–Sirsa line via Fatehabad and Agroha, extension of existing train services, and the introduction of new intercity and Vande Bharat services.
4. Shri Vishnu Dayal Ram (BJP, Palamu, Jharkhand) stated that railways serve as a lifeline for nearly 90 crore rural Indians and highlighted the Government’s technology-driven approach, including digital monitoring and the Kavach safety system on over 100 routes. He noted that the 2026–27 Demands for Grants allocate ₹ 2.81 lakh crore for the Ministry of Railways, reflecting a rise in capital investment from ₹ 63,363 crore in 2013–14 to about ₹ 2.93 lakh crore. He added that over 31,000 km of railway lines were laid between 2014 and 2024 compared to 14,000 km between 2004 and 2014, while electrification expanded from 32% to over 99% by 2026. He also highlighted over 100 Vande Bharat trains in operation, modernization of 400 stations, expansion of the Dedicated Freight Corridor, and a decline in railway accidents to around 11 in 2023–24 due to the ₹ 1 lakh crore National Rail Safety Fund, while requesting development of the Garhwa–Ambikapur railway line and MEMU services for Palamu.
5. Adv. Adoor Prakash (INC, Attingal, Kerala) stated that while the Railway Budget outlined ambitious goals, concerns remained regarding financial sustainability, safety, and project delays. He noted that the 2026–27 capital outlay of ₹ 2.93 lakh crore represented a 10.5% increase but remained inadequate amid rising costs, while the operating ratio above 98% and high expenditure on salaries and pensions limited capital creation. He highlighted that the Kavach safety system covered only about 3% of the 68,000-km network, passenger amenities allocation declined to ₹ 11,971 crore, and a 2025 CAG report recorded over 1 lakh complaints about lack of water in train toilets. He also noted slow progress under the Amrit Bharat Station Scheme, with only 172 of 1,337 stations completed. He added that Kerala received only ₹ 3,795 crore in allocations and was excluded from seven proposed high-speed corridors. He further raised delays in projects such as the Angamali–Sabari railway line, the Nemom coaching terminal, several railway overbridges in the Attingal region, requested additional train stoppages at Chirayinkeezhu and Kadakkavur, a new Thiruvananthapuram–Varanasi train service, and restoration of senior citizen travel concessions.
6. Shri N. K. Premachandran (RSP, Kollam, Kerala) stated that the 2024–25 railway plan outlay was about ₹ 2.92 lakh crore, but raised concerns over rising revenue expenditure (₹ 1.39 lakh crore in 2022–23 to ₹ 2.99 lakh crore in 2024–25) and a high operating ratio of around 98%. He also highlighted declines in freight traffic (5.1%) and passenger revenue (23.6%), and sought clarity on achieving the National Rail Plan target of 45% rail freight share by 2030–31. He further raised constituency demands, including restoration of the Kollam–Sengottai line, introduction of MEMU services, development of Kollam as a MEMU hub, and expediting pending railway overbridges.
7. Shri Janardan Mishra (BJP, Rewa, Madhya Pradesh) stated that the railway budget had risen from about ₹ 29,000 crore in 2013–14 to ₹ 2.52 lakh crore in 2024–25, reflecting a strong push for modernization, high-speed corridors, freight infrastructure, electrification, and safety measures such as Kavach. He also raised constituency demands, including approval of the Rewa–Mirzapur–Hanumana line, completion of the Rewa–Sidhi line, improved connectivity from Rewa to major cities, additional stoppages at Dabhoura station, and compensation for farmers affected by the Lalitpur–Singrauli line.
8. Dr. Kalanidhi Veeraswamy (DMK, Chennai North, Tamil Nadu) stated that Indian Railways carries about 25 million passengers daily, and noted that Tamil Nadu’s 4,027 km network (5.7% of the national total) received only ₹ 7,000 crore out of nearly ₹ 2.99 lakh crore in capital expenditure despite contributing 8–9% of railway revenue. He raised concerns over railway safety and pending level crossings, called for improved freight efficiency and Dedicated Freight Corridors, enhanced Chennai suburban services, new railway lines, and expansion of the Integral Coach Factory’s capacity.
9. Shri Ramashankar Rajbhar (SP, Salempur, Uttar Pradesh) welcomed the retention of Devati railway station and highlighted connectivity gaps in Ballia district, urging a new late-night train service. He also sought funding for the pending Bilthra Road–Barhalganj and Bhatni–Hathua railway lines, additional train stoppages, construction of underpasses at key crossings, restoration of the superfast status of the Vaishali Express, and improved rail connectivity in the Purvanchal region.
10. Dr. M.P. Abdussamad Samdani (IUML, Ponnani, Kerala) appreciated the Railways’ progress in infrastructure and modernization but stressed the need to ensure comfort and accessibility for ordinary passengers. He expressed concern over the reduction of sleeper and general coaches in long-distance trains and urged restoration of train stoppages suspended during the COVID-19 pandemic at stations such as Tirur, Tanur and Parappanangadi. He also called for additional MEMU services on the busy Shoranur–Mangaluru section, construction of a railway overbridge at Alanpadi and underpasses at key locations to ease congestion.
11. Shri Gopal Jee Thakur (BJP, Darbhanga, Bihar) welcomed the ₹ 2.93 lakh crore allocation for Railways, stating that it reflects the Government’s commitment to railway development. He noted that Bihar has been allocated ₹ 10,389 crore, with railway projects worth ₹ 1.02 lakh crore under implementation, including track construction, station redevelopment and safety works. He requested an AIIMS railway station at Darbhanga, early completion of pending projects such as the Leheriasarai–Saharsa line, development of Jakamba and Nawada halts, and operation of Amrit Bharat trains between Darbhanga–Delhi and Darbhanga–Mumbai.
12. Shri Arun Govil (BJP, Meerut, Uttar Pradesh) appreciated the Government’s efforts to modernize and expand Indian Railways through increased investment and infrastructure development. He noted the ₹ 2.92 lakh crore capital outlay for 2026–27 and highlighted initiatives such as high-speed rail corridors, railway electrification, safety improvements, and station redevelopment under the Amrit Bharat scheme. He welcomed the Namo Bharat RRTS project in Meerut, stating that it would significantly improve connectivity in the National Capital Region.
13. Shri Anil Firodia (BJP, Ujjain, Madhya Pradesh) supported the Demands for Grants and welcomed the ₹ 2.78 lakh crore allocation for Railways. He highlighted progress in electrification, new lines, track doubling, high-speed rail corridors, freight corridors, safety systems like Kavach, and station redevelopment. He urged early approval of the Ujjain–Jhalawar railway line, doubling of the Ujjain–Fatehabad–Chandrawatiganj line, extension of the Kota–Nagda MEMU to Ratlam, and new services including Vande Bharat sleeper trains from Indore–Ujjain to Delhi and Mumbai, ahead of Simhastha 2028.
14. Shri Ujjwal Raman Singh (INC, Allahabad, Uttar Pradesh) expressed concern that common passengers are facing difficulties in accessing rail services after the discontinuation of several passenger trains post-COVID. He noted that despite capital expenditure of about ₹ 2.9 lakh crore, the operating ratio remains around 98 percent, and cautioned that heavy reliance on coal freight may not be sustainable, suggesting diversification into container and e-commerce logistics.
15. Smt. Bharti Pardhi (BJP, Balaghat, Madhya Pradesh) highlighted the importance of Indian Railways in national connectivity and welcomed progress in modernization, electrification, Vande Bharat trains, station redevelopment, and safety systems like Kavach. She welcomed the proposed doubling of the Gondia–Balaghat–Jabalpur line and requested improved train services, relocation of the Balaghat goods yard, and new railway lines to strengthen connectivity and development in her region.
The Lok Sabha was adjourned at 8:05 PM to reconvene at 11:00 A.M on Monday, 17^th March, 2026.
Share

III. Rajya Sabha Proceedings:

The proceedings of the Rajya Sabha commenced at 11:00 AM with Shri C.P. Radhakrishnan Ji (Chairman, Rajya Sabha) presiding over the house.
Papers and reports were laid on the table.
Shri C.P. Radhakrishnan Ji (Chairman, Rajya Sabha) informed the House that, following the Business Advisory Committee meeting held on 11^th March, 2026, the Government agreed to adjust the parliamentary schedule in view of Navratri, Gudi Padwa, and Ramzan. Accordingly, the sittings scheduled for 19th and 20th March, 2026 have been cancelled. The House will instead meet on 28th and 29th March, 2026.
Shri C.P. Radhakrishnan Ji (Chairman, Rajya Sabha) commenced matters raised with permission.
1. Shri Derek O’Brien (AITC, West Bengal) raised concerns over the Election Commission of India’s late-night decision to remove the Chief Secretary, Principal Secretary, and Home Secretary of West Bengal, calling it a serious intervention. He stated that AITC Members were wearing blue shirts in protest against the Chief Election Commissioner’s decision and announced that the party would walk out of the House for the remainder of the day.
  1. Responding, Shri Kiren Rijiju (Union Minister, Ministry of Parliamentary Affairs; Arunachal West, Arunachal Pradesh) stated that the matter concerned a constitutional authority independent of the Government and Parliament, and criticised the Opposition for repeatedly attacking constitutional institutions and raising such issues in the House.
2. Dr. K. Laxman (BJP, Uttar Pradesh) urged the inclusion of several castes from Telangana, Andhra Pradesh, Rajasthan, Gujarat, and Maharashtra in the Central OBC list. He noted that the National Commission for Backward Classes has recommended 27 castes from Telangana and five from Andhra Pradesh, and said their exclusion denies them the 27% reservation in central government jobs and institutions such as IITs, Kendriya Vidyalayas, and Navodaya Vidyalayas.
3. Shri Haris Beeran (IUML, Kerala) highlighted the need for legislation on passive euthanasia and end-of-life care, referring to a recent Supreme Court judgment allowing withdrawal of life support for a patient in a vegetative state for thirteen years. He also pointed out that 65% of healthcare expenditure in India is out-of-pocket and urged the Government to introduce the Medical Treatment of Terminally Ill Patients (End of Life Care) Act and expand palliative care services at district and taluka hospitals.
4. Shri Mallikarjun Kharge (Leader of the Opposition; INC, Karnataka), raised the nationwide LPG shortage, highlighting that India imports 60% of LPG, with 90% via the Strait of Hormuz. He noted that prices have surged, black-market sales reached over ₹ 5,000, and industrial supply has been reduced, accusing the Government of failing to secure alternatives. The Chairman allowed him to speak during Zero Hour as a special case.
  1. Shri Jagat Prakash Nadda Ji (Union Minister, Ministry of Health and Family Welfare, Ministry of Chemicals and Fertilizers; BJP, Gujarat), stated that the Government is treating the LPG supply issue with utmost seriousness and remains committed to maintaining stable supplies despite ongoing challenges. He reiterated that the Government will safeguard national interests above partisan considerations.
5. Shri Sanjay Seth (BJP, Uttar Pradesh) highlighted that cancer cases in India are projected to rise from 14.36 lakh in 2021 to 15.07 lakh by 2025, with annual deaths increasing from 7.8 lakh to 8.6 lakh, making it both a health and financial burden. While welcoming 11 new cancer centres and removal of customs duty on 17 life-saving drugs, he noted that the ₹ 5 lakh coverage under Ayushman Bharat is inadequate for advanced treatments costing ₹ 20–30 lakh. He also pointed out wastage of chemotherapy medicines due to fixed vial sizes and urged increasing the Ayushman Bharat cap and adopting vial-sharing and dose-rounding protocols to reduce treatment costs by about 35%.
Shri C.P. Radhakrishnan Ji (Chairman, Rajya Sabha) commenced the Question Hour.
1. Prof. Manoj Kumar Jha (RJD, Bihar) raised concerns over recent structural failures at airports in Rajkot, Ahmedabad, and Jabalpur, including terminal roof collapses. He noted that professional associations had earlier flagged such infrastructure risks and asked whether the Ministry of Civil Aviation plans to introduce a comprehensive safety management system to ensure the long-term safety of airport infrastructure.
  1. Shri K. Rammohan Naidu (Union Minister, Ministry of Civil Aviation; TDP, Srikakulam, Andhra Pradesh) stated that the Government is addressing recent airport structural failures through comprehensive audits and a systematic maintenance framework, prioritizing passenger safety. He noted that the AAIB conducts all investigations per ICAO standards and now decodes Flight Data Recorders domestically. He reaffirmed the Government’s commitment to strengthen AAIB and ensure all safety processes are handled within India.
2. Shri Sanjay Singh (AAP, NCT of Delhi) raised concern over the consistency of data provided by the Ministry regarding complaints and action taken under the Jal Jeevan Mission. He pointed to discrepancies across states, noting that while states such as Bihar reported no complaints and Uttar Pradesh recorded over 16,000 complaints but limited action. He sought clarification on these disparities and the variation in enforcement across states.
  1. In response, Shri C.R. Patil (Union Minister, Ministry of Jal Shakti; BJP, Navsari, Gujarat) stated that a total of 15,790 complaints have been registered under the mission. He informed that action has been taken against 635 officials and 1,022 contractors, with 155 entities blacklisted. He explained that while the Ministry tracks complaints received centrally, state governments also act on grievances received at the state level, which may account for the differences in the reported figures.
3. Shri P. Wilson (DMK, Tamil Nadu) raised concerns regarding the release of central funds under the Jal Jeevan Mission, stating that Tamil Nadu had provided functional household tap connections to about 1.25 crore households, achieving nearly 90% coverage. He noted that out of ₹ 13,112 crore pending, only ₹ 5,914 crore had been released.
  1. Shri C.R. Patil (Union Minister, Ministry of Jal Shakti; BJP, Navsari, Gujarat), replied that the original deadline for the Jal Jeevan Mission was 2024, but it has now been extended to 2028 to complete pending works. He clarified that central funding would be provided only for projects whose Detailed Project Reports (DPRs) were approved and work initiated before the 2024 deadline, and that states would need to arrange funds for projects not initiated within the prescribed timeline.
4. Shri Satnam Singh Sandhu (BJP, Nominated) expressed appreciation for infrastructure development in Punjab, including the establishment of several domestic and international airports. He noted that Chandigarh Airport is operating at about 60% capacity and raised concern that the absence of “point of call” status limits the operation of additional international flights, forcing many passengers to travel to Delhi for international connections.
  1. In response, Shri Ram Mohan Naidu Kinjarapu (Union Minister, Ministry of Civil Aviation; TDP, Srikakulam, Andhra Pradesh) stated that “point of call” status applies to foreign carriers under bilateral air service agreements. He noted that Chandigarh already has international connectivity to Abu Dhabi and Dubai and added that the Government prioritises expanding international operations by Indian carriers while assessing additional requirements based on passenger demand.
Shri C.P. Radhakrishnan Ji (Chairman, Rajya Sabha) commenced the discussion on the Appropriation Bill, 2026.
1. Shri P. Wilson (DMK, Tamil Nadu) stated that the Bill seeks Parliamentary approval for withdrawing an additional ₹ 2.81 lakh crore from the Consolidated Fund of India for the financial year 2025–26. Referring to the Schedule of supplementary demands, he highlighted allocations to departments such as Fertilisers, Food and Public Distribution, and Road Transport and Highways, and questioned whether sufficient funds had been provided for welfare sectors. He also raised concerns about delays in releasing funds to States, alleging that significant dues to Tamil Nadu remained pending including ₹ 3548 crore under Samagra Shiksha and ₹ 3100 crore under Jal Jeevan mission. He further referred to the new US–Bangladesh trade arrangement, which had led Bangladeshi manufacturers to shift towards US cotton, thereby putting $600–650 million worth of Indian cotton and yarn exports at risk. He described it as a direct blow to Indian cotton farmers and spinning mills. He said the impact had already been severe in textile clusters of Tamil Nadu, especially Tirupur In addition, he raised concerns about rising LPG prices, India’s high dependence on imported LPG, and limited strategic storage capacity, and urged the Government to strengthen energy security while ensuring timely fiscal transfers to States.
1. Shri Raghav Chadha (AAP, Punjab) proposed allowing joint filing of income tax returns for married couples, arguing that the current system taxes individuals separately and fails to recognise the household as a single economic unit. He stated that this creates inequities between single-income and dual-income families and suggested adopting an optional joint-filing model similar to practices in countries such as the United States, Germany, and France. Secondly, he urged the Government to restore income tax exemption on disability pensions for armed forces personnel, stating that such pensions represent compensation for injuries sustained in service rather than ordinary income. Thirdly, he called for the abolition of penalties for non-maintenance of minimum bank balances, noting that banks had reportedly collected around ₹ 19,000 crore in such charges over the past three years. He contended that these penalties disproportionately affect low-income account holders and undermine the objective of financial inclusion.
1. Dr. John Brittas (CPI(M), Kerala) questioned the reliability of the Government’s budget estimates in view of the economic pressures arising from the conflict in West Asia. He highlighted the impact of LPG shortages on households and institutions, noting reports of restaurants, college canteens, and hospital facilities being affected. He also pointed out that India required around three LNG ships every two days to meet domestic demand, and warned that shortages were leading to hoarding and black-marketing. He further stated that the fertiliser sector was receiving only about 70% of its earlier gas supply, while other industries were facing 20–30% reductions, which could affect food security and industrial output. He also criticised the increasing reliance on cess and surcharge, stating that collections had risen from about ₹ 1.99 lakh crore in 2016–17 to around ₹ 6.3 lakh crore in 2026–27, thereby shrinking the divisible tax pool for States.
2. Shri Ramji Lal Suman (SP, Uttar Pradesh) questioned the Government’s financial planning while seeking approval for ₹ 2.81 lakh crore in additional expenditure. He stated that the proposal to create an Economic Stability Fund reflected the Government’s failure to anticipate the economic impact of the crisis in West Asia and the resulting pressures on energy supplies. He also raised concerns about the condition of farmers, recalling that about 750 farmers had died during the 2020–21 farmers’ protests and alleging that many cases registered against farmers remained unresolved. He urged the Government to address the LPG crisis, ensure fair MSP implementation, and formulate a clear policy to support distressed farmers.
3. Shri Sanjay Seth (BJP, Uttar Pradesh) stated that the additional allocations were essential for strengthening infrastructure, social welfare, and national development. Referring to the global energy crisis arising from conflicts such as the Russia–Ukraine war and tensions in West Asia, he stated that India had managed the situation through balanced diplomacy. He noted that two LNG ships were expected to arrive with supplies sufficient to fill around 61–62 lakh LPG cylinders, which would help ease shortages. He also highlighted the creation of an Economic Stabilisation Fund of ₹ 57,381 crore and an allocation of ₹ 19,230 crore for fertiliser support to ensure adequate supply for farmers. He further noted increased defence allocations, stating that the defence budget had risen from ₹ 2.25 lakh crore in 2014 to ₹ 7.85 lakh crore in 2026–27, with an additional ₹ 36,130 crore through supplementary demands.
4. Shri S. Niranjan Reddy (YSRCP, Andhra Pradesh) stated that recurring Supplementary Demands for Grants reflected structural policy issues, particularly in food and fertiliser subsidies and transfers to States. He noted that ₹ 23,641.28 crore had been sought for the Pradhan Mantri Garib Kalyan Anna Yojana, while foodgrain stocks stood at 59.45 million tonnes against a buffer norm of 21.41 million tonnes, leading to high storage costs. He argued that MSP-driven cropping patterns had caused excessive production of rice and wheat while neglecting pulses and edible oils, increasing import dependence. He also highlighted environmental costs, noting that about 200 kg of water may be required to produce 1 kg of rice. On fertilisers, he pointed out that ₹ 15,000 crore had been sought under the nutrient-based subsidy, while India imports 100% of potash and about 90% of phosphatic raw materials. He added that the recommended NPK ratio of 4:2:1 had become highly imbalanced in some States due to subsidy design and lack of awareness.
5. Shri Ghanshyam Tiwari (BJP, Rajasthan) supported the Appropriation Bill for 2025–26, which sought approval for ₹ 2.81 lakh crore in supplementary expenditure, including about ₹ 2 lakh crore in net cash outgo and the rest through reallocation. He noted allocations such as ₹ 23,641 crore for food security programmes covering about 80 crore people, increased defence expenditure of ₹ 41,430.48 crore, and continued fiscal discipline with the fiscal deficit reduced to 4.3%. He also highlighted measures for ex-servicemen welfare, including ₹ 14,000 crore and the implementation of One Rank One Pension (OROP). He further emphasised the Government’s achievements in defence modernisation and self-reliance, stating that defence exports had risen from ₹ 886 crore in 2013–14 to ₹ 23,622 crore, while imports had declined significantly. He also highlighted rural development initiatives such as the SVAMITVA scheme, rural housing, irrigation programmes, and expanded infrastructure, noting that over 3 crore property ownership documents had been issued to villagers. Concluding, he argued that strong governance and fiscal stability were essential for national progress and expressed full support for the Bill.
In the Chair, Smt. S Phangnon Konyak (BJP, Nagaland) commenced the Special Mentions.
1. Shri Brij Lal (BJP, Uttar Pradesh) urged adoption of nature-based and risk-informed urban planning, citing a 2026 National Disaster Management Authority report linking poor land-use planning to disaster severity. He recommended integrating climate and seismic risk assessments, protecting wetlands and floodplains, promoting permeable surfaces, and removing encroachments from natural drains to reduce urban flooding.
2. Dr. Ajeet Madhavrao Gopchade (BJP, Maharashtra) called for mandatory KYC-based identity verification for social media and email accounts to curb cybercrime, fraud, and misuse of anonymous profiles, proposing re-verification of existing accounts and stricter compliance by platforms.
3. Dr. Laxmikant Bajpayee (BJP, Uttar Pradesh) urged granting Central University status to Chaudhary Charan Singh University, Meerut (est. 1965), stating it would strengthen higher education and research in Western Uttar Pradesh, which currently lacks a Central University.
The proceedings of Rajya Sabha were adjourned at 5:53 PM to reconvene at 11:00 A.M on Tuesday, 17^th March, 2026.

IV. Events Outside The Parliament

Dr. Nishikant Dubey (BJP, Godda, Jharkhand) questioned the sincerity of Shri Rahul Gandhi’s demand for a Bharat Ratna for Kanshi Ram, asking why the Congress party failed to confer the honor during its decades in power. He cited the historical treatment of Dr. B.R. Ambedkar and Babu Jagjivan Ram as evidence of the party’s past political inconsistencies regarding iconic Dalit leaders.
Smt. Priyanka Gandhi Vadra (INC, Wayanad, Kerala) alleged that the Election Commission’s schedule and phases for the five states/UTs were decided to suit the BJP’s convenience. She suggested the timing and structure lacked neutrality, favoring the ruling party’s electoral strategy.
Shri Giriraj Singh (Union Minister, Ministry of Textiles; BJP, Begusarai, Bihar) stated that the BJP’s prospects for the upcoming state polls have improved following strong local body results in Kerala. He claimed the TMC faces significant trouble in West Bengal and asserted that the NDA will secure all five seats in the Rajya Sabha elections.
Shri Ram Gopal Yadav (SP, Rajya Sabha, Uttar Pradesh) described the LPG situation as “very bad,” claiming officials are providing incorrect data to the Prime Minister. He welcomed the two-phase West Bengal election schedule, noting that prolonged polling is never beneficial for the state.
Shri Anurag Thakur (BJP, Hamirpur, Himachal Pradesh) welcomed the assembly election schedule for four states and one UT, calling for a “corruption-free” government in West Bengal. He emphasized the need for decisive action to curb illegal infiltration from Bangladesh to ensure national security and regional stability.

Shri Saugata Roy (TMC, Dum Dum, West Bengal) criticized the Election Commission’s decision to reshuffle top state officials as a “wrong step” that undermines the elected government. However, he welcomed the two-phase election schedule for West Bengal, agreeing that shorter polling durations are beneficial.

Shri Jagdambika Pal (BJP, Domariyaganj, Uttar Pradesh) emphasized that Parliament is a forum for debate and disagreement among elected representatives. He criticized Rahul Gandhi for leading disruptions and insisting on a no-confidence motion against the Speaker, expressing hope that parliamentary decorum and dignity would be prioritized over political posturing.
Shri Gajendra Singh Shekhawat (Union Minister, Ministry of Culture, Ministry of Tourism; BJP, Jodhpur, Rajasthan) expressed confidence that the BJP will secure an absolute majority in the upcoming polls. He predicted this victory would mark a historic breakthrough for the party in South India, signaling a “new beginning” for their regional influence.
Dr. Shashi Tharoor (INC, Thiruvananthapuram, Kerala) described the 2026 Kerala election as a “crucial challenge” for the UDF. He emphasized that the party is intensifying candidate selection and campaigning to overturn the LDF’s second term and restore the state’s tradition of alternating power.
Sushri Kumari Selja (INC, Sirsa, Haryana) stated that the decision to confer the Bharat Ratna on Kanshi Ram rests with the ruling BJP. She emphasized that the demand has already been formally raised by Leader of the Opposition Rahul Gandhi and urged the government to provide a clear response to the public’s sentiment.
Smt. Sagarika Ghose (TMC, Rajya Sabha, West Bengal) criticized the ECI’s “midnight” removal of top state officials, labeling it a blow to federalism. She confirmed that TMC MPs staged a full-day parliamentary walkout to protest the move and its impact on the state government.
Shri Sukanta Majumdar (MoS, Ministry of Education; BJP, Balurghat, West Bengal) backed the ECI’s reshuffle of top state officials, citing their alleged partisan ties to the TMC. He expressed absolute confidence in the BJP’s preparedness to form the next government in West Bengal.
Shri Sambit Patra (BJP, Puri, Odisha) criticized the Tamil Nadu government over the murder of a minor in Thoothukudi. He blamed a 14-hour police delay for the tragedy, alleged sexual assault, and demanded an apology from Chief Minister M.K. Stalin.

Annexure I - Matters Raised Under Rule 377 In The Lok Sabha

Annexure II - Members Who Took Part in the Discussion on Demand for Grants Under the Control of Ministry of Railways

Annexure III - Reports And Statements Presented In The Lok Sabha

Annexure IV - Matters Raised With Permission In The Rajya Sabha

Annexure V - Reports And Statements Presented In The Rajya Sabha

Annexure VI - Member Who Participated in the Discussion on Appropriation Bill, 2026

Annexure VII - Special Mentions In The Rajya Sabha

Parliamentary Proceedings for 14th March, 2026

Sat, 14 Mar 2026 08:02:40 GMT

Parliament convened on 13 March 2026 with proceedings in both Houses reflecting a mix of legislative action and policy debate. In the Lok Sabha, the day began with disruptions during Question Hour as opposition members raised concerns regarding LPG supply, prompting the Speaker to reiterate the importance of maintaining parliamentary decorum and allowing the House to function. The House subsequently resumed discussions on the Second Batch of Supplementary Demands for Grants for 2025–26, with the government outlining additional fiscal allocations and sectoral spending priorities amid ongoing economic and welfare commitments.

I. Key Highlights of The Proceedings:

The proceedings of the Lok Sabha and Rajya Sabha commenced at 11:00 AM.
In the Lok Sabha, Shri Om Birla Ji (Speaker, Lok Sabha; BJP, Kota, Rajasthan) presided over the proceedings of the House.
During the ongoing business of the Lok Sabha, the opposition demanded for an adjournment motion regarding the Liquefied Petroleum Gas (LPG) supply issue. Following which the speaker emphasised the importance of Question Hour.
Shri Om Birla Ji (Speaker, Lok Sabha; BJP, Kota, Rajasthan) urged members to utilise the Question Hour to raise national and regional issues, warning that disciplinary action would be taken against members causing disruptions or attempting to climb onto the tables of the House.
Amid continued disruptions affecting the Question Hour, the Lok Sabha was adjourned till 12:00 PM.
Upon reconvening at 12:00 PM, Smt Sandhya Ray Ji (BJP, Bhind (SC), Madhya Pradesh) presided over the Chair and papers were laid on the table of the House.
Shri Arjun Ram Meghwal (MoS, Ministry of Parliamentary Affairs; BJP, Bikaner (SC), Rajasthan) announced the Government business for the week beginning 16^th March 2026.
During disruptions by the opposition, Shri Kiren Rijiju (Union Minister, Ministry of Parliamentary Affairs; BJP, Arunachal West, Arunachal Pradesh) referred to the Business Advisory Committee meeting, stating that the House was scheduled to complete discussion on the Supplementary Demands for Grants followed by the Finance Minister’s reply and Private Members’ Resolutions. He criticised the Opposition for disrupting the proceedings and urged members to maintain the dignity of Parliament.
The Chair repeatedly urged members to allow the House to function as discussions on the Supplementary Demands for Grants were underway; however, continued disruptions led to the adjournment of the House till 2:00 PM.
The Lok Sabha reconvened at 2:00 PM with Shri Krishna Prasad Tenneti Ji (TDP, Bapatla (SC), Andhra Pradesh) presiding over the Chair during the discussion on the Supplementary Demands for Grants.
Shri Virendra Kumar (BJP, Tikamgarh (SC), Madhya Pradesh) sought leave to introduce the Transgender Persons (Protection of Rights) Amendment Bill, 2026, which was granted by the House and the Bill was formally introduced.
Smt. Nirmala Sitharaman (Union Minister, Ministry of Finance; BJP, Karnataka) responded to the discussion on the Supplementary Demands for Grants, stating that 33 members participated in the debate. In continuation to discussion on the Supplementary Demands for grants, Smt. Nirmala Sitharaman (Union Minister, Ministry of Finance; BJP, Karnataka) informed that the second Supplementary Demands cover 61 grants with a gross expenditure of about ₹2.85 lakh crore and a net cash outgo of about ₹0.81 lakh crore, while maintaining fiscal deficit targets for 2025–26 and 2026–27.
1. She highlighted key allocations including ₹57,381.84 crore for the Economic Stabilization Fund, ₹19,230 crore for fertilizer subsidies etc. She further stated that the first and second Supplementary Demands together amount to ₹5.13 lakh crore, including ₹1.71 lakh crore technical supplementaries, and highlighted welfare initiatives.
2. She also noted that ₹12 lakh crore has been allocated under PM Garib Kalyan Anna Yojana and that 9.30 crore farmers benefit from Government schemes, with ₹14.27 lakh crore transferred to farmers through DBT including PM-KISAN payments.
3. Subsequently, the House passed the Supplementary Demands for Grants (Second Batch) for 2025–26 and the related Appropriation Bill by voice vote.
The House granted leave to Smt. Nirmala Sitharaman (Union Minister, Ministry of Finance; BJP, Karnataka) to introduce the Appropriation Bill, 2026. The motion for consideration was adopted, the House undertook clause-by-clause consideration, and the Bill was passed by voice vote.
In the Rajya Sabha, Shri C. P. Radhakrishnan Ji (Chairman, Rajya Sabha) presided over the proceedings and papers and reports were laid on the table of the House, following which matters raised with permission were taken up.
1. Smt Swati Maliwal (AAP, Delhi) raised concerns over alleged nexus between hospitals and private insurance companies and highlighted that insurance claims worth ₹26,000 crore were rejected in 2024.
2. Shri Sadanand Mhalu Shet Tanavade (BJP, Goa) raised concerns over wild animal intrusion damaging crops and urged improved fencing and compensation mechanisms.
3. Shri Sikander Kumar (BJP, Himachal Pradesh) highlighted the need to upgrade NH-503 and NH-03 to improve connectivity and tourism.
4. Shri Derek O’Brien (AITC, West Bengal) raised concerns about rising Liquefied Petroleum Gas (LPG) prices and stagnation in manufacturing share in Gross Value Added (GVA).
5. Shri Ryaga Krishnaiah (BJP, Andhra Pradesh) urged the creation of a dedicated Central department for OBC welfare.
Subsequently, the Question Hour was taken up in the Rajya Sabha.
1. Dr. Bhim Singh (BJP, Bihar) raised a question regarding the punctuality of trains, noting that the average punctuality of Indian Railways is about 77%, and asked whether the Government has a plan to improve it to 100%.
2. Shri P. Wilson (DMK, Tamil Nadu) asked whether the Government has considered establishing a high-speed rail corridor between Chennai and Delhi to strengthen North–South connectivity and long-distance travel efficiency.
3. Shri Digvijaya Singh (INC, Madhya Pradesh) asked whether the Government would consider reserving procurement of handloom and khadi products for official Government use, noting that the Centre spends substantial funds on textile procurement.
The House was adjourned till 2:00 PM due to disruptions, after which it reconvened with Shri Harivansh Ji (Deputy Chairman, Rajya Sabha) in the Chair and took up Private Members’ Business following which the Private Member Bills were introduced by the members.
1. Smt. Jebi Mather Hisham (INC, Kerala) introduced a Bill to amend the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023, aimed at enhancing punishment for offences committed under intoxication.
2. Shri Dhananjay Bhimrao Mahadik (BJP, Maharashtra) introduced the Kolhapuri Leather Craft (Promotion and Protection) Bill, 2024 to safeguard the traditional kolhapuri leather crafts and artisans’ livelihoods.
3. Dr. V. Sivadasan (CPI(M), Kerala) introduced the Digital Networking Platforms Accountability and User Protection Bill, 2026 to ensure transparency and user protection online.
4. Shri Raghav Chadha (AAP, Punjab) introduced the Asset Tokenization Regulation Bill, 2026 to regulate tokenized real-world assets.
Subsequently, the discussion on Protection of Children from Sexual Offences (Amendment) Bill, 2024 was taken up by Shri Harivansh Ji (Deputy Chairman, Rajya Sabha).
1. Smt. Dharmshila Gupta (BJP, Bihar) stated that several measures proposed in the Bill are already being implemented through initiatives such as the Nirbhaya Fund, Fast Track Special Courts, POCSO Rules, 2020, and the 1098 Child Helpline, along with awareness campaigns and rehabilitation support for victims.
2. Dr. Ashok Kumar Mittal (AAP, Punjab) emphasized the need for stronger child protection mechanisms and proposed Special Child Crime Investigation Units, time-bound investigations, and a real-time national tracking system for missing children.
3. Smt. Sudha Murty (Nominated) highlighted the long-term psychological impact of child abuse and suggested mandatory school counsellors, improved teacher training, and greater awareness about “good touch–bad touch.”
4. Shri Ghanshyam Tiwari (BJP, Rajasthan) and Shri Ram Chander Jangra (BJP, Haryana) stressed that strong laws must be supported by social awareness and institutional mechanisms, citing initiatives such as Mission Vatsalya.
The following matters of public importance were raised by members during the Special Mentions in the House:
1. Smt. Jebi Mather Hisham (INC, Kerala) raised concerns about the financial strain on Kerala’s fishing community due to rising fuel costs and urged increased subsidized kerosene and LPG allocations, while proposing solar-electric fishing boats as a sustainable alternative.
2. Shri Anil Kumar Yadav (INC, Telangana) demanded the establishment of an Ahir Regiment in the Indian Army, citing the community’s contribution to national security, including the 1962 Battle of Rezang La.
The proceedings of Lok Sabha and Rajya Sabha were adjourned at 3:04 PM and 4:40 PM, on 13^th March, 2026, respectively, to reconvene at 11:00 A.M on Monday, 16^th March, 2026.
Share

I. Lok Sabha Proceedings:

The proceedings of the Lok Sabha commenced at 11:00 AM.
Shri Om Birla Ji (Speaker, Lok Sabha; BJP, Kota, Rajasthan) presided over the proceedings of the House and amid the demands of adjournment motion on the LPG supply issue raised by the opposition, the Chair emphasised that Question Hour is the most important part of parliamentary proceedings and noted that questions from eight members were listed for the day.
Shri Om Birla Ji (Speaker, Lok Sabha; BJP, Kota, Rajasthan) urged members to utilize the Question Hour to raise national and regional issues instead of causing disruptions and warned that disciplinary action would be taken against any member attempting to climb onto the tables of the House.
Amid continued disruptions affecting the Question Hour, Shri Om Birla Ji (Speaker, Lok Sabha; BJP, Kota, Rajasthan) adjourned the proceedings of the House till 12:00 PM.
The house was reconvened at 12:00 PM with Smt Sandhya Ray (BJP, Bhind (SC), Madhya Pradesh) presiding the chair following which the papers were laid on the table.
Shri Arjun Ram Meghwal (MoS, Ministry of Parliamentary Affairs, BJP, Bikaner (SC), Rajasthan) announced the Government business for the week beginning 16^th March 2026, stating that the House will take up Supplementary Demands for Grants for 2025–26 and the related Appropriation Bill, discussion and voting on Demands for Grants for 2026–27 for key ministries including Railways, Agriculture, Home Affairs and External Affairs, the guillotining of remaining Demands for Grants, and the consideration and passing of the Finance Bill, 2026.
During continued disruptions by the opposition, Shri Kiren Rijiju (Union Minister, Ministry of Parliamentary Affairs; BJP, Arunachal West, Arunachal Pradesh) referred to the Business Advisory Committee meeting, stating that the House was scheduled to complete the discussion on the Supplementary Demands for Grants, followed by the Finance Minister’s reply and later take up Private Members’ Resolutions. He criticized the Opposition for disrupting proceedings and alleged that their conduct in the Parliament complex reflected a lack of discipline, urging members to maintain the dignity of the institution.
The Chair urged members to return to their seats and allow the House to function, noting that important discussions on the Supplementary Demands for Grants were underway and that the public was observing the proceedings, but opposition continued to disrupt the house leading to the adjournment till 2:00 PM.
The house reconvened at 2:00 PM with Shri Krishna Prasad Tenneti Ji (TDP, Bapatla (SC), Andhra Pradesh) in the chair addressing the discussion on the Supplementary Demands for Grants.
Shri Virendra Kumar (BJP, Tikamgarh (SC), Madhya Pradesh) sought leave to introduce the Transgender Persons (Protection of Rights) Amendment Bill, 2026. The House granted permission, following which he formally introduced the Bill.
Smt. Nirmala Sitharaman (Union Minister, Ministry of Finance; BJP, Karnataka) further responded to the discussion on the Supplementary Demands for Grants, outlining fiscal provisions, sectoral allocations, and welfare achievements.
1. Smt. Nirmala Sitharaman (Union Minister, Ministry of Finance; BJP, Karnataka) responded to the discussion on the Supplementary Demands for Grants, stating that 33 members participated in the debate. She informed that the second Supplementary Demands cover 61 grants with a gross expenditure of about ₹2.85 lakh crore and a net cash outgo of around ₹0.81 lakh crore, while maintaining the fiscal deficit targets for 2025–26 and 2026–27.
2. She highlighted key allocations including ₹57,381.84 crore for the Economic Stabilization Fund, ₹19,230 crore for fertilizer subsidies, ₹23,641 crore for PM Garib Kalyan Anna Yojana, ₹6,144 crore for the Ex-Servicemen Contributory Health Scheme, ₹3,000 crore for Small Industries Development Bank of India (SIDBI), and grants to states under the Finance Commission, emphasizing that the provisions support welfare schemes, farmers, veterans, and economic stability amid global uncertainties.
3. She stated that the first and second Supplementary Demands together amount to ₹5.13 lakh crore, including ₹1.71 lakh crore as technical supplementaries, and clarified that these are additional allocations beyond the original Budget Estimates.
4. She emphasized welfare initiatives, stating that 13 crore households now receive tap water under Jal Jeevan Mission, over 12 crore toilets have been built under Swachh Bharat Mission, and 4 crore houses have been constructed under PM Awas Yojana, with ₹43.45 lakh crore transferred through Direct Benefit Transfer.
5. She stated that ₹95,000 crore had already been provided from 1^st April under the Viksit Bharat – Guarantee for Rozgar Aajeevika Mission (VB G-RAM G) for the States. She further clarified that many States have pending bills under the Mahatma Gandhi National Rural Employment Guarantee Act (MGNREGA), and therefore ₹30,000 crore has been provided through the Supplementary Demands for Grants to clear liabilities up to 31^st March.
6. She further expressed astonishment over the objection raised by opposition members regarding non-release of funds for ex-servicemen welfare, stating that such funds cannot be released unless Parliament first passes the Supplementary Demands.
7. She highlighted the proposal to allocate ₹57,381.84 crore for an Economic Stabilization Fund, stating that the provision was required in view of fiscal reforms and policy measures undertaken after the COVID-19 period, which had strengthened the macroeconomic framework and supported the recovery of the economy.
8. She rejected the claim that Supplementary Demands reflect poor budgeting, stating that such criticism was misplaced. She said fiscal provisions are necessary to maintain fiscal buffers for emergencies and ensure adequate fertilizer supply for farmers, noting that fertilizer stocks for April 2026 stood at 163 lakh metric tonnes compared to 128.54 lakh metric tonnes earlier, a 26% increase.
9. She also noted that ₹12 lakh crore has been allocated under PM Garib Kalyan Anna Yojana, while 9.30 crore farmers receive benefits through Government schemes, with ₹14.27 lakh crore transferred to farmers through DBT including PM-Kisan payments. The House subsequently passed the Supplementary Demands for Grants (Second Batch) for 2025–26 and the related Appropriation Bill by voice vote.
The House took up Appropriation Bill, 2026, which sought to authorise payment and appropriation of further sums from the Consolidated Fund of India for the services of the financial year 2025–26. Leave to introduce the Bill was granted to Smt. Nirmala Sitharaman (Union Minister, Ministry of Finance; BJP, Karnataka). The motion for consideration was adopted, the House undertook clause-by-clause consideration, and the Bill was passed by voice vote.
Due to continued disruptions by the opposition, the Lok Sabha was adjourned at 03:04 PM to reconvene at 11:00 A.M on Monday, 16^th March, 2026.
Subscribe now

III. Rajya Sabha Proceedings:

The proceedings of the Rajya Sabha commenced at 11:00 AM with Shri C.P. Radhakrishnan Ji (Chairman, Rajya Sabha) presiding over the house.
Papers and Reports were laid on the table of the house. Following this, matters raised with permission were taken up.
1. Ms. Swati Maliwal (AAP, National Capital Territory of Delhi) raised concerns about the alleged nexus between hospitals and private insurance companies, stating that claim rejections and billing practices are severely affecting common citizens. Citing IRDAI data, she noted that insurance claims worth ₹26,000 crore were rejected in 2024 and alleged that such practices push many families into financial distress.
2. Shri Sadanand Mhalu Shet Tanavade (BJP, Goa) raised concerns over frequent intrusion of wild animals into agricultural fields in Goa, stating that it is severely affecting farmers’ livelihoods and damaging crops. He urged the Government to support farmers through protective infrastructure such as fencing funded through Compensatory Afforestation Fund Management and Planning Authority (CAMPA) and to establish a simplified, time-bound compensation mechanism for crop losses caused by wildlife.
3. Shri Derek O’ Brien (AITC, West Bengal) noted that nearly twenty Zero Hour speeches were completed within an hour, reflecting the efficient conduct of the session. He highlighted economic concerns, stating that LPG prices have risen from ₹420 in 2014 to ₹914 in Delhi and that the manufacturing sector’s share in GVA has increased by only 0.3% over the past decade. He urged the Government to focus on substantive economic policies to strengthen manufacturing and address rising costs.
4. Shri Ryaga Krishnaiah (BJP, Andhra Pradesh) highlighted that despite OBCs constituting about 56% of the population, there is no separate Central Government department dedicated to their welfare. He noted existing measures such as 27% reservation and scholarship schemes, and urged the Government to establish a dedicated ministerial department to better oversee OBC welfare initiatives.
Following this, Shri C.P. Radhakrishnan Ji (Chairman, Rajya Sabha) commenced the Question Hour.
1. Dr. Bhim Singh (BJP, Bihar) noted that the average punctuality of trains is about 77% and asked whether the Government has any plan to improve it to 100%.
  1. In response, Shri Ashwini Vaishnaw (Union Minister, Ministry of Railways; BJP, Odisha) stated that punctuality is being improved through IT-based monitoring, AI analysis, fog safety devices, and IoT-enabled maintenance, along with the conversion of over 90% coaches to LHB. He added that 24 railway divisions have achieved over 90% punctuality and 8 divisions over 95%, and that a 26-week forward maintenance planning system inspired by Japan has been introduced to further improve performance.
2. Shri P. Wilson (DMK, Tamil Nadu) asked whether the Government has considered establishing a high-speed rail corridor between Chennai and Delhi to strengthen North–South connectivity and improve long-distance travel.
  1. In response, Shri Ashwini Vaishnaw (Union Minister, Ministry of Railways; BJP, Odisha) stated that about 80% of railway tracks have been upgraded, with 79.7–79.8% supporting speeds of 110 kmph and around 50% upgraded for speeds up to 130 kmph. He further informed that seven bullet train projects have been announced, including Chennai–Hyderabad and Chennai–Bengaluru, with the Chennai–Bengaluru route expected to reduce travel time to about 73 minutes.
3. Shri Digvijaya Singh (INC, Madhya Pradesh) asked whether the Government would consider reserving procurement of handloom and khadi products for official Government use, noting that the Centre spends hundreds of crores on such textile purchases.
  1. In response, Shri Giriraj Singh (Union Minister, Ministry of Textiles; BJP, Begusarai, Bihar) stated that some states, such as Chhattisgarh, procure uniforms from the handloom sector, and added that he remains in regular contact with the Prime Minister Shri Narendra Modi Ji (BJP, Varanasi, Uttar Pradesh) on matters concerning the sector.
4. Smt. Ranjeet Ranjan (INC, Chhattisgarh) raised concerns over the declining exports of traditional Kashmiri handloom products such as carpets and shawls, noting that the craft is time-intensive and that younger artisans are leaving due to low wages.
  1. In response, Shri Giriraj Singh (Union Minister, Ministry of Textiles; BJP, Begusarai, Bihar) stated that the Government is supporting artisans through quality verification measures, international market exposure, and initiatives to promote handmade products, while considering further steps to protect the sector.
5. Dr. John Brittas (CPI(M), Kerala) questioned the status of the Shoranur–Ernakulam rail line DPR and asked whether the Government would consider Shri E. Sreedharan’s proposal for a high-speed corridor in Kerala, noting that the state was not included in recently announced high-speed projects.
  1. In response, Shri Ashwini Vaishnaw (Union Minister, Ministry of Railways; BJP, Odisha) stated that the proposal suggests a 180 kmph elevated rail line across Kerala costing about ₹54,000 crore, and informed that the Government is currently evaluating three options i.e. the Silver Line project, railway surface surveys from Mangaluru to Nagercoil and the elevated corridor proposal, while also noting delays due to land acquisition and other issues.
6. Smt. Sudha Murty (Nominated) raised concerns about the long-term revenue model of Indian Railways, noting that a large share of earnings currently comes from freight transport, particularly coal, and asked how the Railways plans to manage revenue if coal transport declines.
  1. In response, Shri Ashwini Vaishnaw (Union Minister, Ministry of Railways; BJP, Odisha) stated that the ministry is diversifying the cargo basket by introducing specialized containers for cement, salt, and food grains, and expanding freight in sectors such as parcel cargo, fertilizers, steel coils, automobiles, and machinery to ensure sustained revenue.
Amid disruptions by the opposition, the house was adjourned till 2:00PM.
The house reconvened at 2:00 PM with Shri Harivansh Ji (Deputy Chairman, Rajya Sabha)in the chair, following which the private member business was subsequently taken up.
1. Smt. Jebi Mather Hisham (INC, Kerala) sought leave to introduce a Bill to amend the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023, aimed at enhancing punishment for heinous offences committed under voluntary or self-induced intoxication. The House granted leave by voice vote, following which she formally introduced the Bill.
2. Shri Dhananjay Bhimrao Mahadik (BJP, Maharashtra) sought leave to introduce the Kolhapuri Leather Craft (Promotion, Development, Preservation and Protection) and Securing the Livelihood of Registered Artisans Bill, 2024, aimed at promoting and preserving the traditional craft and safeguarding the livelihoods of registered artisans. The House granted leave by voice vote, following which he formally introduced the Bill.
3. Dr. V. Sivadasan (CPI(M), Kerala) sought leave to introduce the Digital Networking Platforms Accountability and User Protection Bill, 2026, aimed at ensuring accountability, transparency, and user protection on digital networking platforms. The House granted leave by voice vote, following which he formally introduced the Bill.
4. Shri Sujeet Kumar (BJP, Odisha) sought leave to introduce the Silver Economy Growth and Empowerment Bill, 2026, aimed at promoting economic participation, employment, and innovation among senior citizens. The House granted leave by voice vote, following which he formally introduced the Bill.
5. Shri Raghav Chadha (AAP, Punjab) sought leave to introduce the Asset Tokenization Regulation Bill, 2026, aimed at regulating tokenized real-world assets. The House granted leave by voice vote, following which he introduced the Bill.
6. Dr. John Brittas (CPI(M), Kerala) sought leave to introduce two Right of Children to Free and Compulsory Education (Amendment) Bills, 2026 relating to extending free education and protecting in-service teachers from retrospective TET requirements. Leave was granted and both Bills were introduced.
The House resumed the further consideration of the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences (Amendment) Bill, 2024, moved by Dr. Fauzia Khan (NCP-SCP, Maharashtra). During the proceedings, Shri Sandosh Kumar P (CPI, Kerala) raised concerns regarding pending clarifications on several Private Members’ Bills. The Chair advised him to approach the Hon’ble Chairman, noting that the House was currently engaged in the discussion on the bill moved by Dr. Fauzia Khan.
1. Smt. Dharmshila Gupta (BJP, Bihar) emphasized that several measures proposed in the bill have already been implemented by the Government through stronger institutional mechanisms.
  1. She highlighted the Nirbhaya Fund, the establishment of Fast Track Special Courts, and the implementation of the POCSO Rules, 2020, which provide interim and final compensation under Sections 9(1), 9(2), and 9(3) through funds administered by NALSA and State Governments.
  2. She noted that the Government has established 1,023 Fast Track Special Courts, including 412 exclusive POCSO courts, to ensure speedy trials. She also cited initiatives such as awareness campaigns like “Good Touch, Bad Touch,” training of police and judicial officers, cyber monitoring against online child pornography, and strengthening of the 1098 Child Helpline.
  3. She further highlighted the role of One Stop Centres for counseling and rehabilitation, stating that the Government’s focus is on both legal enforcement and social awareness to protect children.
2. Dr. Ashok Kumar Mittal (AAP, Punjab) stressed the need for stronger child protection mechanisms, citing 79,000 kidnapping cases and over 1.77 lakh crimes against children recorded in 2023. He proposed the creation of Special Child Crime Investigation Units in every district, along with time-bound investigations within one year, and stronger action against online grooming and cyber sexual abuse. He also highlighted that over one lakh children go missing annually and suggested the creation of a real-time national tracking system for missing children.
3. Smt. Sudha Murty (Nominated) highlighted the long-term psychological trauma experienced by victims of child abuse, noting that the impact can persist for decades. She proposed mandatory counsellors in schools, improved teacher training to detect behavioural signs of abuse, greater awareness about “good touch–bad touch,” and stricter verification and sensitization of service staff such as drivers, security guards, and domestic workers.
4. Shri Ghanshyam Tiwari (BJP, Rajasthan) and Shri Ram Chander Jangra (BJP, Haryana) emphasized that strong legislation must be complemented by social awareness and institutional support. They highlighted initiatives such as 1,023 Fast Track Special Courts under the Centrally Sponsored Scheme (2019), Mission Vatsalya for vulnerable children, the Investigation Tracking System for Sexual Offences (ITSSO), and campaigns like Beti Bachao Beti Padhao, along with the roles of Child Welfare Committees (CWC), District Legal Services Authorities (DLSA), and District Child Protection Units (DCPU) in ensuring rehabilitation, compensation, and protection for victims.
Shri Harivansh Ji (Deputy Chairman, Rajya Sabha) clarified that parliamentary tradition does not strictly limit the time for Private Members’ Bills, as members have a fundamental right to speak. Referring to a 17^th December, 2004 ruling, He stated that the Chair cannot curtail such discussions and cited the example of a Constitution Amendment Bill (2022) debated across three sessions.
The following Special Mentions were raised by members.
1. Smt. Jebi Mather Hisham (INC, Kerala) raised concerns about the financial strain on Kerala’s fishing community due to rising fuel costs and urged the Government to increase subsidized kerosene and LPG allocations. She also proposed the introduction of solar-electric fishing boats as a sustainable and cost-effective alternative.
2. Shri Anil Kumar Yadav (INC, Telangana) demanded the establishment of an Ahir Regiment in the Indian Army, citing the community’s historical contributions to national security, including their role in the 1962 Battle of Rezang La and noted that several existing regiments are named after specific communities.
The proceedings of Rajya Sabha were adjourned at 4:40 PM to reconvene at 11:00 A.M on Monday, 16^th March, 2026.

III. Events Outside The Parliament

Shri Ram Gopal Yadav (SP, Uttar Pradesh) asserted that the Prime Minister Shri Narendra Modi Ji may be misinformed regarding the ground reality of the country’s fuel supply, as citizens continue to face a severe shortage of LPG cylinders.
Shri Kodikunnil Suresh (INC, Mavelikkara (SC), Kerala) highlighted growing public panic and long queues at fuel stations as evidence of a crisis. He urged Prime Minister Shri Narendra Modi Ji to recognise the situation’s severity and take immediate steps to ensure a steady supply of essential fuels.
Shri Mohammad Jawed (INC, Kishanganj, Bihar) questioned the government over rising LPG prices and supply shortages, demanding clarity on climbing rates despite official denials. He highlighted the distress of citizens unable to receive cylinders and urged an explanation for the disconnect between Government claims and ground reality.
Dr. Bhola Singh (BJP, Bulandshahr (SC), Uttar Pradesh) stated that the Union Government and the Prime Minister Shri Narendra Modi Ji are closely reviewing the current supply situation to ensure that citizens do not face any shortage of LPG cylinders.
Shri Sougata Ray (TMC, Dum Dum, West Bengal) stated that the Trinamool Congress intends to move an impeachment motion today against Chief Election Commissioner Shri Gyanesh Kumar, alleging irregularities in the electoral roll revision process ahead of the state assembly elections.
Shri Manoj Kumar Jha (RJD, Bihar) criticised the Government’s refusal to acknowledge the current energy crisis, stating that “denial is not a good instrument” for governance. He urged the Prime Minister to adopt a more inclusive approach by taking all stakeholders into confidence and publicly admitting the challenges regarding the LPG shortage.
Shri Sukhjinder Singh Randhawa (INC, Gurdaspur, Punjab) stated that the Opposition’s role is to raise issues concerning the public and criticised remarks made about the Leader of the Opposition (LoP). He cited former Prime Minister Shri Atal Bihari Vajpayee Ji’s and Dr. Manmohan Singh as examples of leaders who safeguarded India’s interests and took independent decisions.
Shri Imran Pratapgarhi (INC, Maharashtra) stated that the Opposition has the right to move an impeachment motion against Chief Election Commissioner Shri Gyanesh Kumar, alleging that he is acting as a political tool of the government. He said the move was intended to protect the integrity of the electoral process, parliamentary decorum, and democratic institutions.

The day’s proceedings concluded with the Supplementary Demands for Grants (Second Batch) and the related Appropriation Bill being passed by voice vote in the Lok Sabha, enabling additional government expenditure for the financial year. Discussions in the Rajya Sabha focused on issues ranging from railway infrastructure and handloom sector support to broader economic concerns raised by members. Private Members’ Business and the ongoing debate on the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences (Amendment) Bill, 2024 further reflected Parliament’s continued engagement with legislative oversight and policy scrutiny across multiple sectors.

Annexure I - Matters Raised Under Rule 377 In The Lok Sabha

Annexure II - Bills Introduced And Passed In Lok Sabha

Annexure III - Reports And Statements Presented In The Lok Sabha

Annexure IV - Matters Raised With Permission In The Rajya Sabha

Annexure V - Reports And Statements Presented In The Rajya Sabha

Annexure VI - Private Member Bills Introduced In The Rajya Sabha

Parliamentary Proceedings for 12th March, 2026

Fri, 13 Mar 2026 07:51:15 GMT

Parliament convened on 12 March 2026 with discussions in both Houses focusing on fiscal policy, energy security and rural development programmes. In the Lok Sabha, the Speaker addressed the House at the conclusion of the two-day debate on the No-Confidence Motion against the Speaker, reflecting on parliamentary procedure and institutional traditions. The House then proceeded with deliberations on the Second Batch of Supplementary Demands for Grants for 2025–26, where members discussed additional fiscal allocations and the broader economic context, including global energy disruptions arising from developments in West Asia.

I. Key Highlights of The Proceedings:

The proceedings of the Lok Sabha and Rajya Sabha commenced at 11:00 AM.
In the Lok Sabha, Shri Om Birla Ji (Speaker, Lok Sabha; BJP, Kota, Rajasthan) addressed the House at the conclusion of the two-day debate on the No-confidence Motion, noting that it was only the third such resolution in the nation’s history. He summarised the 12-hour discussion, praised India’s democratic traditions and freedom of expression and stated that he has recused himself from presiding over the proceedings after receiving the notice.
1. Referring to Shri Rahul Gandhi (Leader of Opposition; INC, Raebareli, Uttar Pradesh), he said that the members are free to speak but must follow parliamentary rules. He cited precedents involving Smt. Renu Chakravarty, and Shri S. M. Banerjee on the matter of seeking prior permission for displaying materials.
2. He also referred to initiatives undertaken during his tenure, including the digitisation of parliamentary work, capacity building, and translation in 22 languages, and noted that delegations from over 100 countries have visited the PRIDE (Parliamentary Research & Training Institute for Democracies) Committee of the Lok Sabha. He concluded by urging members to uphold parliamentary traditions and constitutional morality.
In the Lok Sabha, Smt. Sandhya Ray (BJP, Bhind, Madhya Pradesh) started the Discussion on the Second Batch of Supplementary Demands for Grants for 2025–26.
1. Shri Jagdambika Pal (BJP, Domariyagunj, Uttar Pradesh) highlighted supplementary grants of about ₹ 2.81 lakh crore, referring to global supply disruptions affecting the Strait of Hormuz due to West Asia war, rising crude prices from $ 89 to $ 119 per barrel.
2. Shri Shafi Parambil (INC, Vadakara, Kerala) raised concerns about LPG shortages linked to the West Asia conflict and accused the Government of creating a “cylinder crisis.” He also criticised growing inequality and declining employment under the MNREGA, stating that ground realities were not reflected in macroeconomic indicators.
3. Shri Kirti Azad (AITC, Bardhaman–Durgapur, West Bengal) raised concerns about rising LPG prices, stating that many beneficiaries of free connections were unable to afford refills costing ₹ 1100 – ₹ 1200. He urged investment in alternative energy sources such as biogas and alleged delays in the release of central funds to West Bengal, including dues under the Mahatma Gandhi National Rural Employment Guarantee Act (MNREGA) and Pradhan Mantri Awas Yojana Gramin (PMAY-G).
In the Lok Sabha, Shri Om Birla Ji (Speaker, Lok Sabha; BJP, Kota, Rajasthan) paused the discussion on the Second Batch of Demands of Grants for 2025-26 and invited Shri Rahul Gandhi (Leader of Opposition; INC, Raebareli, Uttar Pradesh) to speak on alleged LPG shortage issue due to the West Asia war.
1. Shri Rahul Gandhi (Leader of Opposition; INC, Raebareli, Uttar Pradesh) raised concerns regarding the global energy situation, referring to the Israel–Iran conflict and the closure of the Strait of Hormuz, through which about 20% of global oil supply passes. He stated that such disruptions could affect India’s energy security and increase inflation, impacting sectors dependent on energy imports. During his remarks, he referred to Shri Hardeep Singh Puri (Union Minister, Ministry of Petroleum and Natural Gas; BJP, Uttar Pradesh) in connection with allegations relating to Jeffrey Epstein, following which the Speaker directed him to confine his remarks to the notified subject and adhere to the parliamentary procedures.
2. Responding to the concerns, Shri Hardeep Singh Puri (Union Minister, Petroleum and Natural Gas; BJP, Uttar Pradesh) stated that despite disruptions in the Strait of Hormuz, India’s crude supply remains secure due to diversification of imports from about 40 countries. He clarified that there was no shortage of petrol, diesel, ATF, kerosene, or fuel oil, and that supply chains were functioning normally. He also informed the House that measures such as booking regulations, mobile authentication, and stricter monitoring of distributors had been introduced to prevent hoarding and ensure fair distribution. He remarked that the LPG sourcing has also been diversified to countries such as the US, Norway, Canada, Algeria and Russia and that domestic LPG production has increased by about 28% to ensure supply to about 33 crore households.
In the Lok Sabha, amid disruptions, Shri Kiren Rijiju (Union Minister, Ministry of Parliamentary Affairs; BJP, Arunachal East, Arunachal Pradesh) stated that the Leader of Opposition had written to the Speaker seeking permission to raise the LPG supply issue due to its seriousness. He urged Members to allow the House to continue its scheduled discussion in an orderly manner.
In the Lok Sabha, Following this, Shri Jagdambika Pal (Speaker; BJP, Domariyaganj, Uttar Pradesh) resumed the discussion on the Second Batch of Supplementary Demands of Grants for 2025-26.
1. Smt. Lovely Anand (JD(U), Sheohar, Bihar) supported the Supplementary Demands for Grants, stating that they involved additional expenditure of about ₹ 2.81 lakh crore, including fresh spending and adjustments through savings. She highlighted allocations for urban local bodies, fertiliser subsidy, defence and disaster management. Referring to the Union Budget 2026–27, she noted total expenditure of ₹53.47 lakh crore and India’s growth rate of about 7%, adding that around 25 crore people had been lifted out of poverty.
2. Shri Rajesh Ranjan Alias Pappu Yadav (Ind., Purnia, Bihar) stated that the Government’s ₹100 crore allocation for AI centres was insufficient and called for large-scale investment in hybrid schools combining traditional classrooms with digital infrastructure to reduce the rural digital divide and support the goals of the National Education Policy.
In the Rajya Sabha, Shri Mallikarjun Kharge (Leader of Opposition; INC, Karnataka) raised concerns in the House over the attack on Shri Farooq Abdullah in Jammu and Kashmir. He held the Central Government responsible for the deteriorating security situation and argued that revocation of Jammu and Kashmir’s statehood had transferred security control to the Union Home Ministry, demanding that the statehood be restored immediately.
1. Shri Jagat Prakash Nadda (Leader of the House; BJP, Gujarat) acknowledged that the attack on Shri Farooq Abdullah was a serious matter and assured the House that the Government would take all necessary steps to prevent such incidents, while criticizing the Opposition for politicizing the issue.
In the Rajya Sabha, Shri C.P. Radhakrishnan Ji (Chairman, Rajya Sabha) commenced the Question Hour.
1. Shri Sukhendu Sekhar Ray (AITC, West Bengal) asked whether the Government would consider further excavations at Pandua, Malda and Devi Kot in West Bengal. In response, Shri Gajendra Singh Shekhawat (Union Minister, Ministry of Culture; BJP, Jodhpur, Rajasthan) replied that excavation expenditure in the last 10 years has been more than double that of the previous Government’s decade and noted that among 135 ASI-protected monuments in West Bengal, entry fees are charged at only four.
2. Shri John Brittas (CPI(M), Kerala) raised concerns over attacks on minority cultural and heritage sites and demands to rename the Taj Mahal. In response, Shri Gajendra Singh Shekhawat (Union Minister, Ministry of Culture; BJP, Jodhpur, Rajasthan) clarified that protection of such sites falls under State Governments and that there is no proposal to change the name of the Taj Mahal.
3. Shri Mallikarjun Kharge (Leader of Opposition; INC, Karnataka) suggested excavation along the Bhima River and Krishna River, citing the likelihood of Buddhist sites. In response, Shri Gajendra Singh Shekhawat (Union Minister, Ministry of Culture; BJP, Jodhpur, Rajasthan) assured that excavations would be expanded and thanked him for acknowledging the return of the sacred Piprahwa relics of Lord Buddha after 127 years under the leadership of Hon’ble Prime Minister Shri Narendra Modi Ji.
In the Rajya Sabha, the discussion on the working of the Ministry of Rural Development resumed from yesterday.
1. Dr. Sangeeta Balwant (BJP, Uttar Pradesh) stated that ₹1,94,368.81 crore has been allocated for rural development in 2026–27. She highlighted achievements including 3.70 crore Houses under PMAY-G, sanitation improvements, benefits to women under Pradhan Mantri Ujjwala Yojana (PMUY), support to farmers through Pradhan Mantri Kisan Samman Nidhi (PMKSN), access to drinking water through Jal Jeevan Mission, and digital initiatives enabling farmers to track crop prices.
2. Shri Shaktisinh Gohil (INC, Gujarat) referring to the Mahatma Gandhi National Rural Employment Guarantee Act, he alleged that although ₹86,000 crore was allocated in 2025–26, the budget was reduced to about ₹30,000 crore after the VB-GRAMG Act, 2025. He also claimed that allocations for Jal Jeevan Mission, Rashtriya Gram Swaraj Abhiyan, and PMAY-G had been reduced.
3. Shri Imran Pratapgarhi (INC, Maharashtra) alleged that since 2014 the social atmosphere in villages has deteriorated, affecting harmony and mutual trust. He also criticised the implementation of schemes such as PMAY-G and stated that farmers are still struggling for fair prices and MSP.
The proceedings of Lok Sabha and Rajya Sabha were adjourned at 7:08 PM and 5:34 PM, on 12^th March, 2026, respectively, to reconvene at 11:00 A.M on Friday, 13^th March, 2026.

Subscribe now

I. Lok Sabha Proceedings:

The proceedings of the Lok Sabha commenced at 11:00 AM.
Shri Om Birla Ji (Speaker, Lok Sabha; BJP, Kota, Rajasthan) presided over the proceedings of the House. Amid disruptions by the Opposition, the House was adjourned till 12:00 PM.
On recommencement, Shri Om Birla Ji (Speaker, Lok Sabha; BJP, Kota, Rajasthan) addressed the House at the conclusion of the two-day debate on the No-confidence Motion, noting that it was the third such resolution in the history of the nation. He summarized the 12-hour discussion, praised India’s democratic traditions and commitment to freedom of expression, and stated that he had recused himself from presiding over the proceedings immediately after receiving the notice.
1. Referring to Shri Rahul Gandhi (Leader of Opposition; INC, Rae Bareli, Uttar Pradesh), Shri Om Birla Ji (Speaker, Lok Sabha; BJP, Kota, Rajasthan) stated that every member is allowed to speak in the House, but they must follow the Rules and Procedures of the Parliament. He cited precedents of previous ruling of speakers when they stopped speakers from presenting material without speaker’s permission citing speakers such as Smt. Renu Chakravarty (1958) and Shri S.M. Banerjee (1958).
2. On the issue of microphone closure, he stated that the Speaker has no direct mechanism to control microphones. He also referred to initiatives undertaken during his tenure, including the digitization of parliamentary work, capacity building, and translation in 22 languages, and noted that delegations from over 100 countries have visited the PRIDE Committee of the Lok Sabha. He concluded by urging members to uphold parliamentary traditions and constitutional morality.
The proceeding of the House was adjourned to reconvene at 2:00 PM with Smt. Sandhya Ray (BJP, Bhind, Madhya Pradesh) presiding over the Chair. She commenced the discussion on the Second Batch of Supplementary Demands of Grants for 2025-26.
1. Shri Jagdambika Pal (BJP, Domariyagunj, Uttar Pradesh) highlighted the importance of supplementary grants and stated that the Government had prepared the country to face global supply disruptions, particularly those affecting the Hormuz Channel. He stated that because of the West Asia war, crude oil prices had increased from $ 89 to $ 119 per barrel.
  1. He stated that because of the West Asia war, crude oil prices had increased from $ 89 to $ 119 per barrel, and that 80 crore people were provided 5 kg of free foodgrains. He mentioned the creation of an Economic Stabilization Fund to reduce the fiscal deficit and referred to ₹ 1,730 crore raised through sovereign bonds, and ₹3,788 crore sought for MSMEs.
  2. Further, he praised the Government for improvement in agricultural production and stated that every farmer of India today thanks the NDA Government for implementing the Swaminathan Committee recommendations. He also compared economic indicators, stating that nominal GDP increased from ₹ 113.55 lakh crore in 2014 to ₹ 357.14 lakh crore, forex reserves rose from $ 304 billion to $ 686 billion, and foreign investment increased from $ 308 billion to $ 748 billion.
2. Shri Shafi Parambil (INC, Vadakara, Kerala) raised concerns about an alleged LPG shortage due to the West Asia war. He accused the Government of creating “Cylinder crises” and ‘’Surrender Crises’‘. He stated that the economic realities of ordinary citizens were not reflected in macroeconomic indicators and cited wealth distribution statistics showing the concentration of income among the top earners. He also referred to issues related to MGNREGA employment, declining participation, and lack of creation of new work since January of this year.
3. Shri Ram Shiromani Verma (SP, Shravasti, Uttar Pradesh) stated that farmers continue to face difficulties and that allocations for rural development and MGNREGA were insufficient. He raised concerns about delayed payments under the scheme and suggested increasing Members of Parliament Local Area Development Scheme (MPLADS) allocations from ₹ 5 crore to ₹ 25–₹ 30 crore and exempting them from GST. He also demanded a caste-based census and highlighted infrastructure challenges in Shravasti and Balrampur, including flood-prone areas and poor road connectivity.
4. Shri Kirti Azad (AITC, Bardhaman–Durgapur, West Bengal) raised concerns about rising LPG prices, stating that a significant number of beneficiaries of free connections were unable to afford refills costing ₹ 1100–₹ 1200. He urged investment in alternative energy sources such as biogas. He also alleged that central funds due to West Bengal, including about ₹ 52,000 crore under MGNREGA and ₹ 24,000 crore under PMAY-G, had not been released.
Shri Om Birla Ji (Speaker, Lok Sabha; BJP, Kota, Rajasthan) paused the discussion on the Second Batch of Supplementary Demands for Grants for 2025-26 and invited Shri Rahul Gandhi (Leader of Opposition; INC, Rae Bareli, Uttar Pradesh) to speak on the alleged LPG shortage issue due to the West Asia war.
1. Shri Rahul Gandhi (Leader of Opposition; INC, Rae Bareli, Uttar Pradesh) raised concerns over the global energy situation, stating that the Israel-Iran conflict and the closure of the Strait of Hormuz, through which nearly 20% of global oil supply passes, could affect India’s energy security and lead to inflation. He said that disruptions could impact sectors dependent on energy supplies and highlighted the rise in LPG prices from about ₹ 500 in 2021 to around ₹ 1100–₹ 1200, stating that this is burdening the middle class and poorer sections. He further stated that India’s energy procurement decisions should remain independent and expressed concern over economic pressures on citizens.
  1. Further, he mentioned the relationship of the Shri Hardeep Singh Puri (Union Minister, Ministry of Petroleum and Natural Gas; BJP, Uttar Pradesh) with ‘Epstein’ referring to the Epstein Island Files Case.
  2. Hon’ble Speaker Shri Om Birla Ji (Speaker, Lok Sabha; BJP, Kota, Rajasthan) intervened and directed him to confine his remarks to the notified subject and follow parliamentary procedure.
2. In response, Shri Hardeep Singh Puri (Union Minister, Ministry of Petroleum and Natural Gas; BJP, Uttar Pradesh) stated that despite disruptions in the Strait of Hormuz, India’s crude supply remains secure due to diversification of imports from about 40 countries. He added that there is no shortage of petrol, diesel, ATF, kerosene or fuel oil and that supply chains are functioning normally. He further stated that the Government has prioritised domestic gas allocation to households, transport and essential sectors, while securing additional LNG supplies through alternative routes.
  1. Further, he remarked that the LPG sourcing has also been diversified to countries such as the US, Norway, Canada, Algeria and Russia and that domestic LPG production has increased by about 28% to ensure supply to about 33 crore households.
  2. He informed the House that the Government has introduced measures such as booking regulations, mobile authentication and stricter monitoring of distributors to prevent hoarding and ensure fair distribution. He concluded by stating that the Government is coordinating with states to ensure fair distribution and safeguard India’s energy security.
Amid disruptions, Shri Kiren Rijiju (Union Minister, Ministry of Parliamentary Affairs; BJP, Arunachal East, Arunachal Pradesh) stated that the Leader of Opposition had written to the Speaker seeking permission to raise the issue of LPG supply due to its seriousness. He said the Speaker allowed the matter to be discussed as a special case during the debate on Supplementary Demands for Grants and that the Government coordinated with the concerned Ministry for a statement by the Petroleum Minister. He urged Members to allow the House to proceed with the scheduled discussion in an orderly manner.
Following this, Shri Jagdambika Pal (BJP, Domariyaganj, Uttar Pradesh) resumed the discussion on the Second Batch of Supplementary Demands of Grants for 2025-26.
1. Smt. Lovely Anand (JD(U), Sheohar, Bihar) stated that the proposals involved gross additional expenditure of about ₹ 2,81,289.26 crore, including ₹ 2,01,142.96 crore in fresh spending and about ₹ 80,142.71 crore through savings and receipts. She highlighted allocations including about ₹ 30,000 crore for urban local bodies, ₹ 42,000 crore for fertilizer subsidy, ₹ 26,236 crore for defence and about ₹ 30,116.8 crore for disaster management, and expressed support for the demands. Referring to the Union Budget 2026–27, she stated that the total expenditure was about ₹ 53,47,315 crore, about 7.7% higher than the previous year. She noted India’s growth rate of around 7% and stated that about 25 crore people had been lifted out of poverty.
2. Shri Vishaldada Prakashbapu Patil (Ind., Sangli, Maharashtra) stated that the original Union Budget is about ₹ 48 lakh crore and that after interest payments the effective expenditure is around ₹ 30 lakh crore. On agriculture, he stated that its share in GDP has declined from about 35% in 1990–91 to around 16% despite about 46% of the population depending on it. He said ₹ 6,000 annual assistance to farmers is inadequate.
3. Shri Rajesh Ranjan Alias Pappu Yadav (Ind., Purnia, Bihar) stated that the Government’s allocation of ₹ 100 crore for AI centres was insufficient and emphasized the need for large-scale investment in hybrid schools integrating traditional classrooms with digital infrastructure.
  1. He also highlighted the strategic importance of the Kosi–Seemanchal region, urging direct subsidies for farmers instead of fertilizer companies, and called for greater support for alternative fertilizers and welfare programmes such as the Pradhan Mantri Garib Kalyan Yojana.
Consequently, the Lok Sabha was adjourned at 05:57 PM to reconvene at 11:00 A.M on Friday, 13^th March, 2026.

III. Rajya Sabha Proceedings:

The proceedings of the Rajya Sabha commenced at 11:00 AM.
Shri C.P. Radhakrishnan Ji (Chairman, Rajya Sabha) presided over the proceedings of the House, and Papers were laid on the Table.
Shri C.P. Radhakrishnan Ji (Chairman, Rajya Sabha) informed the House that the Business Advisory Committee has allocated a total of seven hours for consideration and passing of the Appropriation Bill related to the second and final batch of Supplementary Demands for Grants for 2025–26.
Shri. Mallikarjun Kharge (Leader of the Opposition; INC, Karnataka) raised concerns in the House over the attack on Shri Farooq Abdullah in Jammu and Kashmir. He held the central Government responsible for deteriorating security, arguing that revoking J&K’s statehood transferred security control to the Home Ministry. He strongly demanded that the statehood of Jammu & Kashmir be restored immediately.
1. Shri Jagat Prakash Nadda Ji (Leader of the House; BJP, Gujarat) acknowledged the attack on Shri Farooq Abdullah as a serious concern and assured the House that the Government would take all necessary steps to prevent such incidents. He, however, criticised the opposition for politicizing the matter and attempting to build a political narrative around the incident.
2. Shri Chowdry Mohammad Ramzan (J&KNC, Jammu and Kashmir) raised the matter of the attack on Chief Minister Shri Farooq Abdullah and questioned the security situation in the region. In response, Shri Ghulam Ali Khatana (BJP, Nominated) responded to the remarks made by Shri Chowdry Mohammad Ramzan and alleged that their leaders had promoted insurgency in Kashmir over the past 40 years.
Following this, Shri C.P. Radhakrishnan Ji (Chairman, Rajya Sabha) commenced the Question Hour.
1. Shri Sukhendu Sekhar Ray (AITC, West Bengal) questioned whether the Government would consider further excavation at Pandua, Malda and Devi Kot in West Bengal. In response, Shri Gajendra Singh Shekhawat (Union Minister, Ministry of Culture; BJP, Jodhpur, Rajasthan) stated that the excavation expenditure in the last 10 years has been more than double in comparison to the previous Government’s ten-year period. He further noted that out of 135 Archaeological Survey of India (ASI) maintained monuments of national importance in West Bengal, entry fees are levied at only four.
  1. Shri John Brittas (CPI(M), Kerala) raised concerns over increasing attacks on minority cultural and heritage sites and demands to rename the Taj Mahal, asking whether the Government had taken note. In response, Shri Gajendra Singh Shekhawat (Union Minister, Ministry of Culture; BJP, Jodhpur, Rajasthan) clarified that security of such sites falls under State Governments’ jurisdiction and that there is no proposal under consideration to change the name of the Taj Mahal.
2. Shri Gulam Ali Khatana (BJP, Nominated) asked whether 2 heritage buildings from the reign of Maharaja Ranbir Singh, a hospital building and Ranbir High School, are under ASI protection and whether any modifications are being considered. In response, Shri Gajendra Singh Shekhawat (Union Minister, Ministry of Culture; BJP, Jodhpur, Rajasthan) clarified that ASI neither carries out nor permits modifications to such protected structures.
3. Shri P. Sandosh Kumar (CPI, Kerala) alleged that the Minister had provided inaccurate data, questioning the relevance of five-year-old figures given the boom in the gig economy since 2022. He also asked what steps have been taken to register domestic workers on the e-Shram Portal. In response, Dr. Mansukh Mandaviya (Union Minister, Ministry of Labour and Employment; BJP, Porbandar, Gujarat) defended the data and stated that around 31 crore unorganised sector workers have been registered on the e-Shram portal, enabling the implementation of various social security schemes.
4. Shri Mallikarjun Kharge (Leader of Opposition, INC, Karnataka) suggested that excavation activities be undertaken along the Bhima and Krishna Rivers, citing the likely presence of Buddhism-related sites in those regions. In response, Shri Gajendra Singh Shekhawat (Union Minister, Ministry of Culture; BJP, Jodhpur, Rajasthan) assured that excavation activities would be expanded and expressed gratitude to Shri Mallikarjun Kharge (Leader of Opposition, INC, Karnataka) for acknowledging the return of the sacred Piprahwa relics of Lord Buddha after 127 years, under the leadership of Prime Minister Shri Narendra Modi Ji.
The Rajya Sabha reconvened at 2:03 PM. Shri Bhubaneswar Kalita (BJP, Assam) presided over the Chair and resumed the discussion from yesterday on the Working of the Ministry of Rural Development.
1. Dr. Sangeeta Balwant (BJP, Uttar Pradesh) highlighted the Government’s achievements since 2014 under Prime Minister Shri Narendra Modi Ji, citing construction of 3.70 crore rural Houses under PMAY-G, restoration of dignity for women through toilet construction and the transformative impact of Ujjwala Yojana on village women who earlier relied on firewood for cooking.
2. Shri Shaktisinh Gohil (INC, Gujarat) stated that about 68% of India’s population lives in villages, making rural development crucial. Referring to the MNREGA, he alleged that although ₹ 86,000 crore was allocated in 2025–26 budget, it was later reduced to about ₹ 30,000 crore after the VB-GRAM G Act, 2025. He further claimed that allocations for Jal Jeevan Mission, Rashtriya Gram Swaraj Abhiyan, and PMAY-G had been reduced. He also alleged that land allocations favoured companies linked to Gautam Adani, following which Shri Shivraj Singh Chouhan intervened stating the issue was irrelevant.
  1. Shri Surendra Singh Nagar (BJP, Uttar Pradesh) responded to Shri Shakti Sinh Gohil (INC, Gujarat) by referring to a 2013 report of the Comptroller and Auditor General of India (CAG) which highlighted wastage of about ₹ 5,700 crore under the previous Government. He stated that the VB–GRAM G Act, 2025 had been introduced to address such gaps and improve implementation.
3. Smt. Maya Naroliya (BJP, Madhya Pradesh) supported the Demands for Grants for the Ministry of Rural Development for 2026–27 and stated that the Ministry had been allocated ₹ 1,97,023 crore of budget, which is 46% higher than the revised estimates of the previous year. She referred to the restructuring of MNREGA into the VB-GRAM G under which the employment guarantee increased from 100 days to 125 days with an allocation of ₹ 95,692 crore, constituting about 40% of the Ministry’s budget.
  1. Furthermore, she also noted that ₹ 19,000 crore had been allocated for rural road connectivity under the Pradhan Mantri Gram Sadak Yojana (PMGSY), aiming to construct 62,500 km of roads connecting about 25,000 habitations. She also highlighted women’s empowerment initiatives and concluded by supporting the Demands for Grants.
4. Shri Imran Pratapgarhi (INC, Maharashtra) alleged that since 2014 the social atmosphere in villages has deteriorated, affecting harmony and mutual trust. He also criticised the implementation of schemes such as PMAY-G and stated that farmers are still struggling for fair prices and MSP. He concluded by stating that lack of basic facilities are forcing migration from villages to cities, leading to the neglect of rural areas.
5. Shri Ghanshyam Tiwari (BJP, Rajasthan) stated that early structured efforts toward rural development began after 1977 with programmes such as Antyodaya Yojana and Food for Work, while later Governments led by Shri Atal Bihari Vajpayee Ji introduced major initiatives like the Pradhan Mantri Gram Sadak Yojana and Sarva Shiksha Abhiyan.
The proceedings of Rajya Sabha were adjourned at 5:34 PM to reconvene at 11:00 A.M on Friday, 13^th March, 2026.

IV. Events Outside The Parliament :

Shri Rahul Gandhi (Leader of Opposition; INC, Raebareli, Uttar Pradesh) criticised the Hon’ble Prime Minister Shri Narendra Modi Ji, stating that while he is asking people not to panic, he himself appears concerned over issues such as the Adani case and the Epstein matter. He alleged that this is the reason the Prime Minister is not attending the House. He also joined INC leaders in a protest within the Parliament premises over reports of a nationwide shortage of LPG cylinders.
Shri Piyush Goyal (Union Minister, Ministry of Commerce and Industry; BJP, Mumbai North, Maharashtra) accused Shri Rahul Gandhi of violating parliamentary rules and acting irresponsibly, as during the discussion on the LPG shortage, despite being given time by the Speaker for LPG discussion. He intervened speaking about the relation of Epstein and Shri Hardeep Singh Puri and made baseless comments, defaming the country. Shri Hardeep Singh Puri (Union Minister, Ministry of Petroleum and Natural Gas; BJP, Uttar Pradesh) had already assured the nation that the situation was under control and that there was no need for panic.
Shri S. P. Singh Baghel (MoS, Ministry of Fisheries, Animal Husbandry and Dairying; BJP, Agra, Uttar Pradesh) stated that the protest by Shri Rahul Gandhi in Parliament may create confusion among the public and cause panic, despite the Hon’ble Prime Minister Shri Narendra Modi ji’s prior clarification on the gas issue.
Smt. Priyanka Gandhi Vadra (INC, Wayanad, Kerala) expressed skepticism over the Hon’ble Prime Minister Shri Narendra Modi ji’s assurance on the LPG supply, stating that she hopes he is correct but the situation suggests otherwise.
Shri Shashi Tharoor (INC, Thiruvananthapuram, Kerala) stated that an Indian-crewed vessel bound for Kandla had already been hit twice. He said that Iran should respect countries that have remained friendly and warned that innocent parties are being dragged into a conflict that is not theirs.
Smt. Rajani Patil (INC, Maharashtra) raised concerns over the attack on Shri Farooq Abdullah, a Z+ protectee, stating that it reflects serious security lapses and demanded strict action. She also referred to the past assassinations of Smt. Indira Gandhi Shri Rajiv Gandhi. She urged the Government to address the reported shortage of commercial LPG cylinders affecting households.
Shri P. Santhosh Kumar (CPI, Kerala) stated that the issue involving the Chief Election Commissioner of India concerns all Opposition parties and not just the TMC. He said that the Election Commission of India lacks a logical explanation on issues such as SIR, with cases arising in states including West Bengal and Kerala.
Smt. Dimple Yadav (SP, Mainpuri, Uttar Pradesh) stated that LPG and commercial gas prices are rising in Uttar Pradesh and alleged that shortages and black marketing are affecting households, restaurants and hotels, while accusing the Government of not acknowledging the problem.
Shri Manish Tewari (INC, Chandigarh, Chandigarh) stated that India’s key concern amid the Middle East conflict is energy security and the safe passage of oil tankers through the Strait of Hormuz. He urged the Government to ensure the protection of the 48-million Indian diaspora in the Gulf region and to safeguard India’s energy supplies as crude oil prices approach $ 100 per barrel.
Shri Sanjay Jaiswal (BJP, Paschim Champaran, Bihar) speaking on gas shortage assures there is no need to panic: India has over two months of petrol and diesel reserves, and 90% of gas from Oman ensures uninterrupted household supply.

The day’s proceedings combined political debate with substantive policy discussion across sectors. In the Lok Sabha, the government addressed concerns relating to fuel supply and energy security, emphasising diversification of crude imports and stable domestic supply chains. Meanwhile, discussions in the Rajya Sabha covered heritage conservation, labour welfare measures such as the e-Shram portal, and the ongoing review of rural development programmes. Together, the debates reflected Parliament’s role in examining fiscal decisions, assessing policy implementation, and addressing emerging economic and governance challenges.

Annexure I - Matters Raised Under Rule 377 In The Lok Sabha

Annexure II - Members Who Participated In The Discussion On Second Batch of Supplementary Demands of Grants for 2025-26 In The Lok Sabha.

Annexure III - Reports And Statements Presented In The Lok Sabha

Annexure IV - Matters Raised With Permission In The Rajya Sabha

Annexure V - Reports And Statements Presented In The Rajya Sabha

Annexure VI - Members Who Participated In the Discussion On Working of the Ministry of Rural Development In The Rajya Sabha

Annexure VII - Special Mentions In The Rajya Sabha

Parliamentary Proceedings for 11th March, 2026

Thu, 12 Mar 2026 07:14:44 GMT

Parliament convened on 11 March 2026 with proceedings in both Houses reflecting a mix of policy discussions and political debate. In the Lok Sabha, Question Hour focused on issues relating to India’s artificial intelligence ecosystem and railway infrastructure, with the government highlighting the country’s growing position in global AI rankings and ongoing infrastructure upgrades. The day’s central development, however, was the continuation of the debate on the No-Confidence Motion against the Speaker of the Lok Sabha, which saw members across parties discuss parliamentary procedure, institutional norms, and the functioning of the House.

I. Key Highlights Of The Proceedings

The proceedings of the Lok Sabha and Rajya Sabha commenced at 11:00 AM.
In the Lok Sabha, Shri Dilip Saikia (BJP, Darrang Udalguri, Assam) presided over the proceedings of the House and commenced the Question Hour.
In the Lok Sabha, Smt. Pratima Mondal (AITC, Jaynagar (SC), West Bengal) raised concerns regarding digital exclusion and questioned a reported incident where a Chinese robot (“Orion”) was showcased as an Indian innovation at an AI summit, asking about vetting mechanisms and whether India has globally competitive AI models. Shri Ashwini Vaishnaw (Union Minister, Ministry of Information and Technology; BJP, Odisha) replied that government took immediate action regarding the “Orion“ controversy by removing the responsible institution from the summit He further informed that India ranks among the top three in global AI rankings and highlighted “Sarvam” AI while mentioning the Indian-language foundational AI model.
In the Lok Sabha, Shri Ravindra Dattaram Waikar (SS, Mumbai North West, Maharashtra) questioned the ₹15,000 crore Konkan Railway track doubling project’s status and interim Train Collision Avoidance System (Kavach/TCAS). Shri Ashwini Vaishnaw (Union Minister, Ministry of Railways; BJP, Odisha) replied that slope and track strengthening have been undertaken, and a Detailed Project Report (DPR) for track doubling is under preparation.
1. Shri Kamakhya Prasad Tasa (BJP, Kaziranga, Assam) asked about measures to prevent accidents in areas where elephants cross railway tracks. In response, Shri Ashwini Vaishnaw (Union Minister, Ministry of Railways; BJP, Odisha) stated that AI-enabled cameras and optical fiber-based monitoring are being used, noting that about 2,000 km of tracks are affected by elephant movement.
In the Lok Sabha, Shri Ravi Shankar Prasad (BJP, Patna Sahib, Bihar), continuing the yesterday’s discussion on the No-Confidence motion against Shri Om Birla Ji (Speaker, Lok Sabha; BJP, Kota, Rajasthan), stressed the rarity of such motions and defended the Speaker’s impartiality and dignity.
1. Shri K.C. Venugopal (INC, Alappuzha, Kerala) argued, stating that the Opposition was forced to move the motion due to the curtailment of voices and lack of neutrality by the Speaker.
2. Shri Anurag Singh Thakur (BJP, Hamirpur, Himachal Pradesh) alleged that the leader of the Opposition violated house rules and directions. He coined “CCC” lacking Civic, Common, and Constitutional Sense, to describe their FOMO-driven disruption guided by foreign influences, including George Soros. Furthermore, he defended the Speaker, urging the LoP to reflect on Shri Jawaharlal Nehru and Shri Rajiv Gandhi’s own condemnations of obstructionism, and reaffirmed the treasury benches’ solidarity with the Speaker.
3. Shri Krishna Prasad Tenneti (TDP, Bapatla, Andhra Pradesh) argued against the motion, praising the Speaker’s conduct while highlighting parliamentary productivity, which has increased under Speaker Shri Om Birla Ji’s tenure. Further, he also highlighted the Speaker’s efforts in promoting digitisation in the Parliament, supporting women’s participation, and international representation.
4. Shri Tejasvi Surya (BJP, Bangalore South, Karnataka) rejected claims that the Leader of the Opposition was denied a chance to speak, stating it was due to non-compliance with parliamentary rules. He emphasized that no member is above House procedures. He further highlighted the 17^th Lok Sabha’s 124% productivity versus 89% currently.
5. Shri Asaduddin Owaisi (AIMIM, Hyderabad, Telangana) highlighted Executive interference, the need for a politically neutral Speaker, low parliamentary sittings, and the absence of a Deputy Speaker, proposing Shri Hanuman Beniwal (RLP, Nagaur, Rajasthan) for the post.
In the Lok Sabha, following this, Shri Jagdambika Pal (BJP, Domariyaganj, Uttar Pradesh), presiding over the House, invited Shri Amit Shah Ji (Union Minister, Ministry of Home Affairs; BJP, Gandhinagar, Gujarat) to address the no-confidence motion discussion against Speaker Shri Om Birla Ji (Speaker, Lok Sabha; BJP, Kota, Rajasthan).
1. Shri Amit Shah Ji (Union Minister, Ministry of Home Affairs; BJP, Gandhinagar, Gujarat) condemned the motion as unprecedented after nearly four decades, calling it harmful to parliamentary traditions. He defended the Speaker as a constitutional, impartial mediator, arguing that undermining his integrity weakens parliamentary democracy itself.
2. He further said that the Speaker, holding the 6th highest constitutional rank as the “Supreme Judge of legislative jurisprudence,” must maintain order when rules are broken, regardless of a member’s position.
3. He pointed out that the current Lok Sabha rules were established during Shri Jawaharlal Nehru’s tenure and challenged the Congress party regarding their past violations of these procedural norms. He further stated that Rule 375 empowers the Speaker to adjourn the House during serious disorder, and Rule 380 allows the removal of unparliamentary language to uphold debate standards and prevent setting a poor precedent.
4. Furthermore, he mentioned that No-Confidence motions against a Speaker are historically rare, having occurred only three times, in 1954, 1966, and 1987, and that all three motions were defeated by voice vote, highlighting the high threshold for such actions and alleging the opposition to wasting the time of the Parliament.
5. He dismissed claims of Opposition suppression as false propaganda, asserting that participation is governed by fairandestablished rules. He highlighted that the Speaker, despite technical defects in the Opposition’s original notice, allowed its correction and resubmission rather than outright rejection, prioritizing institutional integrity over procedural advantage, and also stepped aside voluntarily, maintaining the integrity of the post. Furthermore, he urged all disagreements to be expressed within parliamentary decorum.
In the Lok Sabha, Shri Jagdambika Pal (BJP, Domariyaganj, Uttar Pradesh) called on Dr. Mohammad Jawed (INC, Kishanganj, Bihar) spoke on the motion, but he discussed unrelated issues and demanded an apology from the Home Minister, with Opposition members raising slogans. Following this, the motion was then put to a voice-vote, and it was defeated due to a lack of majority support in favour of the motion.
In the Rajya Sabha, Shri C.P. Radhakrishnan Ji (Chairman, Rajya Sabha) commenced the Question Hour.
1. Shri Raghav Chadha (AAP, Punjab) questioned whether Gram Sabhas and Panchayats have become mere implementing agencies for Government schemes and asked if there is any binding mechanism to ensure their local decisions are actually enforced. In response, Shri S.P. Singh Baghel (MoS, Ministry of Panchayati Raj; BJP, Agra (SC), Uttar Pradesh) stated that Panchayati Raj is constitutionally decentralized, with Central Government supports them through policies, funding, training, and monitoring, adding that allocations rose from ₹65,000 crore (13^th Finance Commission) to ₹4.4 lakh crore (16^th Finance Commission).
2. Shri Sanjay Raut (SS-UBT, Maharashtra) asked about delays on the Kolhapur–Ratnagiri highway. In response, Shri Nitin Gadkari (Union Minister, Ministry of Road Transport and Highways; BJP, Nagpur, Maharashtra) attributed the delays to land acquisition, environmental and Coastal Regulation Zone (CRZ) clearances, and contractor issues, assuring completion of the four-lane highway within three months.
3. Dr. Fauzia Khan (NCP-SCP, Maharashtra) raised concerns about the growing number of transgender persons at traffic signals and asked about the Government’s response. Shri B.L. Verma (MoS, Ministry of Social Justice and Empowerment; BJP, Uttar Pradesh) replied that the 2011 Census recorded 4.87 lakh transgender persons, and from FY 2021-22 to FY 2025–26, the Government has conducted 1,087 awareness programmes sensitizing 61.9 lakh people on the issue, along with initiatives like the Support for Marginalized Individuals for Livelihood and Enterprise (SMILE) scheme, National Transgender Portal, and employment programmes.
In the Rajya Sabha, Dr. Dinesh Sharma (BJP, Uttar Pradesh) commenced the discussion on the Working of the Ministry of Rural Development.
1. Shri Sanjay Singh (AAP, NCT of Delhi) criticized the low budgetary allocation for rural development. He further raised concerns over the marginal budget increase in the Mahatma Gandhi National Rural Employment Guarantee Act (MGNREGA), citing fewer employment days and the 60:40 Centre-State funding burden.
2. Smt. Rekha Sharma (BJP, Haryana) supported the Demands for Grants for the Ministry of Rural Development, stating that ₹1.94 lakh crore was allocated in 2026–27 to advance Viksit Bharat 2047. She highlighted ₹95,000 crore for the Viksit Bharat–Guarantee for Rozgar and Ajeevika Mission (Gramin) (VG-RAM G) scheme. She further mentioned that ₹3.7 lakh crore was transferred to 11 crore farmers via PM-Kisan Direct Benefit Transfer (DBT). Furthermore, she also informed the House that 17.19 crore jobs were created between the years 2014 and 2024.
3. Smt. Priyanka Chaturvedi (SS-UBT, Maharashtra) raised concerns about the recruitment of rural women in AI data-labelling and content moderation, stating that over 70,000 workers are engaged in the sector, with some reportedly required to view up to 800 graphic videos daily without adequate psychological support.
4. Shri Sadanand Mhalu Shet Tanavade (BJP, Goa) stated that under Prime Minister Shri Narendra Modi Ji, rural development has become growth-focused under Viksit Bharat 2047. He highlighted the issuance of Survey of Villages and Mapping with Improvised Technology in Village Areas (SVAMITVA) property cards in 3.28 lakh villages, and 10.05 crore women mobilized into Self Help Groups (SHGs), along with DBT and digital initiatives.
The proceedings of Lok Sabha and Rajya Sabha were adjourned at 6:19 PM and 5:55 PM, on 11^th March, 2026, respectively, to reconvene at 11:00 A.M on Thursday, 12^th March, 2026.

The proceedings of the Lok Sabha commenced at 11:00 AM.
Shri Dilip Saikia (BJP, Darrang Udalguri, Assam) presided over the proceedings of the House and commenced the Question Hour.
1. Smt. Pratima Mondal (AITC, Jaynagar (SC), West Bengal) raised a question over a Chinese robot (‘Orion’) being misrepresented as an Indian innovation at the AI Impact Summit, where she questioned the vetting mechanisms. Further, she asked if India has globally competitive foundational AI models or computing capacity.
  1. In response, Shri Ashwini Vaishnaw (Union Minister, Ministry of Information and Technology; BJP, Odisha) replied in the context of digital inclusion and the expansion of internet access in the country. Regarding the controversy, he confirmed that the institution was removed from the summit and noted that India ranks among the global top three in the Stanford University AI rankings. Furthermore, responding to the last question, he cited ‘Sarvam’ as an indigenous Indian-language foundational model.
2. Shri Ravindra Dattaram Waikar (SS, Mumbai North West, Maharashtra) raised questions about frequent monsoon landslides and operational disruptions on the single-track Konkan Railway line. Referring to the Government’s 2023 estimate of ₹ 25,000 crore for track doubling, he asked about the status of the project, reasons for delay, and interim safety measures, including the implementation of the Train Collision Avoidance System (TCAS, Kavach) system.
  1. In response, Shri Ashwini Vaishnaw (Union Minister, Ministry of Railways; BJP, Odisha) said significant work has been done over the past decade to strengthen slopes and tracks. He informed the House that the Detailed Project Report (DPR) for track doubling is being prepared to increase capacity and speed. He also noted that the four shareholder states of Konkan Railway Corporation Limited, i.e., Maharashtra, Goa, Karnataka, and Kerala, must jointly contribute to support the project.
3. Shri Kamakhya Prasad Tasa (BJP, Kaziranga, Assam) asked about measures taken by the Railway Ministry to identify areas where wild animals, particularly elephants in Assam, move near railway tracks.
  1. In response, Shri Ashwini Vaishnaw (Union Minister, Ministry of Railways; BJP, Odisha) replied that several steps have been taken, including the use of AI-enabled cameras and optical fiber-based technology to monitor such areas. He noted that around 2,000 km of railway tracks are affected by elephant movement. He further mentioned that the Railways are open to further suggestions.
Amid disruptions, the proceedings of the House were adjourned to reconvene at 12:00 PM. Shri Dilip Saikia (BJP, Darrang Udalguri, Assam) presided over the proceedings. Following which, Papers and Reports were laid on the Table.
Shri Ravi Shankar Prasad (BJP, Patna Sahib, Bihar) continued the discussion on the No-Confidence Motion against Shri Om Birla Ji (Speaker, Lok Sabha; BJP, Kota, Rajasthan). He said such motions are rare in Indian parliamentary history and stressed that the dignity of the Speaker’s office should not be politicized, recalling Dr. B.R. Ambedkar’s emphasis on its high constitutional status. He defended the Speaker’s impartiality and criticized the Opposition for relying on unauthenticated sources and disrupting the proceedings of the House. Further, directing towards Shri Rahul Gandhi (LoP, INC, Rae Bareli, Uttar Pradesh), he stated that the Leader of the Opposition must act as a “shadow Prime Minister”.
1. Shri K.C. Venugopal (INC, Alappuzha, Kerala) justified the motion, stating that the Opposition was compelled to move it due to what he described as the curtailment of Opposition voices and lack of neutrality by the Chair. Further, he alleged that Shri Rahul Gandhi (LoP, INC, Rae Bareli, Uttar Pradesh), was repeatedly prevented from speaking and that parliamentary conventions were not being followed.
2. Shri Anurag Thakur (BJP, Hamirpur, Himachal Pradesh), accused the Opposition of conspiring over 12 years to defame India’s Constitution and democratic institutions, asserting that voters have repeatedly rejected such falsehoods. He defended the Speaker, noting cross-party satisfaction with his conduct, and alleged Shri Rahul Gandhi (LoP, INC, Rae Bareli, Uttar Pradesh) violated House Rules 349, 352, and Direction 115. He coined “CCC“ to describe Opposition members lacking Civic Sense, Common Sense, and Constitutional Sense, and accused them of FOMO-driven disruption guided by foreign influences like George Soros, and urged Gandhi to study Nehru’s and Rajiv Gandhi’s own condemnations of similar obstructionism. The treasury benches, he declared, stood firmly with the Speaker.
3. Shri Krishna Prasad Tenneti (TDP, Bapatla, Andhra Pradesh) also opposed the motion and expressed full support for Shri Om Birla Ji. Further, he praised the 97% productivity of the 17^th Lok Sabha under Shri Om Birla Ji, citing reforms such as digitisation of parliamentary records, AI-based search tools, multilingual translation, and biometric attendance brought by his support. He further highlighted the Speaker’s role in promoting women’s participation, strengthening parliamentary diplomacy, and representing India in International parliamentary forums, arguing that such efforts demonstrate his commitment to institutional integrity.
4. Shri Abhay Kumar Sinha (RJD, Aurangabad, Bihar) stated that the motion against Shri Om Birla Ji was not personal but reflected concerns that the Chair was under pressure from the Government. He termed the suspension of 140 Opposition members as a “black day for democracy” and alleged that Rules 373 and 374 of Procedure and Conduct of Business in Lok Sabha were being used to silence dissent.
5. Dr. Raj Kumar Sangwan (RLD, Baghpat, Uttar Pradesh) argued that the Chair had been fair, noting that during the 17^th Lok Sabha, the House functioned for 1,347 hours and the Opposition received 43.2% of speaking time. He also claimed the motion lacked majority support and accused the Opposition of targeting the Chair for political reasons.
6. Shri Charanjit Singh Channi (INC, Jalandhar, Punjab) compared the silencing of the Opposition by Om Birla Ji to Draupadi’s disrobing in the Mahabharata, arguing that suppressing voices undermines democratic dignity. He alleged that the Leader of the Opposition was prevented from speaking and criticised the Chair for favouring the Treasury benches.
7. Shri Tejasvi Surya (BJP, Bangalore South, Karnataka) rejected claims that the Leader of the Opposition was denied the opportunity to speak, asserting that the issue arose from refusal to follow House rules and procedures under Articles 105 and 118 of the Constitution. Referring to the Sengol as a symbol of adherence to Dharma, he argued that no member is above parliamentary rules. He also cited productivity data, noting that the 17^th Lok Sabha averaged 124% productivity compared to 89% in the current Lok Sabha, and claimed that rising suspensions were due to increased disruptions by the Opposition rather than bias from the Chair.
8. Shri Asaduddin Owaisi (AIMIM, Hyderabad, Telangana) criticised what he described as Executive interference in the Legislature, arguing that Parliament’s independence was being weakened. He emphasised that the Speaker’s office, ranked sixth constitutionally, must remain politically neutral to defend parliamentary autonomy. He also questioned the appointment of an IAS officer as Lok Sabha Secretary-General. He flagged the low number of parliamentary sittings. He further flagged the absence of a Deputy Speaker under Article 93 and proposed Shri Hanuman Beniwal (RLP, Nagaur, Rajasthan) for the post of Deputy Speaker. While criticising both the Government and Opposition, he stated he had not been consulted on the motion and would not follow the LoP’s agenda, concluding that the motion addresses symptoms rather than the root problem.
9. Following this, Shri Jagdambika Pal (BJP, Domariyaganj, Uttar Pradesh), who was presiding over the House, invited Shri Amit Shah Ji (Union Minister, Ministry of Home Affairs; BJP, Gandhinagar, Gujarat) to address the House on the motion of No-Confidence against Shri Om Birla Ji.
  1. Shri Amit Shah Ji addressed the No-Confidence motion against the Speaker, describing it as a regrettable and extraordinary event that occurred after nearly four decades. He emphasized that the Speaker belongs to the entire House rather than a single party, serving as the protector of every member’s rights. He noted that while the debate lasted 13 hours with participation from over 42 members, the motion itself unfortunately cast doubt on an office that symbolizes the collective trust of both the Treasury and Opposition benches.
  2. He noted that, as the head of the world’s largest democratic “Panchayat,” the Speaker’s integrity is crucial to India’s global reputation. He argued that questioning the Speaker’s impartiality undermines a constitutional mediator meant to remain above party lines and weakens the foundation of the world’s most prestigious democracy. He emphasized that the Speaker, holding the 6th highest constitutional rank as the “Supreme Judge of legislative jurisprudence,” must intervene to maintain order when procedures are disregarded, regardless of a member’s position, rejecting Opposition claims that the actions of the Speaker were politically motivated.
  3. He highlighted that No-Confidence motions against a Speaker are historically rare, having occurred only thrice, that is against Shri G.V. Mavalankar in 1954, Shri Sardar Hukam Singh in 1966, and Shri Balram Jakhar in 1987. He pointed out that all three motions were defeated by voice vote, reinforcing the high bar for such actions. Clarifying that the current Lok Sabha rules were established during Shri Jawaharlal Nehru’s tenure, he challenged the Congress party regarding their own history of violating these long-standing procedural norms.
  4. He emphasized that constitutional protections allow the Speaker to function without fear, with the primary duty of maintaining House decorum. Rule 375 grants the Speaker authority to adjourn the House during grave disorder, defending this as essential while condemning disruptions near the Prime Minister’s seat as wholly unacceptable. He further noted that Rule 380 allows expunging of unparliamentary language to uphold debate standards and prevent poor precedent.
  5. Addressing Article 94(c), he clarified that while removal is constitutionally possible, it is an emergency provision for extraordinary circumstances, not a routine political tool. He praised Shri Om Birla Ji for immediately stepping down on moral grounds, forfeiting his right to vote, noting that in three previous instances under Congress rule, Speakers continued to preside for 14 days despite such motions.
  6. He further stated that in handling the Opposition-backed No-Confidence motion, Speaker Shri Om Birla Ji chose institutional rectitude over procedural advantage. Shri Amit Shah Ji outlined that the original notice contained clear technical defects, including repeated references to “February 2025,” warranting rejection under parliamentary rules. Instead of dismissing it, Shri Om Birla Ji highlighted the defects himself and instructed the Lok Sabha Secretariat to allow corrective action, enabling the Opposition to withdraw and resubmit a corrected notice.
  7. He criticized the Opposition for a lack of seriousness, noting that despite a unanimous agreement to debate the motion on the 9^th March, 2026, they chose disruption over discussion. He argued that the motion was being misused, as over 80% of the Opposition’s speeches targeted the Government rather than the Speaker’s conduct, suggesting that other parliamentary rules should have been used to challenge the executive.
  8. Addressing the vacancy of the Deputy Speaker’s post, he exposed historical hypocrisy by noting that the Congress party previously denied the position to the Opposition by appointing their own members, such as Shri M. Ananthasayanam Ayyangar and Shri S.V.K. Rao. He asserted that leaving the seat vacant is a better alternative to the past practice of co-opting it for the ruling party.
  9. He defended the incumbent Speaker Shri Om Birla Ji’s record with productivity statistics, highlighting a 91% average across the 16^th, 17^th, and 18^th Lok Sabhas. He pointed out that one recent budget session even reached 118% productivity despite frequent disruptions, comparing this favorably to the averages seen during Indira Gandhi’s tenure.
  10. Defending the record of the speaker, Shri Amit Shah Ji outlined his achievements that have made the House more inclusive and efficient, such as extending Zero Hour to record lengths and ensuring all 78 newly elected women MPs had the opportunity to speak first in one session. He also highlighted the Speaker’s promotion of regional languages, which enabled speeches in 14 different languages supported by a full translation panel.
  11. He further detailed modernization efforts like “Digital Parliament 2.0,” which digitized 8,000 hours of records, and the transition to the new paperless Parliament building. He dismissed accusations of silencing the Opposition, noting that microphone control rests with the Chair, and contrasted current proceedings with the genuine suppression of voices during the 1975 Emergency.
  12. He countered the Opposition’s silencing claims with data showing Congress received disproportionately more speaking time per member than the BJP six times more in the 17^th Lok Sabha and twice as much in the 18^thLok Sabha, where the Opposition also received 45% of speaking time and 55% participation during Zero Hour.
  13. He highlighted the Opposition’s pattern of disengagement, skipping landmark legislative debates like Article 370, the Waqf Amendment Act, and the Citizenship Amendment Act, missing historic sessions such as the “Vande Mataram“ anniversary and Captain Shubhanshu Shukla’s felicitation, and the Leader of Opposition’s repeated international trips during critical sessions, including the Winter Session 2025 and multiple Budget Sessions since 2015. He argued that given the Lok Sabha’s no-video-conferencing policy, their claims of being silenced ring hollow against a clear record of voluntary absence.
  14. He criticized the Congress party for its past border security failures, noting the loss of 38,000 square kilometers to China and former Prime Minister Shri Jawaharlal Nehru’s weak response during the 1962 conflict. He also raised concerns about the Gandhi family’s recent ties to China, specifically mentioning a secret meeting with the Chinese Ambassador and donations to the Rajiv Gandhi Foundation that led to its license being cancelled. The debate ended in a loud protest because the Opposition claimed Shri Amit Shah Ji used improper words.
  15. To calm the situation, the Chairperson, Shri Jagdambika Pal, promised to listen to the members and review the official records. He firmly promised that if any unparliamentary words were found, he would remove them so they would not be part of the official record.
Shri Jagdambika Pal (BJP, Domariyaganj, Uttar Pradesh) called upon the mover of the Motion, Dr. Mohammad Jawed (INC, Kishanganj, Bihar), to deliver his address; however, he proceeded to speak on unrelated matters and repeatedly demanded an apology from Shri Amit Shah Ji, and the Opposition engaged in sloganeering on the floor of the House.
Following this, Shri Jagdambika Pal (BJP, Domariyaganj, Uttar Pradesh) put the motion to a vote. The motion was defeated by voice votes.
Consequently, the Lok Sabha was adjourned at 6:19 PM to reconvene at 11:00 A.M on Thursday, 12^th March, 2026.

The proceedings of the Rajya Sabha commenced at 11:00 AM.
Shri Harivansh Ji (Deputy Chairman, Rajya Sabha; JD(U), Bihar) presided over the proceedings of the House, and Papers were laid on the Table.
Following this, Shri Harivansh Ji (Deputy Chairman, Rajya Sabha; JD(U), Bihar) proceeded to discuss ‘Matters Raised with Permission’. (For Details refer Annexure IV)
1. Shri Raghav Chadha (AAP, Punjab) raised concerns over blocking incoming calls and SMS after a recharge expires, arguing that while stopping outgoing services may be reasonable, blocking incoming communication violates the right to communication.
2. Dr. Ashok Kumar Mittal (AAP, Punjab) raised concerns about Indian youth being misled by fraudulent immigration agents, fake jobs, and illegitimate foreign universities. He proposed three measures: a Global Safety Protocol for evacuating Indians from conflict zones, an Education Portal to verify foreign universities, and a Verified Portal for Foreign Employment.
3. Shri Neeraj Dangi (INC, Rajasthan) raised concerns over the large public expenditure on temporary infrastructure, leading to repeated and unnecessary costs. He urged the Government to develop a coordinated national and state-level policy to replace temporary arrangements with permanent facilities.
4. Shri Baburam Nishad (BJP, Uttar Pradesh) raised concerns about protecting the dignity of the President of India and upholding the spirit of the Constitution. He referred to an alleged breach of protocol during President Smt. Droupadi Murmu Ji’s visit to West Bengal, describing it as more than an oversight, he called it a constitutional offense. He argued that such deliberate disregard by a State Government violates the President’s authority and the oath of office.
Following this, Shri C.P. Radhakrishnan Ji (Chairman, Rajya Sabha) commenced the Question Hour.
1. Shri Raghav Chadha (AAP, Punjab) asked whether Gram Sabhas and Panchayats have today become merely implementing agencies for Central and State schemes. He further questioned if there is any binding mechanism in place to ensure that the decisions made by a Gram Sabha are actually implemented.
  1. In response, Shri. S. P. Singh Baghel (MoS, Ministry of Panchayati Raj; BJP, Agra (SC), Uttar Pradesh) said that Panchayati Raj is constitutionally decentralized and supported by the Central Government through policies, funding, and training. He noted that the actual transfer of powers depends on the States, and the Centre encourages greater devolution via reviews, workshops, and field visits. Furthermore, he added that financial allocations to Panchayats have increased significantly over the years, rising from ₹ 65,000 crore under the 13th Finance Commission to ₹ 2.97 lakh crore under the 15th Finance Commission, and further to ₹ 4.4 lakh crore under the 16th Finance Commission. He added that monitoring is done through the Panchayat Devolution and Development Index, with regular training. Furthermore, he stated that Punjab’s performance remains the lowest among comparable states, below half the national average.
2. Shri Ujjwal Deorao Nikam (BJP, Nominated) questioned whether the Ministry is planning structured training programs (planning, budgeting, administration) for Panchayat representatives in aspirational/tribal districts, given Maharashtra’s lead in digitization via e-Gram Swaraj.
  1. In response, Shri Rajiv Ranjan Singh (Union Minister, Ministry of Panchayati Raj; JD(U), Munger, Bihar) stated that Panchayati Raj is primarily a State subject, but the Central Government supports it with funding and capacity-building programs, including training in financial management, skill development, and women’s leadership, conducted in collaboration with select IIMs.
3. Shri Manoj Kumar Jha (RJD, Bihar) asked whether the Government plans regular module-based workshops for Panchayat representatives and mandates a library in every Panchayat.
  1. In response, Shri S.P. Baghel (MoS, Ministry of Panchayati Raj; BJP, Agra (SC), Uttar Pradesh) said that 1.53 crore individuals have been trained under the Rashtriya Gram Swaraj Abhiyan (RGSA) in the last four years, including over 30.9 lakh women representatives supported through digital platforms and partnerships with institutions like IIMs and IITs.
  2. Furthermore, on libraries, he said that it is primarily a State responsibility, but Panchayats can use untied funds, which are portions of Panchayat budgets that can be spent on local priorities, including libraries. He further noted that since 80% of Panchayats already have buildings, computers, and internet, they can also access e-libraries as a digital alternative.
4. Shri Sanjay Raut (SS-UBT, Maharashtra) sought an update on the Kolhapur–Ratnagiri highway project, particularly the slow progress between Hathkhamba and Ratnagiri. Shri Nitin Gadkari (Union Minister, Ministry of Road Transport and Highways; BJP, Nagpur, Maharashtra) stated that delays were due to land acquisition, environmental and CRZ clearances, and contractor issues, but work is progressing, and the project is expected to be completed within 3-4 months as a four-lane highway connecting western Maharashtra with the Konkan coast.
5. Dr. Fauzia Khan (NCP-SCP, Maharashtra) raised concerns about the increase in transgender persons at traffic signals and asked about the Government’s systematic response. Shri B.L. Verma (MoS, Ministry of Social Justice and Empowerment; BJP, Uttar Pradesh) said the 2011 Census recorded 4.87 lakh transgender persons and noted that from FY 2021-22 to FY 2025–26, 1,087 awareness programmes were conducted, sensitizing 61.9 lakh people on the issue, along with initiatives like the SMILE scheme, National Transgender Portal, and employment programmes.
6. Shri Tiruchi Siva (DMK, Tamil Nadu) asked about the workings of the Transgender Welfare Council and Garima Greh, noting that his Private Member’s Bill on transgender welfare had been substituted by the Government with its own bill on the subject.
  1. Shri B.L. Verma (MoS, Ministry of Social Justice and Empowerment; BJP, Uttar Pradesh) responded that the National Council for Transgender Persons has been established to advise the Government on policies and programs for transgender persons, while the Protection Cell addresses cases of harassment and rights violations, and the Welfare Board implements schemes to support their social, educational, and economic welfare. Further, he provided state-wise figures for Garima Greh.
7. Shri Pradip Kumar Varma (BJP, Jharkhand) asked about the Bharat Taxi initiative, its consumer benefits, and employment potential. In response, Shri Krishna Pal Gurjar (MoS, Ministry of Cooperation; BJP, Faridabad, Haryana) stated that Bharat Taxi empowers drivers as owner-partners (targeting youth/unemployed), offers cheaper services without intermediary commissions, and includes safety features (live tracking, Delhi Police integration). He further noted that 4 lakh drivers have been onboarded and operations have started in Delhi NCR, Ahmedabad, Rajkot, Somnath, and Dwarka.
The proceedings of Rajya Sabha were adjourned till 2:00 PM and was reconvened at 2:01 PM. Dr. Dinesh Sharma (BJP, Uttar Pradesh) presided over the Chair. He commenced a discussion on the Working of the Ministry of Rural Development.
1. Shri Sanjay Singh (AAP, NCT of Delhi) criticized the low allocation of 3.6% for rural development in the 2026–27 Budget, arguing it reflects an inadequate commitment to rural empowerment. He raised concerns about the Jal Jeevan Mission, alleging road damage during pipeline work and citing corruption and collapsed water tanks in Uttar Pradesh. Furthermore, on the Mahatma Gandhi National Rural Employment Guarantee Act (MGNREGA), he flagged the marginal budget increase (₹ 86,000–88,000 crore) and claimed employment never exceeded 50 days against the promised 100–125, while opposing the 40% financial burden shift to fiscally stressed states.
2. Smt. Rekha Sharma (BJP, Haryana) supported the Demands for Grants for the Ministry of Rural Development, stating that ₹ 1.94 lakh crore had been allocated for Rural Development in 2026–27 to advance the vision of Viksit Bharat 2047. She highlighted that ₹ 30,000 crore was earmarked for MGNREGA, ₹ 95,000 crore has been dedicated to Viksit Bharat–Guarantee for Rozgar and Ajeevika Mission (Gramin) (VB‑G RAM G) scheme, and ₹3.7 lakh crore had been directly transferred to 11 crore farmers through PM-Kisan Direct Benefit Transfer (DBT). She further mentioned additional allocations, including ₹ 5,264 crore for animal husbandry and fisheries, noting that fish production had reached 17.5 million tonnes, and ₹ 19,000 crore for the PM Gram Sadak Yojana. She also informed the House that 17.19 crore jobs had been created between 2014 and 2024.
3. Shri Tiruchi Siva (DMK, Tamil Nadu) raised concerns about the fuel and cooking gas shortage linked to the Iran–Israel–US conflict, stating that rising costs are affecting rural households. He also questioned the 60:40 funding structure of the VB-G RAM G scheme, noting that ₹ 95,000 crore has been allocated to it while only ₹30,000 crore has been allotted to MGNREGA, and pointed out that MGNREGA dues for Tamil Nadu remain pending. He further sought clarity on the transition from MGNREGA to VB-G RAM G, noting that the new scheme has not yet been notified, and asked how rural workers would sustain themselves during non-agricultural periods, particularly as states must bear 40% of the funding.
4. Smt. Priyanka Chaturvedi (SS-UBT, Maharashtra) raised concerns about the recruitment of rural women in AI data-labelling and content moderation, stating that over 70,000 workers are engaged in the sector, with some reportedly required to view up to 800 graphic videos daily without adequate psychological support. Further, she noted that 60% of the industry’s revenue goes to the United States while only 10% remains in India, and urged the Government to ensure transparency and worker protection.
5. Smt. Mahua Maji (JMM, Jharkhand) highlighted difficult rural conditions in Jharkhand, noting that agriculture is rain-dependent and livelihoods rely on MGNREGA. She stated that only 20 lakh of 73 lakh registered families received work in 2024–25, with workers averaging less than 50 days of employment. She criticized the 60:40 Centre–State funding ratio and delays in Pradhan Mantri Awaas Yojana (PMAY) housing, noting that the state launched Abua Awas Yojana to address housing needs, and urged the Centre to strengthen MGNREGA and support states better.
6. Shri Sadanand Mhalu Shet Tanavade (BJP, Goa) stated that under Prime Minister Shri Narendra Modi Ji’s leadership, rural development has shifted toward a growth-oriented model aligned with Viksit Bharat 2047. He highlighted the rise in the rural development budget from ₹ 87,765 crore (2016–17) to ₹ 2.73 lakh crore (2026–27), 3.7 crore houses built under PMAY-G, expansion of PMGSY roads, Survey of Villages and Mapping with Improvised Technology in Village Areas (SVAMITVA) property cards in 3.28 lakh villages, and mobilisation of 10.05 crore women into SHGs, along with DBT and digital inclusion initiatives.
7. Shri Manan Kumar Mishra (BJP, Bihar) highlighted that tap water connections under Jal Jeevan Mission increased from 3.23 crore households in 2019 to 15.74 crore in 2025. He noted that 96% of villages have achieved Open Defecation Free (ODF) Plus status under Swachh Bharat Mission, while 2.86 crore households were electrified under the Saubhagya scheme. He further stated that 2.93 crore houses have been completed under PMAY-Gramin against a target of 4.95 crore, with allocations rising from ₹ 15,000 crore in 2016-17 to ₹ 54,916.7 crore in 2026-27. Over 6.5 lakh km of roads have been built under PMGSY-I and II, while PMGSY-IV aims to construct 62,500 km of roads to connect 25,000 habitations by 2029. Furthermore, he stated that under Pradhan Mantri Janjati Adivasi Nyaya Maha Abhiyan (PM-JANMAN), 7,324 km of roads and 164 bridges have been sanctioned in tribal areas.
The proceedings of Rajya Sabha were adjourned at 5:55 PM to reconvene at 11:00 A.M on Thursday, 12^th March, 2026.

IV. Events Outside The Parliament:

Smt. Priyanka Gandhi Vadra (INC, Wayanad, Kerala) joined party leaders in protesting within the Parliament premises raising concerns over the nationwide commercial LPG cylinder shortage. She highlighted supply disruptions of LPG in households and demanded accountability from the Government on the matter.
Shri Kapil Sibal (Independent, Uttar Pradesh) welcomed the Supreme Court’s decision allowing passive euthanasia in the Harish Rana case, describing it as a historic judgment. He further noted that the ongoing war could create serious cross-sectoral problems and supported prioritizing domestic LPG supply over industries, though he added the Government lacked foresight in anticipating the crisis.
Shri Manish Tewari (INC, Chandigarh, Chandigarh) commented on the global energy situation amid tensions around the Strait of Hormuz, questioning the Government’s response and calling recent measures excessive. He urged a full parliamentary discussion on India’s energy security to address the potential impact of the maritime instability.
Shri Sanjay Kumar Jha (JD(U), Bihar) stated that increasing airfares under the pretext of a fuel surcharge is wrong and unacceptable. He urged the Ministry of Civil Aviation to investigate the rationale behind airlines planning to raise ticket prices.
Shri Darshan Singh Choudhary (BJP, Hoshangabad, Madhya Pradesh) stated that Prime Minister Shri Narendra Modi Ji is capable of handling any crisis and assured that the domestic situation is under control. He further added that India maintains sufficient supplies despite global oil dynamics.
Shri Manickam Tagore (INC, Virudhunagar, Tamil Nadu) stated that Prime Minister Shri Narendra Modi Ji’s visit to Kerala is politically motivated ahead of elections and urged him to instead address national issues within the Parliament. He further alleged that Opposition MPs were suspended to prevent them from exposing the one-sided conduct of Shri Om Birla Ji.
Shri V. Sivadasan (CPI(M), Kerala) alleged that the Union Government failed to properly consult the Kerala Government regarding the Prime Minister’s programme, claiming that decisions on the inauguration date, venue, and invitations were made unilaterally without involving state authorities.
Shri Sukanta Majumdar (BJP, Balurghat, West Bengal) criticized the AITC for questioning the Supreme Court and Election Commission over the Special Intensive Revision (SIR) of voter rolls in West Bengal. He stated that if they do not trust India’s institutions, they should contest elections in Pakistan or Bangladesh instead of challenging domestic democratic bodies.
Shri Anurag Singh Thakur (BJP, Hamirpur, Himachal Pradesh) alleged that the INC had, in the past, weakened the Election Commission of India by appointing people who were loyal to the congress party. He mentioned that because of this history, the Congress party was putting itself in an awkward position by lecturing others about protecting the Constitution and democratic institutions. He added that the Home Minister had already clarified the matter and accused the INC of creating an unnecessary spectacle.
Shri Ramdas Athawale (Union Minister, Ministry of Social Justice and Empowerment, RPI(ATWL), Maharashtra) said it is incorrect to claim that only Shri Rahul Gandhi is stopped in Parliament, adding that the Speaker intervenes whenever any member makes a wrong statement during discussions.
Shri Sudhakar Singh (RJD, Buxar, Bihar) said the Government is hiding the real situation regarding the LPG shortage and rising fuel costs. He linked the crisis to a failure of foreign policy and warned that the problem may worsen in the coming days.

The proceedings ultimately concluded with the No-Confidence Motion against the Speaker being defeated by voice vote, reaffirming the existing parliamentary leadership of the House. Alongside this debate, discussions in the Rajya Sabha addressed issues relating to Panchayati Raj institutions, infrastructure development, and rural governance, with ministers outlining government initiatives and programme outcomes. Together, the debates reflected the dual character of parliamentary functioning political contestation alongside ongoing scrutiny of policy and governance.

Annexure I - Matters Raised Under Rule 377 In The Lok Sabha

Annexure II - Members Who Participated In The Discussion On The Resolution Regarding Removal Of The Speaker in The Lok Sabha.

Annexure III - Reports And Statements Presented In The Lok Sabha

Annexure IV - Matters Raised With Permission In The Rajya Sabha

Annexure V - Reports And Statements Presented In The Rajya Sabha

Annexure VI - Members Who Participated In the Discussion On Working of the Ministry of Rural Development

Annexure VII - Special Mentions In The Rajya Sabha

Note on Cabinet Decisions - 10th March 2026

Wed, 11 Mar 2026 11:02:21 GMT

On 10^th March 2026, the Union Cabinet, chaired by Prime Minister Shri Narendra Modi Ji, approved several major policy and infrastructure decisions spanning water supply, railways, highways, and aviation infrastructure. These decisions are aimed at strengthening connectivity, improving infrastructure, and accelerating economic development across multiple states.

I. Declaration Of Madurai Airport As An International Airport

The Union Cabinet, chaired by the Prime Minister Shri Narendra Modi ji has approved the proposal to declare Madurai Airport in Tamil Nadu as an International Airport.
Madurai Airport, situated in the historic temple city of Madurai, is among the oldest airports in the state. It functions as a key aviation hub for Southern Tamil Nadu and plays an important role in facilitating tourism and pilgrimage, contributing significantly to the region’s economic development.
Granting international status to Madurai Airport is expected to strengthen regional connectivity, boosttrade and tourism, and accelerate economicgrowth in the region. The move will also help attract international pilgrims and business travellers, in line with Madurai’s rich cultural heritage and historical significance.

II. Extension Of Jal Jeevan Mission (JJM) Up To 2028

Union Cabinet approved extension of the Jal Jeevan Mission (JJM) till December 2028 with a restructured implementation framework called JJM 2.0
Total outlay increased to ₹ 8.69 lakh crore, with Central assistance raised to ₹ 3.59 lakh crore (an increase of ₹ 1.51 lakh crore from the earlier allocation).
The mission will shift focus from infrastructure creation to sustainable service delivery, ensuring long-term rural drinking water supply systems.
A national digital framework, “Sujalam Bharat”, will be introduced to digitally map water supply systems and assign each village a unique “Sujal Gaon / Service Area ID.”
Gram Panchayats and Village Water & Sanitation Committees (VWSCs) will play a greater role through “JalArpan” for certification and handover of completed water schemes.
Villages will celebrate “Jal Utsav” annually to promote community participation and ensure maintenance of water infrastructure.
Tap water coverage increased from 3.23 crore rural households (17%) in 2019 to about 15.8 crore households (81.6%) currently.
The programme aims to provide tap water connections to all 19.36 crore rural households by December 2028

III. Railway Multitracking Projects In West Bengal And Jharkhand

The Cabinet Committee on Economic Affairs (CCEA) approved two railway multitracking projects with a total cost of ₹ 4,474 crore.
The projects include:
1. Sainthia–Pakur 4th railway line
2. Santragachi–Kharagpur 4th railway line.
These projects will increase the Indian Railways network by about 192 km across 5 districts in West Bengal and Jharkhand.
The expansion will enhance mobility, reduce congestion, and improve operational efficiency and service reliability of the railway network.
Around 5,652 villages with a population of about 1.47 crore will benefit from improved connectivity.
The projects are aligned with the PM Gati Shakti National Master Plan to improve multimodal connectivity and logistics efficiency.
Rail connectivity to major tourist destinations such as Bolpur-Shantiniketan, Tarapith, Nandikeshwari Temple, and Bhimbandh Wildlife Sanctuary will improve.
The routes are crucial for freight transport (coal, cement, steel, foodgrains, etc.) and will enable additional freight capacity of 31 MTPA.
Environmental benefits include a reduction of oil imports by about 6 crore litres and CO₂ emissions by 28 crore kg, equivalent to planting 1 crore trees.
The projects are targeted for completion by 2030-31.

IV. Greenfield Connectivity to Jewar International Airport

The Cabinet Committee on Economic Affairs, chaired by Prime Minister Narendra Modi Ji, has approved the revised capital cost of ₹ 3,630.77 crore for the construction of a Greenfield Connectivity corridor linking Jewar International Airport with the Delhi–Mumbai Expressway via the Delhi–Faridabad–Ballabhgarh–Sohna spur, under the Hybrid Annuity Mode in Uttar Pradesh and Haryana.
The 31.42 km corridor will provide direct high-speed connectivity from South Delhi, Faridabad, and Gurugram to Jewar International Airport, improving logistics and economic activity across the National Capital Region.
The corridor will intersect the Eastern Peripheral Expressway, Yamuna Expressway, and the Dedicated Freight Corridor, enabling multimodal connectivity and unlocking the full potential of the Jewar Airport–Delhi–Mumbai Expressway corridor, while supporting sustainable urban development in Faridabad.
About 11 km of the project will be developed as an elevated highway, forming a key link between the DND–Ballabhgarh Bypass and Jewar International Airport, while connecting to the Delhi–Mumbai Expressway. The corridor passes through areas planned for high-density development under the Faridabad Master Plan 2031.
The additional cost of the elevated section is ₹ 689.24 crore, of which the Government of Haryana will contribute ₹ 450 crore.

V. 4-Laning of Badnawar–Petlawad–Thandla–Timarwani Highway (NH-752D)

The Cabinet Committee on Economic Affairs (CCEA) approved the construction of a 4-lane corridor on NH-752D from Badnawar–Petlawad–Thandla–Timarwani in Madhya Pradesh.
The project will cover 80.45 km with a total capital cost of ₹ 3,839.42 crore. It will provide direct connectivity from Ujjain to the Timarwani interchange on the Delhi–Mumbai Expressway (DME).
Upgradation will improve road geometry and enable vehicle speeds of 80–100 kmph, reducing travel time by about 1 hour. The corridor is the shortest route connecting Gujarat and Maharashtra to Ujjain, improving interstate traffic movement. It will facilitate traffic during the Simhastha Kumbh Mela 2028 in Ujjain.
The project passes through tribal regions of Dhar and Jhabua districts, supporting regional infrastructure and economic development.
It will improve connectivity to industrial hubs like Indore, Pithampur, Ujjain and Dewas, reducing logistics costs and boosting trade.
The project includes 6 major bridges, 34 minor bridges, and multiple underpasses, with a 24-month construction period under Hybrid Annuity Mode (HAM).

Parliamentary Proceedings for 11th March, 2026

Wed, 11 Mar 2026 07:08:29 GMT

Parliament convened on 10 March 2026 with proceedings in both Houses reflecting a mix of legislative debate, policy discussion and parliamentary oversight. In the Lok Sabha, Question Hour focused on agricultural policy, with the government highlighting long-term gains in farm output and food security since the Green Revolution era. The day’s central political development was the introduction of a resolution seeking the removal of the Speaker under Article 94 of the Constitution, which triggered an extended debate on parliamentary procedure and the functioning of the House. Meanwhile, the Rajya Sabha took up questions related to consumer grievance redressal and India’s dependence on imported Active Pharmaceutical Ingredients (APIs), alongside broader discussions on environmental policy and rural development initiatives.

I. Key Highlights of The Proceedings

The proceedings of the Lok Sabha and Rajya Sabha commenced at 11:00 AM.
In the Lok Sabha, Smt. Sandhya Ray (BJP, Bhind (SC), Madhya Pradesh) commenced the proceedings of the House with Question Hour.
1. Dr. Nishikant Dubey (BJP, Godda, Jharkhand) sought information regarding the schemes implemented between 2014 and 2026 to increase farmers’ income and ensure job security in the agricultural sector. In response, Shri Shivraj Singh Chouhan (Union Minister, Ministry of Agriculture and Farmers Welfare; BJP, Madhya Pradesh) informed that food grain production had increased from 74 million tonnes in 1966–67 to about 357 million tonnes, with rice production crossing 15 crore tonnes and total agricultural output reaching about 369 million tonnes, while pulses production rose from 19 to 25.68 million tonnes, milk production reached 229 million tonnes, and fish production 19.5 million tonnes, expressing confidence that India would emerge as a global food basket.
Amidst continuous sloganeering in Lok Sabha, the proceedings of the House were adjourned till 12:00 PM.
In Lok Sabha, Dr. Mohammad Jawed (INC, Kishanganj, Bihar) moved a resolution seeking the removal of the Speaker from office.
1. He alleged that the Speaker prevented the Leader of the Opposition and other Opposition members from speaking, made unwarranted allegations against women MPs, and allowed the suspension of Opposition MPs for raising public issues while ruling party members were not reprimanded for derogatory remarks against former Prime Ministers, contending that such actions reflected a partisan approach and undermined the impartial functioning of the House.
2. Shri Asaduddin Owaisi (AIMIM, Hyderabad, Telangana) raised a point of order that the Speaker does not have the authority to preside over the proceedings and the House should first reach a consensus on who should preside over.
3. Shri Kiren Rijiju (Union Minister, Ministry of Parliamentary Affairs; BJP, Arunachal West, Arunachal Pradesh) referred to the ruling already given by the Chair regarding Rule 95(2) and stated that the Chairperson had earlier clarified the matter and issued a clear direction.
After matters raised under Rule 377, discussion commenced on a Resolution for the removal of the speaker of the House under Article 94 of the Constitution.
1. Shri Gaurav Gogoi (INC, Jorhat, Assam) referred to Article 95(2) and Article 96 of the Constitution and the judgment in Nabam Rabia v. Union of India (2016) to question how Shri Jagdambika Pal was chosen to preside over the discussion in the absence of a Deputy Speaker, stressing that the Speaker must maintain independence, objectivity and impartiality.
2. Shri Amit Shah Ji (Union Minister, Ministry of Home Affairs; BJP, Gandhinagar, Gujarat) replied that the Opposition was misinterpreting the word “preside” and added that while the Speaker could not preside over the proceedings in the House, the office can not be vacant.
3. Shri Kiren Rijiju (Union Minister, Ministry of Parliamentary Affairs; BJP, Arunachal West, Arunachal Pradesh) criticized the Opposition for moving the resolution, citing former Prime Minister Shri Rajiv Gandhi’s view that repetitive objections against the Speaker should not be raised and recalling that Jawaharlal Nehru had described a 1954 resolution against Shri G. V. Mavlankar as “a vicious thing” and a misuse of intelligence, adding that criticism of the Speaker ultimately reflects upon the members themselves.
  1. He stated that the resolution against Shri Om Birla Ji (BJP, Kota, Rajasthan) was procedurally defective and argued that portraying the Speaker as aligned with the Government undermines democratic ethos, highlighting that during Shri Birla Ji’s tenure the 17^th Lok Sabha recorded 97% productivity and the 18^th Lok Sabha 93.33% productivity, with initiatives such as digitization and the creation of 64 Parliamentary Friendship Groups.
  2. He further stated that 321 supplementary questions were asked by NDA members and 364 by Opposition members, and that 56% of the 1,835 Zero Hour issues in the 18th Lok Sabha were allotted to the Opposition, asserting that this demonstrated the Speaker’s impartiality while criticizing attempts to question the office under Article 122.
  3. He questioned the alleged targeting of the Army by the Leader of the Opposition and recalled Shri Rahul Gandhi’s (LoP; INC, Rae Bareli, UP) 2017 visit to China during the Doklam standoff for which he said an apology was still pending, and criticized P. Chidambaram for allegedly failing to avenge the 2008 Mumbai attacks.
4. Smt. Mahua Moitra (AITC, Krishnanagar, West Bengal) criticised the continued vacancy of the Deputy Speaker’s post under Articles 93 and 95, alleging misuse of Rule 374A and mass suspensions of opposition MPs, including about 117 in the 17^th Lok Sabha and 8 in the 18^th Lok Sabha. She also alleged that the Opposition had been prevented from raising issues through adjournment motions, including matters relating to the U.S. trade deal, Chinese border developments and the Epstein files.
5. Shri Chirag Paswan (Union Minister, Ministry of Food Processing Industries; LJP, Hajipur, Bihar) criticized the No-confidence Motion, stating that the Opposition had brought it without any substantive issues and had been disrupting Parliament while misleading the public on matters such as the Citizenship Amendment Act, reservations, SIR and alleged vote theft, and he expressed his opposition to the motion.
In the Rajya Sabha, Shri C.P. Radhakrishnan Ji (Chairman, Rajya Sabha) commenced the Question Hour, and the following questions were raised.
1. Shri Vivek K. Tankha (INC, Madhya Pradesh) while expressing the concern over high pendency rate in consumer forum inquired how the Government plans to address it. In response, Shri Pralhad Joshi (Union Minister, Ministry of Consumer Affairs; BJP, Dharwad, Karnataka) stated that while the appointment issue sub judice the disposal rates had improved, with 3,402 cases filed and 4,908 disposed of in 2025 (144%) and 276 filed and 577 disposed of in the first two months of 2026 (209%), highlighting initiatives such as the e-Daakhil platform, Consumer Helpline with a 48-hour response, and the Central Consumer Protection Authority, and added that vacancies would be filled once court-related issues are resolved.
2. Shri Sukhendu Sekhar Ray (AITC, West Bengal) asked the Government the reasons for India’s continued high dependence on China for importing active pharmaceutical ingredients (APIs), noting that imports from China had exceeded ₹ 29,000 crore in the last financial year. In response, Shri Jagat Prakash Nadda Ji (Union Minister, Ministry of Health and Family Welfare; BJP Gujarat) stated that India’s API imports rose from ₹36,229 crore (2022–23) to ₹39,214 crore (2024–25) with China accounting for 70–74%, but noted that exports of bulk drugs (₹41,493 crore) exceed imports, and highlighted the ₹6,940 crore PLI scheme for bulk drugs and ₹15,000 crore PLI scheme for pharmaceuticals to boost domestic manufacturing and reduce import dependence.
Shri C.P. Radhakrishnan Ji (Chairman, Rajya Sabha) resumed the discussion on working of the Ministry of Environment, Forest and Climate Change.
1. Shri Bhupender Yadav (Union Minister, Ministry of Environment, Forest and Climate Change; BJP, Alwar, Rajasthan) stated that under the Prime Minister’s leadership India has pursued development with environmental balance, highlighting that protected areas increased from 757 in 2014 to 1,134 in 2026, covering 1,87,162.19 sq. km compared to 1,68,838.37 sq. km in 2014.
  1. He noted the introduction of several waste management and environmental protection rules, including those for electronic waste, construction and demolition waste, solid waste management, fly ash disposal, used oil, contaminated sites, Extended Producer Responsibility, End-of-Life Vehicles (2025), and amendments to Battery Waste Management Rules (2025), and stated that hazardous waste from the Union Carbide site in Bhopal had been disposed of.
  2. He further highlighted initiatives such as the national eco-mark certification system for timber, the National Green Mission supporting afforestation over 1,71,345 hectares, and the Species Recovery Programme covering endangered species like the Red Panda, Clouded Leopard etc.
  3. He stated that under the Cheetah Reintroduction Programme, 20 cheetahs were brought to India and the population has grown to over 50, while programmes such as Project Tiger, Project Elephant, Project Lion, Project Dolphin, Project Gharial and Project Sloth Bear have been expanded.
  4. Addressing concerns about the Aravalli hills, he stated that the committee examining the issue had been constituted by the Supreme Court and highlighted initiatives such as the Green Aravalli Project and the Aravalli Green Wall Project aimed at restoring ecosystems across 29 districts.
In Rajya Sabha, thereafter Shri C.P Radhakrishnan Ji (Chairman, Rajya Sabha) commenced the discussion on the workings of the Ministry of Rural Development.
1. Dr. K. Laxman (BJP, Uttar Pradesh) stated that strong villages are essential for achieving Viksit Bharat by 2047. He noted that the Ministry has been allocated ₹ 1,97,023 crore, marking a 4% increase over the previous year and about 40% higher than during the UPA period. He also highlighted increased allocations for Pradhan Mantri Awas Yojana (23% rise) and Pradhan Mantri Gram Sadak Yojana (nearly 8% increase).
2. Shri Mohammed Nadimul Haque (AITC, West Bengal) raised concerns about the functioning of the Ministry of Rural Development, alleging that the Centre had withheld ₹ 52,000 crore under MGNREGA, leaving 59 lakh workers in West Bengal unpaid since March 2022, and criticised the 60:40 funding pattern, the 60-day off-period in employment schemes, and Aadhaar-based payment systems.
3. Smt. Sudha Murty (Nominated) praised rural initiatives such as the Lakhpati Didi scheme, under which 2 crore women have already achieved “Lakhpati” status out of the 3-crore target. She also advocated for a climate-resilient circular rural economy, citing examples like Modhera, Gujarat with 24/7 solar power and Oonthurai (Tamil Nadu) generating income through wind energy sold to the grid.
The proceedings of Lok Sabha and Rajya Sabha were adjourned at 7:32 PM and 5:54 PM, 10^th March, 2026, respectively, to reconvene at 11:00 A.M on Wednesday, 11^th March, 2026.

The proceedings of the Lok Sabha commenced at 11:00 AM.
Smt. Sandhya Ray (BJP, Bhind (SC), Madhya Pradesh)commenced the proceedings of the House with Question Hour amidst heavy sloganeering and disturbance caused by the members of opposition.
1. Dr. Nishikant Dubey (BJP, Godda, Jharkhand) sought information regarding the schemes implemented between 2014 and 2026 to increase farmers’ income and ensure job security in the agricultural sector. In response, Shri Shivraj Singh Chouhan (Union Minister, Ministry of Agriculture and Farmers Welfare; BJP, Madhya Pradesh) stated that the Government has set three key national targets: ensuring food security for the country, guaranteeing job security and fair prices for farmers, and promoting the production of nutritious food grains.
2. He informed that food grain production increased from 74 million tonnes in 1966–67 to about 357 million tonnes, with rice production crossing 15 crore tonnes, while total agricultural output rose to about 369 million tonnes. He further stated that pulses production increased from 19 to 25.68 million tonnes, milk production reached 229 million tonnes and fish production 19.5 million tonnes, expressing confidence that India will emerge as a global food basket.
Amidst continuous sloganeering in Lok Sabha, the proceedings of the House were adjourned at 11:34 AM to reconvene at 12:00 PM.
The proceedings of the House recommenced at 12:01 PM with papers laid on the table.
Dr. Mohammad Jawed (INC, Kishanganj, Bihar) moved a resolution seeking the removal of the Speaker from office. He alleged that the Speaker prevented the Leader of the Opposition in Lok Sabha and other Opposition members from speaking and made unwarranted allegations against women MPs. He further stated that Opposition MPs were suspended for raising public issues while ruling party members were not reprimanded for derogatory remarks against former Prime Ministers. He contended that these actions showed a partisan attitude and undermined the rights of Members. He argued that such conduct threatened the impartial functioning of the House.
1. Points of order were raised by Shri K. C. Venugopal (INC, Alappuzha, Kerala), Shri Asaduddin Owaisi (AIMIM, Hyderabad, Telangana), and Shri Saugata Roy (AITC, Dum Dum, West Bengal), but were rejected by the Chairperson.
2. Shri Asaduddin Owaisi (AIMIM, Hyderabad, Telangana) stated that when a motion to remove the Speaker is under discussion, the Speaker does not have the authority to preside over the proceedings. He further pointed out that since no Deputy Speaker had been appointed and the person in the Chair had the approval of the Speaker, the House should first reach a consensus on who should preside over the proceedings before taking up the motion for debate.
3. In response to the point raised by Shri Asaduddin Owaisi (AIMIM, Hyderabad, Telangana), Shri Kiren Rijiju (Union Minister, Ministry of Parliamentary Affairs; BJP, Arunachal West, Arunachal Pradesh) referred to the ruling already given by the Chair regarding Rule 95(2) and stated that the Chairperson had earlier clarified the matter and issued a clear direction, but alleged that the same issue was raised again by him despite the ruling already having been delivered.
4. Following this, a vote was taken and as more than 50% of members supported the motion, permission was granted to move the Resolution.
Matters under Rule 377 were laid on the Table of the House.
Thereafter, discussion commenced on the Resolution for the removal of the speaker of the House under Article 94 of the Constitution.
1. Shri Gaurav Gogoi (INC, Jorhat, Assam) referred to Nabam Rabia v. Union of India (AIR 2016 SC 3209) and emphasized that the Speaker must maintain independence, objectivity, and impartiality. Referring to Article 96 of the Constitution, he questioned how it was determined who will preside over this discussion amongst the Panel of Chairman and how it was determined that Shri Jagdambika Pal (BJP, Domariyaganj, Uttar Pradesh) will preside over the discussion.
  1. Shri Amit Shah Ji (Union Minister, Ministry of Home Affairs; BJP, Gandhinagar, Gujarat) intervened to say that the powers of the Speaker remained valid even during an election. He stated that the Opposition was misinterpreting the word “preside” adding that while the Speaker could not preside over the proceedings in the House, the office can not be vacant.
  2. Shri Gaurav Gogoi (INC, Jorhat, Assam) resumed and stated that as per the Article 95(2) of the Constitution, in case of absence of Deputy Speaker, the House shall determine which person shall act as speaker. He further stated that as mentioned by Shri K.C. Venugopal (INC, Alappuzha, Kerala), there had been three previous motions against the Speaker where the Deputy Speaker was present, whereas the present Government had not conducted an election for the Deputy Speaker. He also quoted Prime Minister Shri Narendra Modi Ji (BJP, Varanasi, Uttar Pradesh) describing Parliament as a “temple of democracy” and cited Dr. B.R. Ambedker, and stated that constitutional morality requires impartiality and the speaker is the custodian of the rights of all the members of the house, in his address while referring to the impartial behaviour of former Speakers Shri G.V. Mavlankar and Shri Somnath Chatterjee.
  3. Shri Kiren Rijiju (Union Minister, Ministry of Parliamentary Affairs; BJP, Arunachal West, Arunachal Pradesh) objected that the discussion had moved beyond the decided subject, while Shri Amit Shah Ji (Union Minister, Ministry of Home Affairs; BJP, Gandhinagar, Gujarat) stated that ministers are obligated to intervene when the discussion deviates from the topic.
  4. Shri Gaurav Gogoi (INC, Jorhat, Assam) further stated that the LoP was interrupted while raising issues relating to a prominent businessman allegedly under investigation by the U.S. Department of Justice, the India–USA trade deal, and alleged links to the Epstein files. He also stated that rulings regarding authentication were disrupted by members of the Treasury Benches.
  5. He then stated that the Leader of Opposition was interrupted 20 times, including while speaking on trafficking of women and children, alleging the microphone was used to silence him and citing a similar incident involving Shri Shashi Tharoor (INC, Thiruvananthapuram, Kerala) on 19^th February 2026. He quoted Smt. Sushma Swaraj and Pt. Jawaharlal Nehru who referred to the Speaker as the symbol of the nation’s democracy. He further alleged partial treatment toward female MPs and concluded that restricting reference to a book by an Indian General amounted to restricting democratic expression.
2. Shri Kiren Rijiju (Union Minister, Ministry of Parliamentary Affairs; BJP, Arunachal West, Arunachal Pradesh) opposed the resolution against the Speaker and stated that no Member of Parliament is above the Constitution or the authority of the Chair. He emphasized that members require permission from the Speaker even to speak in the House. He noted that, in accordance with Articles 94(c) and Rules 200 and 203 of the Rules of Procedure and Conduct of Business in Lok Sabha, a protest had been registered against the resolution. Referring to Shri Gaurav Gogoi (INC, Jorhat, Assam), he remarked that he had been engaged in electoral politics ten years prior to Gogoi and asserted that it is his duty as the Minister of Parliamentary Affairs to intervene in parliamentary proceedings when necessary.
  1. Citing Article 122 of the Constitution of India, he stated that the decisions and proceedings of the Speaker cannot be challenged in any court of law, except in matters relating to disqualification.
  2. He explained that while the Westminster Parliamentary Model operates on the principle of “once a Speaker, always a Speaker”, India follows a modified approach where the Speaker does not resign from his or her political party and may contest elections again.
  3. He also referred to statements by Shri Rahul Gandhi (LoP; INC, Rae Bareli, UP) claiming the right to speak in the House, and clarified that such participation is subject to the Speaker’s permission. He further explained that under Rule 115(a), members must submit their names in advance to speak in Parliament; however, the Speaker retains discretionary authority to allow any member to speak without prior notice.
  4. Addressing concerns regarding the absence of a Deputy Speaker and ongoing disqualification proceedings, he cited Rule 389, stating that the Speaker has the authority to decide on any procedural matter. He recalled an incident involving former LoP Shri Lal Krishna Advani Ji, who had reprimanded members of his own party when they entered the well of the House and moved toward the Treasury benches, and remarked that his party had never resorted to acts such as tearing papers and throwing them at the Speaker.
  5. Shri Kiren Rijiju (Union Minister, Ministry of Parliamentary Affairs; BJP, Arunachal West, Arunachal Pradesh) observed that after nearly forty years a resolution had been introduced to remove the Speaker, and he criticized the Opposition for allegedly ignoring the principles espoused by their own leaders. He cited former Prime Minister Shri Rajiv Gandhi, stating that repetitive objections against the Speaker should not be raised repeatedly. Recalling a 1954 resolution against Shri G. V. Mavlankar, he quoted Pt. Jawaharlal Nehru, who had described such attempts as “a vicious thing” and a “gross misuse of intelligence.” Pt. Nehru had also remarked that whatever is said against the Speaker ultimately reflects back upon the members themselves.
  6. He stated that members across the House were saddened by the resolution against Shri Om Birla Ji (BJP, Kota, Rajasthan). He further claimed that the notice against the Speaker had procedural defects and that Shri Birla Ji himself had advised opposition members on correcting it. He argued that portraying the Speaker as belonging to the Government undermines democratic ethos.
  7. He highlighted the achievements of Speaker Om Birla Ji’s tenure, stating that the highest number of Question Hours and matters under Rule 377 had been conducted during this period. He also credited Shri Birla Ji with significant digitization initiatives that made parliamentary functioning largely paperless. He noted that 64 Parliamentary Friendship Groups with other countries had been established during Birla’s tenure.
  8. Shri Kiren Rijiju (Union Minister, Ministry of Parliamentary Affairs; BJP, Arunachal West, Arunachal Pradesh) further stated that the 17^th Lok Sabha recorded 97% productivity, while the 18^th Lok Sabha recorded 93.33% productivity. He iterated that NDA members asked 321 supplementary questions, while Opposition members asked 364, which demonstrates the Speaker’s impartiality. In 18^th Lok Sabha, he stated that 1,835 issues were raised during Zero Hour, of which 56% were allotted to Opposition members which clearly indicate the Speaker’s support for the Opposition.
  9. He criticized the Opposition for allegedly attacking constitutional posts and institutions, particularly the office of the Speaker. Reiterating Article 122 of the Constitution of India, he argued that the Opposition cannot question the Speaker’s rulings within parliamentary proceedings.
  10. He stated that during the 18^thLok Sabha the Leader of the Opposition had spoken only twice and had frequently travelled during the session. He also referred to an incident in which the Leader of the Opposition hugged the Prime Minister in Parliament and later winked in the House, and remarked on the use of expressions such as “yaar” and the term “colleague” while referring to the Vice President. He further made a light-hearted suggestion that Smt. Priyanka Vadra should be made the Leader of the Opposition instead of Shri Rahul Gandhi.
  11. Shri Kiren Rijiju (Union Minister, Ministry of Parliamentary Affairs; BJP, Arunachal West, Arunachal Pradesh)questioned the alleged targeting of the Army by the Leader of the Opposition. He also recalled that in 2017 Rahul Gandhi had visited China during the Doklam standoff, and stated that an apology for that visit was still pending. Further he criticized Shri P. Chidambaram for allegedly failing to avenge the 2008 Mumbai attacks.
3. Shri Krishna Prasad Tennati (TDP, Bapatla (SC), Andhra Pradesh) while presiding the Chair reiterated that the discussion must take place within the confines of Rule 202 and in accordance with the resolution placed before the House.
4. Shri Rajeev Rai (SP, Ghosi, Uttar Pradesh) questioned the switching off of microphones in the House while responding to remarks by Shri Kiren Rijiju (Union Minister, Ministry of Parliamentary Affairs; BJP, Arunachal West, Arunachal Pradesh). He referred to concerns about China’s advances in Arunachal Pradesh and stated that opposition demands for discussions on U.S. developments and Delhi air pollution were ignored in previous sessions, alleging diminished impartiality and curtailed independence of the Speaker under the present Government.
5. Smt. Mahua Moitra (AITC, Krishnanagar, West Bengal) cited the first No-confidence Motion against Shri G.V. Mavalankar and noted Pt. Jawaharlal Nehru’s support for greater time for the opposition. She alleged that no adjournment motion had been permitted under the present Government.
  1. Referring to Articles 93 and 95, she stated that previous motions against the Speaker were presided over by the Deputy Speaker, but the post had remained vacant for seven years. She criticized the use of Rule 374A, alleging its misuse and referring to the mass suspension of around 100 opposition MPs in December 2023 by Shri Om Birla Ji (BJP, Kota, Rajasthan). After she used the term “criminally complicit,” the Chair directed that the word “criminally” be expunged.
  2. She further alleged that about 120 MPs had been suspended, including 117 in the 17^th Lok Sabha and 8 in the 18^th Lok Sabha, all from the opposition. She contrasted this with earlier tenures, stating that only five MPs were suspended during the speakership of Shri Somnath Chatterjee (2004–2009), and referred to the periods of Smt. Meira Kumar (2009–2014) and Smt. Sumitra Mahajan (2014–2019). The Chair clarified that members are suspended by the House, not personally by the Speaker.
  3. She also highlighted the decline in Bills referred to Parliamentary Standing Committees, stating that about 60% and 71% of Bills were referred during the 14^th and 15^th Lok Sabha, compared with 27% in the 16^th Lok Sabha and about 16% in the 18^th Lok Sabha. She concluded by alleging that the opposition had been prevented from raising issues through adjournment motions, including matters relating to the U.S. trade deal, Chinese border developments, and the Epstein files.
6. Shri T. R. Baalu (DMK, Sriperumbudur, Tamil Nadu) supported the No-confidence Motion, alleging that the ruling party had ignored issues relating to national security. He also reminded the Speaker of his earlier remarks that the House should function through consensus and that the presiding officer must remain and appear completely impartial in conducting proceedings.
7. Shri Lavu Sri Krishna Devarayalu (TDP, Narasaraopet, Andhra Pradesh) opposed the motion, recalling Shri G.M.C. Balayogi was the last TDP Speaker and the first Dalit to hold the post. He described the motion as a “spectacle, anarchy and hypocrisy,” alleging it was moved for publicity. He praised Shri Om Birla Ji (BJP, Kota, Rajasthan) for conducting proceedings during COVID-19 and achieving 97% productivity in the 17^th Lok Sabha. He cited the Andhra Pradesh Reorganisation Act, 2014, stating it was passed on 18^th February, 2014 despite rejection by the Andhra Pradesh Legislative Assembly.
8. Shri Rajiv Ranjan Singh (Union Minister, Ministry of Panchayati Raj; JD(U), Munger, Bihar) opposed the No-confidence Motion, calling it pointless and alleging it was brought to appease the Leader of the Opposition and pressure the Speaker. He stated that Shri Om Birla Ji (BJP, Kota, Rajasthan) had reprimanded both opposition and Government members when necessary. He noted 97% productivity in the 17^th Lok Sabha, 5,567 Zero Hour matters, 1,821 in the 18^th Lok Sabha, and 346 additional working hours, while alleging disruptions waste ₹9 crore daily. He also criticized the conduct of the Leader of the Opposition.
9. Shri Arvind Sawant (SS (UBT), Mumbai South, Maharashtra) supported the motion, stating it was brought with sadness due to the government’s attitude, which he contrasted as focusing on “Mann Ki Baat” rather than “janata ki baat.” He remarked that the BJP had changed since 2014 and urged that Shri Om Birla Ji (BJP, Kota, Rajasthan) be free from government influence, drawing a comparison with the United Kingdom’s parliamentary practice.
10. Shri Shrikant Eknath Shinde (SS, Kalyan, Maharashtra) stated that his party opposed the No-confidence Motion and supported Shri Om Birla Ji (BJP, Kota, Rajasthan), asserting that interruptions were justified if statements were made against the country. He further stated that under the leadership of Prime Minister Shri Narendra Modi Ji India had signed several Free Trade Agreements and that the Prime Minister had received the highest civilian honours from 26 countries, while alleging that Shri Rahul Gandhi (LoP, INC, Rae Bareli, Uttar Pradesh) had spoken only twice between 2009 and 2014 but 36 times between 2014 and 2026, had less than 50% attendance in the Lok Sabha, had never introduced a Private Member’s Bill in 22 years of politics, and was often absent during important parliamentary discussions.
Shri Chirag Paswan (Union Minister, Ministry of Food Processing Industries; LJP(RV), Hajipur, Bihar) criticised the No-confidence Motion, stating that the opposition has brought it because it has no substantive issues to raise and accused the opposition of disrupting Parliament and misleading the public on issues such as the Citizenship Amendment Act, reservations, Special Intensive Revision and alleged vote theft and expressed his opposition to the motion.
Shri Nishikant Dubey (BJP, Godda, Jharkhand) opposed the No-confidence Motion against the Speaker. Referring to Article 93, he said Members have the authority to elect the Speaker and Deputy Speaker if both posts are vacant. He criticised the opposition, particularly Shri Rahul Gandhi, alleging that he makes statements abroad against Indian institutions such as the Election Commission and questioned the frequency and sponsorship of his foreign visits. He also accused the opposition of creating a negative narrative about the country.
The proceedings of the Lok Sabha were adjourned at 7:32 PM to reconvene at 11:00 A.M on Wednesday, 11^th March, 2026.

III. Rajya Sabha Proceedings :

The proceedings of the Rajya Sabha commenced at 11:00 AM with Shri C.P. Radhakrishnan Ji (Chairman, Rajya Sabha) presiding over the house.
Papers and Reports were laid on the table of the house. Following this, matters raised with permission were taken up.
Following this, Shri C.P. Radhakrishnan Ji (Chairman, Rajya Sabha) commenced the Question Hour.
1. Shri Ajit Kumar Bhuyan (Independent, Assam) asked whether the Government intended to revise and uniformly increase the wages and monthly honorarium of ASHA workers, highlighting that many workers in Assam had not received the full amount announced despite their crucial role under the National Health Mission.
  1. Shri Prataprao Ganpatrao Jadhav (MoS, Ministry of Health and Family Welfare; SS, Buldhana, Maharashtra) stated that ASHA workers receive task-based incentives under various health programmes, which are periodically revised, and that these incentives are provided in addition to their honorarium.
  2. Shri Abdul Wahab (IUML, Kerala) raised a supplementary question on the remuneration of ASHA workers, describing them as the backbone of India’s healthcare system. He noted that in states like Kerala, where the cost of living is higher, the current central base payment may not ensure a dignified livelihood. He asked whether the Government would consider a state-sensitive remuneration structure.
  3. Shri Jagat Prakash Nadda Ji (Union Minister, Ministry of Health and Family Welfare; BJP, Gujarat) replied that ASHA workers receive incentives and emoluments from both the Central and State Governments based on their activities. He added that they are also provided insurance, health coverage under Ayushman Bharat, and pension benefits under Government social security schemes.
2. Shri Vivek K. Tankha (INC, Madhya Pradesh) expressed concern over the high pendency of cases in consumer forums. He noted that pendency stands at 16,939 cases at the national level and over 5,80,000 at the state level, while data for district forums was not provided. He said that despite provisions requiring replies within 45 days and disposal of appeals within 90 days, delays and adjournments often extend cases to nearly a year. He also highlighted 560 vacancies at the district level and 79 at the state level and asked how the Government plans to ensure timely justice.
  1. Shri Pralhad Joshi (Union Minister, Ministry of Consumer Affairs; BJP, Dharwad, Karnataka) replied that appointments at the state and district levels are made by state Governments, while the Centre appoints members to the national commission. He said the Government has filed a review petition in the Supreme Court regarding appointment issues and the matter is sub judice. He added that disposal rates have improved in 2025 as 3,402 cases were filed and 4,908 disposed of (144%), and in the first two months of 2026, 276 were filed and 577 disposed of (209%). He also highlighted the e-Daakhil platform, the Consumer Helpline with 48-hour response, and the role of the Central Consumer Protection Authority in addressing issues like misleading e-commerce pricing, hidden charges, and subscription traps. He said vacancies will be filled once court issues are resolved.
3. Shri Sukhendu Sekhar Ray (AITC, West Bengal) inquired about the reasons for India’s continued high dependence on China for the import of active pharmaceutical ingredients (APIs), noting that imports from China had exceeded ₹29,000 crore in the last financial year, far higher than those from other countries.
  1. Shri Jagat Prakash Nadda Ji (Union Minister, Ministry of Health and Family Welfare; BJP Gujarat) replied that India’s API imports were ₹36,229 crore in 2022–23, ₹37,721 crore in 2023–24 and ₹39,214 crore in 2024–25, with China accounting for about 70%, 71% and 74% respectively, though India’s exports of bulk drugs and intermediates stood higher at about ₹41,493 crore compared with imports of ₹39,215 crore. He stated that to reduce import dependence the Government launched the ₹6,940 crore PLI scheme for bulk drugs (2020–2028–29) under which 48 projects for 33 bulk drugs have been approved with investments of about ₹4,814 crore, cumulative sales of ₹2,720 crore, exports of ₹520 crore, imports worth ₹2,192 crore avoided, employment for about 4,896 persons and incentives of ₹54.8 crore disbursed, along with another PLI scheme for pharmaceuticals (₹15,000 crore) to promote domestic manufacturing and self-reliance in APIs.
The proceeding of the house was adjourned at 1:00 PM to reconvene at 2:00 PM.
The proceedings of the house resumed at 2:00 PM with Shri C.P. Radhakrishnan Ji (Chairman, Rajya Sabha) in the Chair.
Papers and reports were laid on the table.
Following this Shri C.P. Radhakrishnan Ji (Chairman, Rajya Sabha) informed the House that although the discussion on the working of the Ministry of Environment, Forest and Climate Change had concluded and no further interventions were normally permitted, he allowed Shri Neeraj Dangi (INC, Rajasthan) to speak as a special exception on the request of the INC Chief Whip before the Minister’s reply. He clarified that the decision was a symbolic gesture to ensure Opposition participation and should not be treated as a precedent for future proceedings.
1. Shri Neeraj Dangi (INC, Rajasthan) said the Ministry of Environment, Forest and Climate Change faces major challenges in balancing development and environmental protection amid rising air pollution, deforestation and climate change. He highlighted the ecological importance of the Aravalli range, which stretches about 670 km from Gujarat through Rajasthan and Haryana to Delhi and prevents the spread of the Thar desert. He alleged that 31 of 128 hills have disappeared due to illegal mining and raised concerns over a proposal to define Aravallis only above 100 metres, which could exclude over 90% of mapped hills in Rajasthan, despite objections from the Forest Survey of India and the Central Empowered Committee. He stated that PM2.5 pollution causes over 17 lakh deaths annually in India, with cities like Delhi, Ghaziabad and Noida recording extremely high levels, and alleged that the National Clean Air Programme has not been effectively implemented.
2. Shri Bhupender Yadav (Union Minister, Ministry of Environment, Forest and Climate Change; BJP, Alwar, Rajasthan) thanked Members for the discussion and said that under the Prime Minister’s leadership the country has pursued development while maintaining environmental balance. He stated that the number of protected areas increased from 757 in 2014 to 1,134 in 2026, covering 1,87,162.19 sq. km compared to 1,68,838.37 sq. km in 2014.
  1. He further emphasised that rules were introduced for electronic waste, used oil, construction and demolition waste, solid waste management, fly ash disposal, contaminated sites, Extended Producer Responsibility for non-ferrous metal scrap, End-of-Life Vehicles (2025), and amendments to Battery Waste Management Rules (2025). Hazardous waste from the Union Carbide site in Bhopal has also been disposed of.
  2. He further stated that the Government introduced a national eco-mark certification system for timber, including Trees Outside Forest and chain-of-custody certification, to support farmers engaged in agro-forestry. He said the National Green Mission allocated ₹ 1,016 crore between 2015-16 and 2025, supporting afforestation over 1,71,345 hectares in 17 states and one Union Territory.
  3. He said the Species Recovery Programme now includes endangered species such as the Red Panda, Clouded Leopard, Arabian Sea Humpback Whale, Northern River Terrapin, Caracal, Sloth Bear and Gharial. He stated that 20 cheetahs were brought to India under the cheetah reintroduction programme and their numbers have grown to over 50. He added that the Government has expanded initiatives such as Project Tiger, Project Elephant, Project Lion, Project Dolphin, and launched Project Gharial and Project Sloth Bear.
  4. Addressing concerns about the Aravalli hills, he said the committee examining the issue was constituted by the Supreme Court and included experts from the Forest Survey of India, Central Empowered Committee, Geological Survey of India and Survey of India. He added that the Government had already initiated the Green Aravalli project.
3. Following this, Shri Pramod Tiwari (INC, Rajasthan) raised a point of order under Rule 238(2) of the Rules of Procedure and Conduct of Business in the Council of States. He alleged that Shri Bhupender Yadav (Union Minister, Ministry of Environment, Forest and Climate Change; BJP, Alwar, Rajasthan) had violated this rule by naming Shri Neeraj Dangi (INC, Rajasthan) and questioning the accuracy of his data. He urged the Chair to intervene, stating that the remarks breached parliamentary decorum.
4. Amid disruptions, the Shri C.P Radhakrishnan Ji (Chairman, Rajya Sabha) assured that the matter would be examined and appropriate action taken if necessary.
5. Shri Bhupender Yadav (Union Minister, Ministry of Environment, Forest and Climate Change; BJP, Alwar, Rajasthan) reaffirmed the Government’s commitment to protecting the Aravalli range, noting that the Supreme Court had appreciated the Green Aravalli Project. He said the Government would cooperate with the High-Power Committee (HPC) constituted by the Court to examine mining-related issues. He also highlighted the Aravalli Green Wall Project, aimed at restoring the ecosystem and increasing forest cover across 29 districts.
  1. He further stated that the Government has addressed all environmental concerns raised by the National Green Tribunal (NGT) regarding the Great Nicobar project and submitted detailed responses. He emphasised that environmental protection remains a priority alongside development and said India aims to be a solution-provider in the global climate crisis under the leadership of Prime Minister Shri Narendra Modi Ji. He highlighted initiatives such as “Ek Ped Maa Ke Naam” and Mission LiFE, which promote public participation in environmental conservation. Referring to the G20 theme “One Earth, One Family, One Future”, he said the Ministry of Environment, Forest and Climate Change is implementing policies in line with this vision and thanked the House for the opportunity to participate in the discussion.
Following this, Shri C.P Radhakrishnan Ji (Chairman, Rajya Sabha) commenced the discussion on the workings of the Ministry of Rural Development.
1. Dr. K. Laxman (BJP, Uttar Pradesh) supported the Demands for Grants for the Ministry of Rural Development for 2026–27, stating that strong villages are essential for achieving “Vikasit Bharat” by 2047 under the leadership of Prime Minister Shri Narendra Modi Ji. He noted that the Ministry has been allocated ₹1,97,023 crore, a 4% increase over the previous year and about 40% higher than during the UPA period. He highlighted increased allocations for key schemes, including a 23% rise for Pradhan Mantri Awas Yojana and nearly an 8% increase for Pradhan Mantri Gram Sadak Yojana. He said the VB-G RAM G scheme, replacing MGNREGA, guarantees 125 days of work, allows 30 days’ leave during peak farming, and ensures timely payments, with over ₹96,000 crore allocated.
2. Smt. Rajani Ashokrao Patil (INC, Maharashtra) argued that the ₹1,97,000 crore allocation for the Ministry of Rural Development in 2026–27, though substantial, represents only a 4% increase and may not adequately address inflation, unemployment, and the agricultural crisis. She criticised replacing MGNREGA with the VB-G RAM G scheme, noting that while ₹ 95,692 crore was allocated and 125 days of work promised, the average employment over the past decade was only 48 days per family. She called for wage rates linked to inflation, automatic unemployment allowances, better fund utilisation, and stronger support for Gram Panchayats.
3. Shri Mohammed Nadimul Haque (AITC, West Bengal) raised concerns about the functioning of the Ministry of Rural Development and alleged that the Centre has withheld ₹ 52,000 crore under MGNREGA, leaving 59 lakh workers in West Bengal unpaid since March 2022, despite the state earlier providing employment to 1.37 crore households. He highlighted the state’s “Banglar Bari” scheme, which has built houses for 32 lakh families with ₹ 38,400 crore, and said West Bengal has achieved 75% completion in PMAY-G and 93% in PMGSY. He criticised the 60:40 funding pattern, a 60-day off-period in employment schemes, and the Aadhaar-based payment system, stating three out of ten workers cannot access wages through it.
4. Dr. M. Thambidurai (AIADMK, Tamil Nadu) supported the discussion on rural development and stated that the AIADMK, under leaders such as M.G. Ramachandran, J. Jayalalithaa, and Edappadi K. Palaniswami, had implemented significant rural welfare initiatives in the state. He highlighted the Pradhan Mantri Gram Sadak Yojana (PMGSY), recalling that during the government of Atal Bihari Vajpayee, a petrol cess generated ₹ 20,000 crore, of which ₹ 10,000 crore was allocated for rural road development. He concluded by alleging that rural roads in Tamil Nadu are currently in poor condition and accused the DMK government of failing to properly utilize central funds for infrastructure maintenance.
5. Smt. Sudha Murty (Nominated) emphasised the principle “Bahujana Hitaya, Bahujana Sukhaya,” stating that India’s progress depends on the prosperity of its villages. She praised rural development initiatives, particularly the Lakhpati Didi scheme, noting that 2 crore women have already achieved “Lakhpati” status out of the 3-crore target, gaining economic independence. She also advocated a climate-resilient circular rural economy, citing examples like Modhera (Gujarat) using 24/7 solar power and Oonthurai (Tamil Nadu) generating income through wind energy sold to the grid.
6. Shri Ramji Lal Suman (SP, Uttar Pradesh) referring to MGNREGA, said that since its launch in 2005, workers rarely receive the promised 100 days of employment, often getting only around 50 days, and questioned the feasibility of the proposed 125 days under the VB-G RAM G scheme. He further raised concerns about 36,000 Rozgar Sevaks, stating that in Uttar Pradesh their ₹ 10,000 salary falls to ₹ 7,788 after deductions, that many have not been paid for 18 months, and cited the suicide of a worker in Agra after seven months without wages, urging the government to regularise their services and address their grievances.
7. Shri Surendra Singh Nagar (BJP, Uttar Pradesh) participated in the discussion on the working of the Ministry of Rural Development and stated that the government has significantly increased support for rural development since 2014 under the leadership of the Prime Minister. He noted that the Ministry’s budget has risen from ₹ 74,477 crore in 2013–14 to ₹ 1,97,023 crore, about 2.6 times higher. Referring to data from NABARD, he said consumption has increased in 76.6% of rural households, while 39.6% of families reported income growth within a year. He added that per capita rural consumption expenditure increased from ₹ 1,430 in 2011–12 to about ₹ 4,222 in 2023–24.
8. Shri Masthan Rao Yadav Beedha (TDP, Andhra Pradesh) supported the Demands for Grants for the Ministry of Rural Development on behalf of TDP leader and Andhra Chief Minister Shri N. Chandrababu Naidu and appreciated the government’s efforts to transform rural India. He noted that the proposed VB G-Ram G programme guarantees 125 days of employment, an increase from 100 days under MGNREGA, with an allocation of ₹ 95,692 crore for 2026–27, though the average employment in the past decade has been only about 45 days per household. He highlighted the impact of the Pradhan Mantri Gram Sadak Yojana (PMGSY) but pointed out that coastal regions of Andhra Pradesh face frequent road damage due to cyclones, floods, sea erosion, and saline conditions, suggesting a special coastal component under PMGSY Phase IV to support fishermen and the coastal economy.
The proceedings of the Rajya Sabha were adjourned at 5:54 PM to reconvene at 11:00 A.M on Wednesday, 11^th March, 2026.

IV. Events Outside The Parliament

Shri Manish Tewari (INC, Chandigarh, Chandigarh) commented on reports of LPG shortages affecting the hospitality sector and said that the conflict in West Asia could impact India’s energy security. He also criticized the recent ₹55 increase in LPG cylinder prices.
Smt. Priyanka Gandhi Vadra (INC, Wayanad, Kerala) said that many predictions made by Shri Rahul Gandhi had eventually proven to be correct, referring to concerns he had raised earlier over issues such as the reported commercial LPG cylinder shortage.
Shri Shashi Tharoor (INC, Thiruvananthapuram, Kerala) said the Middle East conflict has disrupted fuel supply, leading to rising oil prices and limited availability.
Shri Sanjay Jha (JD(U), Bihar) said that, responding to concerns over LPG shortages, the Government had clarified that there was no immediate crisis, that it was closely monitoring the situation, and that a committee had been constituted to review developments.
Shri Shashank Mani (BJP, Deoria, Uttar Pradesh) said that rising oil prices caused by a foreign war threatened energy security. He criticized the Congress and the Opposition for disrupting the House and wasting time meant for discussing the no-confidence motion, instead of focusing on national priorities.
Shri Giriraj Singh (Union Minister, Ministry of Textiles; BJP, Begusarai, Bihar) criticised Shri Rahul Gandhi (LoP, INC, Rae Bareli, Uttar Pradesh), accusing him of avoiding debate in Parliament while reacting to the Opposition’s walkout during External Affairs Minister Dr. S. Jaishankar’s statement on the West Asia conflict.
Shri Tejasvi Surya (BJP, Bangalore South, Karnataka) assured Karnataka, especially hoteliers, that the Government prioritized energy security by focusing on domestic consumption and ensuring adequate CNG and LNG supplies, citing commitments from the External Affairs Minister and the Petroleum and Natural Gas Minister.
Shri Saugata Roy (AITC, Dum Dum, West Bengal ) stated that the opposition will move an impeachment notice in the Rajya Sabha against Shri Gyanesh Kumar, Chief Election Commissioner.
Shri Manickam Tagore (INC, Virudhunagar, Tamil Nadu) said that the Congress party would join the discussion on the no-confidence motion against Speaker Shri Om Birla Ji (BJP, Kota, Rajasthan), claiming that he had lost neutrality.
Shri Manan Kumar Mishra (BJP, Bihar) said that the Opposition disrupted Parliament by targeting the Speaker or the Chief Election Commissioner, thereby wasting time and hindering smooth proceedings instead of focusing on productive work.
Shri Amarinder Singh Raja Warring (INC, Ludhiana, Punjab) said that INC MPs had been denied the right to speak and were suspended despite being elected representatives, highlighting what he described as visible discrimination in Parliament while they were trying to raise public concerns.
Shri Vamsi Krishna Gaddam (INC, Peddapalle (SC), Telangana) said that it was a sad day that a no-confidence motion had to be moved against the Lok Sabha Speaker. He accused the BJP of disrespecting the Constitution and demanded that Shri Om Birla Ji (BJP, Kota, Rajasthan) resign on moral grounds.
Shri I. S. Inbadurai (AIADMK, Tamil Nadu) said that Tamil Nadu Chief Minister Shri M. K. Stalin had spent much of his speech attacking the AIADMK and its leader Shri Edappadi K. Palaniswami, adding that such remarks showed that the DMK feared the AIADMK’s return to power in the upcoming elections.
Shri Naresh Mhaske (SS, Thane, Maharashtra) said that if the Opposition had brought a no-confidence motion against the Speaker, it should be discussed. He accused the Opposition of raising new issues daily and disrupting Parliament despite the Foreign Minister having already addressed the concerns.
Smt. Priyanka Chaturvedi (SS(UBT), Maharashtra) questioned the Government over reports of a commercial LPG shortage, citing complaints from hotels and manufacturing units, and demanded accountability, alleging the Centre relied on “jumlebaazi” instead of proper planning.
Shri Kirti Azad Jha (AITC, Bardhaman-Durgapur, West Bengal) said that Team India’s T20 World Cup win was a national achievement and was not tied to any religion or caste. He added that players like Sanju Samson had contributed as cricketers and that the victory was a matter of pride for all Indians.

The discussions across both Houses illustrated the range of policy and institutional issues currently before Parliament ranging from agricultural performance and pharmaceutical supply chains to environmental governance and rural development programmes. Government ministers used the debates to highlight improvements in agricultural production, policy efforts to strengthen domestic pharmaceutical manufacturing, and environmental initiatives including expansion of protected areas and wildlife conservation programmes. While the Lok Sabha witnessed contention around the motion against the Speaker, the broader proceedings reflected the continuing role of Parliament as a forum for scrutiny, policy articulation and institutional debate.

Annexure I - Matters Raised Under Rule 377 In The Lok Sabha

Annexure II - Reports And Statements Presented In The Lok Sabha

Annexure III - Members Who Participated In The Discussion On The Resolution Re: Removal Of Speaker—Under Consideration In The Lok Sabha

Annexure IV - Matters Raised With Permission In The Rajya Sabha

Annexure V - Reports And Statements Presented In The Rajya Sabha

Annexure VII - Members Who Participated In the Discussion on the Working of the Ministry of Rural Development in the Rajya Sabha

Annexure VIII - Special Mentions In The Rajya Sabha

Parliamentary Proceedings for 9th March, 2026

Tue, 10 Mar 2026 07:19:59 GMT

The Parliament convened on 9 March 2026 for the second phase of the Budget Session 2026. Discussions in both Houses reflected the external strategic challenges, particularly the evolving situation in West Asia with ongoing debates over parliamentary procedure, governance priorities, and economic implications.

During the proceedings, the Government outlined its diplomatic and administrative response to the West Asia conflict, emphasising the safety of nearly one crore Indians residing in the Gulf region, the stability of energy supplies, and the broader economic implications for India. External Affairs Minister Dr. S. Jaishankar informed the House that the Cabinet Committee on Security had reviewed the situation and that coordinated diplomatic efforts had already facilitated the safe return of approximately 67,000 Indian nationals from the region.

Alongside foreign policy developments, parliamentary proceedings also featured discussions on energy security, aviation safety, urban governance, and environmental policy, reflecting the wide range of governance issues currently before Parliament. At the same time, procedural confrontations, particularly surrounding the no-confidence motion against the Lok Sabha Speaker led to disruptions in the Lok Sabha, underscoring the continuing political contest between the Government and the Opposition.

Key Highlights Of The Proceedings

The proceedings of the Lok Sabha and Rajya Sabha commenced at 11:00 AM.
In the Lok Sabha, Shri Jagdambika Pal (BJP, Domariyaganj, Uttar Pradesh) congratulated the Indian team on winning the ICC Men’s T20 World Cup and informed the House about taking up the discussion on No Confidence Motion against the Speaker.
Dr. S. Jaishankar (Union Minister, Ministry of External Affairs; BJP, Gujarat) laid a statement and discussed the West Asia situation in the House underlining the following key points:
1. The Cabinet Committee on Security, under the chairmanship of the Prime Minister Shri Narendra Modi Ji met to assess the safety of Indians, regional stability, and economic implications.
2. Nearly 1 crore Indians are living and working in Gulf countries and that the region is vital for India’s energy security and trade of about US $200 billion
3. Indian missions in Tehran, Israel, UAE, Bahrain, Qatar, Kuwait, Saudi Arabia and Oman assisted stranded nationals and facilitated their return, with about 67,000 Indians having returned, while the Prime Minister and the Ministry of External Affairs remained in contact with regional leaders to ensure their safety.
In the Lok Sabha, Shri Kiren Rijiju (Union Minister, Ministry of Parliamentary Affairs; BJP, Arunachal West, Arunachal Pradesh) criticized the Opposition for submitting an Adjournment Notice concerning the No-confidence Motion against the Speaker, Shri Om Birla Ji, despite the original motion No-confidence Motion already pending, calling it irresponsible. Shri Jagdambika Pal (BJP, Domariyaganj, Uttar Pradesh) supported the observation, noting that the Opposition had moved the motion but was refusing to participate in the debate.
In the Lok Sabha, amidst continued disruptions and attempts to enter the Well of the House by the Opposition, Shri Jagdambika Pal (BJP, Domariyaganj, Uttar Pradesh) warned the Opposition of wasting public money and adjourned the House.
In the Rajya Sabha, Shri C.P. Radhakrishnan Ji (Chairman, Rajya Sabha) congratulated the Indian team on winning the ICC Men’s T20 World Cup.
Shri Mallikarjun Kharge (INC, Karnataka) raised Short Duration Discussion under Rule 176 on emerging challenges to India’s energy security. He noted that 55% of crude oil imports come from Russia and raised concerns over the safety of nearly 1 crore Indians in the region and rising domestic costs such as a ₹7 increase in cooking gas prices.
1. In response, Dr. S. Jaishankar (Union Minister, Ministry of External Affairs; BJP, Gujarat) noted that nearly 1 crore Indians live and work in the region and highlighting its importance for India’s energy supplies and trade worth about US $200 billion. He informed that the Government reviewed the situation with focus on the safety of Indians, regional security and economic implications, adding that diplomatic missions assisted stranded passengers, nearly 67,000 Indians have returned, facilities were extended to Iranian vessels at Kochi, and steps are being taken to ensure energy availability while protecting consumers.
In the Rajya Sabha, Shri C.P. Radhakrishnan Ji (Chairman, Rajya Sabha) proceeded to discuss Matters Raised with Permission.
1. Dr. Medha Vishram Kulkarni (BJP, Maharashtra) highlighted the rising number of road accidents in India, noting that over 1.8 lakh deaths occurred in 2024, including 15,400 deaths in Maharashtra and 320 in Pune alone.
2. Smt. Maya Naroliya (BJP, Madhya Pradesh) raised concerns about the high prevalence of anaemia among adolescent girls in the Narmadapuram region, stating that 55–60% were affected compared to about 65% nationally.
In the Rajya Sabha, Shri C.P. Radhakrishnan Ji (Chairman, Rajya Sabha) commenced the Question Hour.
1. Smt. Sangeeta Yadav (BJP, Uttar Pradesh ) asked how many registrations had been initiated on the UMEED portal and how many had been approved. She further asked what capacity-building measures had been undertaken before the launch of the portal. In response, Shri George Kurian (MoS, Ministry of Minority Affairs; BJP, Madhya Pradesh) stated that about 6,34,055 registrations had been initiated, 2,93,380 had been approved and 37,533 had been rejected. The minister further stated that extensive consultations and capacity-building exercises were undertaken before the launch of the UMEED portal.
2. Kum. Swati Maliwal (AAP, NCT of Delhi) asked why only 43 sq km New Delhi Municipal Council (NDMC) area was included under the Smart Cities Mission, while the larger Municipal Corporation of Delhi (MCD) area, affecting over 2 crore residents, faced issues like broken roads, garbage, lack of green belts, and traffic congestion, and whether the rest of Delhi would be included. In response, Shri Manohar Lal (Union Minister, Ministry of Housing and Urban Affairs; Bharatiya Janata Party, Karnal, Haryana) stated that the Mission was a one-time programme allowing states to select a small area for focused improvement, and Delhi had chosen the NDMC area.
3. Shri Milind Murli Deora (SS, Maharashtra) inquired about aviation safety amid the West Asia crisis and the Air India AI-171 crash investigation. In response, Shri Kinjarapu Rammohan Naidu (Union Minister, Ministry of Civil Aviation; TDP, Srikakulam, Andhra Pradesh) stated that DGCA issued advisories to airlines and passengers, ensuring safe operations, with around 90,000 passengers travelling in the past week despite disruptions. He added that the AI-171 investigation by the Aircraft Accident Investigation Bureau is ongoing, with the final report expected by year-end.
In the Rajya Sabha, Shri Harivansh Ji (Deputy Chairman, Rajya Sabha; JD(U), Bihar) proceeded with Discussion on the working of the MoEF&CC.
1. Shri Ghanshyam Tiwari (BJP, Rajasthan) highlighted the rise in the Ministry’s budget allocation from ₹2,430 crore in 2014 to ₹3,759.46 crore for 2026–27. He also highlighted achievements in wetland conservation, clean air initiatives, tribal land rights, large-scale tree plantation, CAMPA funding, the success of Project Tiger and progress in non-fossil fuel energy and other climate initiatives.
2. Shri Ayodhya Rami Reddy Alla (YSRCP, Andhra Pradesh) stressed shifting from isolated pollution control to integrated environmental protection for Viksit Bharat, noting 50% non-fossil fuel energy by 2025, environmental degradation costing 5.7% of GDP, and water scarcity affecting 6% of GDP. He called for a strategic review, stronger municipal governance, a circular economy transition, and other reforms.
3. Smt. Swati Maliwal (AAP, National Capital Territory of Delhi) highlighted Delhi as the world’s most polluted capital, calling for holistic planning, stronger public transport, stricter controls on stubble burning, thermal plants, construction dust and waste, autonomous Commission for Air Quality Management, coordinated Delhi-NCR action, and temporary relief like GST removal on air purifiers.
The proceedings of Lok Sabha and Rajya Sabha were adjourned at 3:08 PM and 5:47 PM, 9^th March, 2026, respectively, to reconvene at 11:00 A.M on Tuesday, 10^th March, 2026.

I. Lok Sabha Proceedings:

The proceedings of the Lok Sabha commenced at 11:00 AM.
Shri N.K. Premachandran Ji (RSP, Kollam, Kerala) commenced the proceedings of the House. He made obituary references for Dr. Ricky Andrew J. Syngkon, Smt. Sushila Tririya, Shri Devi Bux Singh, Shri Purnmasi Ram and Shri K.P. Unnikrishnan
The proceedings of the House were adjourned at 11:03 AM to reconvene at 12 PM.
The House was reconvened at 12 PM with Shri Jagdambika Pal (BJP, Domariyaganj, Uttar Pradesh) in the Chair, who congratulated the Indian Team for winning the T20 World Cup final against New Zealand. He noted that with this victory, the team had become the champion for the third time, marking a significant milestone for the country.
Following this, Shri Jagdambika Pal (BJP, Domariyaganj, Uttar Pradesh) informed the House that the discussion on the No-confidence Motion against the Speaker Om Birla Ji was listed in the day’s agenda and would be taken up according to the scheduled order of business.
Dr. S. Jaishankar (Union Minister, Ministry of External Affairs; BJP, Gujarat) laid a statement on the situation in West Asia and informed the House about the same. Some of the relevant highlights are as follows:
1. Regarding the ongoing conflict, he informed the House that the conflict beginning on 28^th February 2026 involved Israel and the United States against Iran, with attacks affecting Gulf states.
2. Regarding the Government’s response, he informed that India expressed concern over the conflict, urged restraint and de-escalation, and called for dialogue with all the parties involved while emphasizing respect for the sovereignty and territorial integrity of all states.
3. The Cabinet Committee on Security met on 1^stMarch, 2026 under the chairmanship of Prime Minister to review the situation, including the safety of Indians, regional stability, and economic implications.
4. He informed the House that nearly one crore Indians live and work in Gulf countries, and the region is crucial for India’s energy security and trade of about US $200 billion annually.
5. Regarding evacuation efforts, he informed that Indian missions in Tehran, Israel, UAE, Bahrain, Qatar, Kuwait, Saudi Arabia, and Oman coordinated evacuations, facilitated flights and border crossings, and set up 24x7 helplines, resulting in the safe return of 67,000 Indian nationals.
6. Regarding diplomatic engagement, he informed the House that the Prime Minister and he himself remained in contact with leaders and counterparts in several regional countries, including Iran, to ensure the safety of the Indian community.
7. Regarding humanitarian assistance, he added that India permitted the Iranian vessel IRIS LAVAN to dock at Kochi and extended facilities to its crew as a humanitarian gesture.
Shri Jagdambika Pal (BJP, Domariyaganj, Uttar Pradesh) urged members to stop raising placards and disrupting proceedings, noting that the Dr. S. Jaishankar (Union Minister, Ministry of External Affairs; BJP, Gujarat) had already assured the House on energy security, and advised that any further concerns be raised before the Business Advisory Committee.
Shri Kiren Rijiju (Union Minister, Ministry of Parliamentary Affairs; BJP, Arunachal West, Arunachal Pradesh) criticized the Opposition for submitting an adjournment notice concerning the No-confidence Motion against the Speaker, Shri Om Birla Ji, despite the original motion No-confidence Motion already pending, calling it irresponsible and disruptive. Shri Jagdambika Pal (BJP, Domariyaganj, Uttar Pradesh) supported these observations, noting that the Opposition had moved the motion but was refusing to participate in the debate even after its acceptance. Further, he urged the Opposition to participate as the matter concerned the office of the Speaker and the orderly functioning of the House.
The House was adjourned at 12:32 PM due to constant disruptions and reconvened at 3:00 PM. In the chair, Shri Jagdambika Pal (BJP, Domariyaganj, Uttar Pradesh) recommenced the proceedings of the House and urged Shri Mohammad Jawed (INC, Kishanganj, Bihar) to formally move the resolution for removal of the Speaker Shri Om Birla Ji (BJP, Kota, Rajasthan) that he had submitted.
Amid continued disruptions and attempts to enter the Well of the House, Shri Jagdambika Pal (BJP, Domariyaganj, Uttar Pradesh) cautioned the Opposition that such conduct was wasting public money. He highlighted that parliamentary proceedings cost about ₹ 1.5–₹ 2.5 lakh per minute and adjourned the House due to persistent disorder.
The Lok Sabha was adjourned at 3:08 PM to reconvene at 11:00 A.M on Tuesday, 10^th March, 2026.
Share

II. Rajya Sabha Proceedings:

The proceedings of the Rajya Sabha commenced at 11:00 AM.
Shri C. P. Radhakrishnan Ji (Chairman, Rajya Sabha) presided over the proceedings of the House and made obituary references to the passing of Shri Mukul Roy Ji, Dr. Janardhan Waghmare and Shri H.K. Dua, former members of the House.
The Speaker congratulated the Indian Cricket Team for winning the ICC Men’s T20 World Cup and highlighted that this was India’s 3^rd title and a historic back-to-back victory, making India the first nation to win the tournament consecutively.
Following this, the Chair laid a Proclamation under Article 356 of the Constitution revoking President’s Rule in Manipur, which was imposed on 4^th February, 2026 and lifted on 13^thFebruary, 2016. along with other Papers and Reports.
Shri Mallikarjun Kharge (INC, Karnataka) raised Short Duration Discussion under Rule 176 on emerging challenges to India’s energy security. He stated that regional conflicts were affecting India’s economic stability, energy supplies, and global standing, noting that about 55% of India’s crude oil imports come from Russia. He also highlighted concerns over the safety of nearly one crore Indians working in the region and the rising domestic impact, including an increase of ₹ 7 in cooking gas cylinder prices.
1. In response, Dr. S. Jaishankar (Union Minister, Ministry of External Affairs; BJP, Gujarat) made a statement on recent developments in West Asia.
  1. He informed that nearly 1 crore Indians live and work in the region and the region is crucial for India’s oil and gas supplies and trade worth around US $200 billion.
  2. He further informed that the Cabinet Committee on Security reviewed the situation and is focusing on the safety of civilians and the Indian community, regional security, and economic implications.
  3. He elaborated upon the diplomatic missions that assisted stranded passengers and facilitated travel arrangements and noted that nearly 67,000 Indians had returned to the country.
  4. He informed that dockingpermission was granted to Iranian vessels at Kochi and facilities were extended to their crew. He further added that the Government remains committed to ensuring energy availability while protecting the interests of Indian consumers.
2. Shri Jagat Prakash Nadda Ji (BJP, Gujarat) endorsed the response of Dr. S. Jaishankar (Union Minister, Ministry of External Affairs; BJP, Gujarat) emphasising Government efforts and response. Furthermore, he highlighted repeated misconduct by the Opposition including those on electoral reforms, Viksit Bharat 2047, Operation Sindoor, the Pahalgam attack, the Waqf Board, and the Union Budget 2025.
Following this, Shri C.P. Radhakrishnan Ji (Chairman, Rajya Sabha) proceeded to discuss Matters Raised with Permission. (For Details refer Annexure III)
1. Dr. Medha Vishram Kulkarni (BJP, Maharashtra) highlighted the rising number of road accidents in India, noting that over 1.8 lakh deaths occurred in 2024, including 15,400 deaths in Maharashtra and 320 in Pune alone.
2. Dr. Ajeet Madhavrao Gopchade (BJP, Maharashtra) raised concerns over the increasing circulation of counterfeit Indian currency, particularly in smaller denominations, affecting small towns and rural markets.
3. Smt. Maya Naroliya (BJP, Madhya Pradesh) raised concerns about the high prevalence of anaemia among adolescent girls in the Narmadapuram region, stating that 55–60% were affected compared to about 65% nationally.
Following the Zero Hour, Shri C.P. Radhakrishnan Ji (Chairman, Rajya Sabha) commenced the Question Hour.
1. Shri Mastan Rao Yadav Beedha (TDP, Andhra Pradesh) questioned if the Government would strengthen the Pradhan Mantri Krishi Sinchayee Yojana (PMKSY) and the Repair, Renovation and Restoration (RRR) of Water Bodies by approving more proposals from drought-prone districts of Andhra Pradesh. He further asked whether the Atal Bhujal Yojana would be expanded to include Andhra Pradesh with support for groundwater recharge and water-use efficiency.
  1. In response, Shri C. R. Patil (Union Minister, Ministry of Jal Shakti; BJP, Navsari, Gujarat) stated that under PMKSY, 99 projects were identified in 2015–16, including 59 in drought-prone areas, of which 7 were completed in Andhra Pradesh, adding that no new projects have been taken up in the State in the last 3 years. He explained that the proposals are considered after the State submits a Detailed Project Report (DPR) for technical evaluation. He further stated that the Atal Bhujal Yojana has concluded and that Mahatma Gandhi National Rural Employment Guarantee Act (MGNREGA) funds are being utilised for water conservation with 65% allocated for dark zones, 40% for semi-dark zones and 30% for general districts, adding that ₹32,000 crore has been allocated this year for this purpose and work is underway in all States.
  2. Smt. Sangeeta Yadav (BJP, Uttar Pradesh) asked how many registrations had been initiated on the Unified Waqf Management, Empowerment, Efficiency, and Development (UMEED) portal and how many had been approved. She further asked what capacity-building measures had been undertaken before the launch of the portal and whether any feedback or complaints had been received from beneficiaries or State Waqf Boards regarding its functioning.
    1. In response, Shri George Kurian (MoS, Ministry of Minority Affairs; BJP, Madhya Pradesh) stated that about 6,34,055 registrations had been initiated, 2,93,380 had been approved and 37,533 had been rejected. Furthermore, he stated that extensive consultations and capacity-building exercises were undertaken before the launch of the UMEED portal. Two consultative meetings were held on 28^th February 2025 and 8^th May 2025, followed by a national workshop-cum-training programme on 26^th and 27^th May 2025 in which 140 master trainers from various States and Waqf Boards were trained. These trainers subsequently conducted training sessions for mutawallis and district-level officers.
  3. Kum. Swati Maliwal (AAP, NCT of Delhi) asked why only the New Delhi Municipal Council (NDMC) area of about 43 square kilometres in Delhi had been included under the Smart Cities Mission when the larger Municipal Corporation of Delhi (MCD) area faced serious issues such as broken roads, garbage, lack of green belts and traffic congestion affecting more than 2 crore residents, and whether the rest of Delhi would also be included. In response, Shri Manohar Lal (Union Minister, Minister of Housing and Urban Affairs; BJP, Karnal, Haryana) stated that the Smart Cities Mission was a one-time programme where states had the option to select a small area for improvement or city expansion within a limited allocation. Delhi had selected the NDMC area under this process.
    1. Shri Kartikeya Sharma (Ind., Haryana) asked a supplementary question about how advanced technologies under the Smart Cities Mission had improved safety and security, particularly for women. Shri Manohar Lal (Union Minister, Minister of Housing and Urban Affairs; BJP, Karnal, Haryana) replied that more than 83,000 CCTV cameras had been installed across the 100 smart cities, along with 1,884 emergency call boxes. Systems such as red-light violation detection, automatic number plate recognition and facial identification have also been deployed through the integrated command and control centres to improve safety.
  4. Shri Milind Murli Deora (SS, Maharashtra) inquired about aviation safety amid the West Asia crisis and the investigation into the Air India AI-171 crash. In response, Shri Kinjarapu Rammohan Naidu (Union Minister, Ministry of Civil Aviation; TDP, Srikakulam, Andhra Pradesh) stated that the Directorate General of Civil Aviation had issued advisories to airlines and passengers to ensure safe operations, noting that around 90,000 passengers had travelled in the past week despite airspace disruptions. He added that the investigation by the Aircraft Accident Investigation Bureau into the AI-171 crash was progressing and the final report was expected by the end of the year.
    1. Shri Ayodhya Rami Reddy Alla (YSRCP, Andhra Pradesh) asked about the strategy for aviation safety norms under the Viksit Bharat 2047 and the role of the Directorate General of Civil Aviation among stakeholders. In response Shri Kinjarapu Rammohan Naidu (Union Minister, Ministry of Civil Aviation; TDP, Srikakulam, Andhra Pradesh) stated that India is the world’s fastest-growing aviation market, with aircraft and passenger numbers doubling in 12 years, and plans to add 50 airports in 5 years and reach 350 in 20 years, alongside expansion of seaplane and helicopter connectivity. On safety, he stated that the Directorate General of Civil Aviation follows a multi-tier framework of inspection, surveillance, investigation, and enforcement aligned 100% with International Civil Aviation Organization standards.
  5. Shri Golla Baburao (YSCRP, Andhra Pradesh) raised questions over the mandated 4% procurement target from SC/ST enterprises and whether it has been achieved across Central Ministries and PSUs and what steps are taken where targets fall short. In response, Shri Jitan Ram Manjhi (Union Minister, Ministry of Micro, Small and Medium Enterprises; HAM (S), Gaya (SC), Bihar) replied that although the target has not yet been fully met, procurement has increased from nearly 0% to about 1.79% over the past 4–5 years, with the Government continuing efforts to address challenges.
    1. Dr. Ajit Gopchade (BJP, Maharashtra) asked a supplementary question inquiring about provisions for poor women from SC, ST, and OBC communities working through village Self-Help Groups (SHG) to generate self-employment in the MSME sector. Shri Jeetan Ram Manjhi (Union Minister, Ministry of Micro, Small and Medium Enterprises; HAM (S), Gaya (SC), Bihar) replied that women’s empowerment is a key priority and about 39% of MSME facilities are directed toward women, supported by initiatives such as the Yashaswini Scheme and other training programs.
Following this the proceedings of the House were adjourned till 2:00 PM.
In the Rajya Sabha Shri Harivansh Ji (Deputy Chairman, Rajya Sabha; JD(U), Bihar) proceeded with Discussion on the working of the Ministry of Environment, Forest and Climate Change (MoEF&CC).
1. Shri Ghanshyam Tiwari (BJP, Rajasthan) initiated the discussion on the Demand for Grants for the MoEF&CC. He highlighted India’s cultural respect for nature and noted that the Ministry’s allocation rose from ₹ 2,430 crore in 2014 to ₹ 3,759.46 crore for 2026–27 with 98 wetlands developed for migratory birds and designation of Indore and Udaipur as Ramsar Wetland Cities. He further highlighted the decline in pollution level by 40% in 25 cities and allocation of ₹ 1,091 crore for clean air initiatives in 2026 Budget. He highlighted the progress in tribal land rights and other achievements including 282.4 crore tree plantations, release of ₹ 47,000 crore under CAMPA,attainment of 50% non-fossil fuel energy by 2025, reduction in emission intensity, implementation of the Ujjwala scheme, Mission Mausam alerts, promotion of e-vehicles, 18% ethanol blending and initiatives under the carbon market.
2. Shri Ayodhya Rami Reddy Alla (YSRCP, Andhra Pradesh) highlighted that India must move from isolated pollution control to integrated environmental protection for Viksit Bharat. He noted that while India has improved pollution indices and achieved 50% non-fossil fuel energy by 2025, environmental degradation costs approximately 5.7% of GDP and water scarcity could affect 6% of GDP. He further highlighted structural deficits, weak implementation, limited budget, and staffing gaps and recommended a strategic review of MoEFCC, strengthened municipal governance, and a circular economy transition, along with other measures.
3. Shri Subhasish Khuntia (BJD, Odisha) highlighted Odisha’s rich biodiversity, coastal ecosystems, and Asia’s largest saltwater lake, stressing threats from sea erosion, large-scale mining affecting groundwater and rivers, industrial waste, illegal sand mining, and rising air pollution, including in the state capital. He urged protection of mangroves, tigers, and migratory species like sea turtles, proper coastal surveys, and criticised mineral exports without local benefit, noting these issues cause environmental and agricultural losses.
4. Kum. Swati Maliwal (AAP, NCT of Delhi) stated that Delhi has become the most polluted capital in the world, with severe health impacts. She stated that pollution cannot be reduced through advertisements and requires holistic long-term planning. She called for stronger public transport to curb vehicular pollution, measures against stubble burning, stricter control of thermal plants, construction dust, and waste burning. Furthermore, she urged for making the Commission for Air Quality Management an autonomous body with adequate resources, demanded coordinated Government action in Delhi-NCR, and temporary relief measures like removing GST on air purifiers and mandating them in sensitive institutions.
5. Shri Masthan Rao Yadav Beeda (TDP, Andhra Pradesh) supported the increased MoEF&CC budget, highlighting a 40% rise for forestry and wildlife programs. He noted India’s achievements, including a 40% particular matter reduction since 2004, renewable energy surpassing 50% of capacity by December, 2025 and successes like Project Tiger and Project Elephant. He called for stronger action on urban air pollution, enhanced monitoring and field infrastructure, better forest personnel welfare, and support for forest-based livelihoods, emphasizing the need for continued institutional strengthening.
6. Shri H.D. Devegowda (JD(S), Karnataka) highlighted problems in elephant corridors causing elephant deaths during food searches, and raised concerns about drinking water scarcity and unsafe water for human consumption, seeking intervention from the Prime Minister along with respective Ministers.
The proceedings of Rajya Sabha were adjourned at 5:47 PM to reconvene at 11:00 A.M on Tuesday, 10^th March, 2026.

III. Events Outside The Parliament:

Shri Sambit Patra (BJP, Puri, Odisha) accused the INC and other Opposition parties of attempting to hold Parliament to ransom regarding the no-confidence motion against the Lok Sabha Speaker, adding that the country is observing their actions.
Shri Anurag Singh Thakur (BJP, Hamirpur, Himachal Pradesh) stated that External Affairs Minister Shri S. Jaishankar has effectively explained the Government’s measures regarding the safety and security of Indians both at home and abroad amidst the current global situation. He further accused the Opposition and Shri Rahul Gandhi (LoP, INC, Rae Bareli, Uttar Pradesh) of intentionally avoiding a debate on the no-confidence motion against Lok Sabha Speaker Shri Om Birla Ji.
Dr. Fauzia Khan (NCP-SCP, Maharashtra) stated that if the Leader of the Opposition is not permitted to speak, it raises serious questions regarding the nature of democracy within Parliament. She added that such a situation leaves the Opposition with no other recourse but to bring a no-confidence motion against the Lok Sabha Speaker.
Shri Akhilesh Yadav (SP, Kannauj, Uttar Pradesh) stated that the US should not dictate from whom India purchases oil and called for a comprehensive discussion in Parliament regarding India’s foreign policy.
Shri Pralhad Joshi (Union Minister, Ministry of Consumer Affairs, Food and Public Distribution; BJP, Dharwad, Karnataka) stated that the details of discussion regarding the no-confidence motion against the Lok Sabha Speaker are decided by the Business Advisory Committee (BAC). He clarified that the Speaker, while in the Chair, allows the motion to be moved and discussion to proceed, and questioned the logic of bringing an adjournment motion in the middle of a pending no-confidence motion, emphasizing that all parliamentary procedures must follow established rules
Shri Rahul Gandhi (Leader of Opposition; INC, Rae Bareli, Uttar Pradesh) stated that the West Asia conflict could cause major economic losses for India, pointing to the decline in the stock market and potential fuel price increases. He demanded a detailed discussion in Parliament, alleging that the Government is avoiding a debate because questions may arise regarding Prime Minister Shri Narendra Modi Ji’s position and policies.
Shri Ram Gopal Yadav (SP, Uttar Pradesh) stated that the Israel–US attack on Iran has worsened the global situation, noting the subsequent fall in the Nifty 50 and Bombay Stock Exchange (BSE) Sensex. He called for a discussion in the Parliament on the matter, citing that a similar debate of sorts was held during the tenure of former Prime Minister Shri Atal Bihari Vajpayee Ji following the US attack on Iraq.
Smt. Priyanka Chaturvedi (SS UBT, Maharashtra) stated that if the Government makes a statement on the situation in West Asia, it should also address the Opposition’s questions. She added that her party staged a walkout in the Parliament Session in Rajya Sabha as the Government did not allow for any questions following the External Affairs Minister’s statement.
Dr. John Brittas (CPI(M), Kerala) reacted to External Affairs Minister Dr. S. Jaishankar’s statement on the West Asia conflict, criticizing the Government and alleging that its “silence” on the situation has harmed India’s global standing.
Shri Pramod Tiwari (INC, Uttar Pradesh) questioned the Government over rising gas prices following the External Affairs Minister’s statement on West Asia, asking for an assurance that fuel prices will not increase. He further sought clarity on the safety of nearly one crore Indians in the conflict-affected region and the Government’s specific evacuation plan.
Shri Hibi Eden (INC, Ernakulam, Kerala) alleged that the Government has not taken adequate steps to bring back stranded Indians or ensure the safety of those living in West Asia, particularly in Middle Eastern countries. He demanded a formal discussion on the issue in Parliament on behalf of the INC.
Shri Piyush Vedprakash Goyal (Union Minister, Ministry of Commerce and Industry; BJP, Mumbai North, Maharashtra) accused the INC of avoiding a debate on the no-confidence motion against the Lok Sabha Speaker despite having requested it. He stated the discussion was scheduled after due process, but the Opposition brought another motion to escape the debate, criticizing Shri Rahul Gandhi (LoP, INC, Rae Bareli, Uttar Pradesh) for his unparliamentary actions.
Shri Kalyan Banerjee (AITC, Sreerampur, West Bengal) stated that Chief Minister Sushri Mamata Banerjee has already clarified the matter regarding protocol during the President’s visit. He questioned why the issue was raised publicly, adding that if the President felt aggrieved, she could have communicated directly with the Chief Minister.
Shri Damodar Agarwal (BJP, Bhilwara, Rajasthan) commented on West Bengal Chief Minister Sushri Mamata Banerjee’s conduct towards President Smt. Droupadi Murmu, stating it reflects fear and anxiety. He added that basic decorum must be maintained while interacting with the President and noted that the people of West Bengal are closely observing the matter.
Shri Tapir Gao (BJP, Arunachal East, Arunachal Pradesh) stated that people from the northeastern states face racial discrimination and insecurity inDelhi and other metropolitan cities. He noted the issue would be raised during Zero Hour and urged the Government of India to introduce legislation similar to the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 to protect northeastern citizens.

Annexure I - Matters Raised Under Rule 377 In The Lok Sabha

Annexure II - Reports And Statements Presented In The Lok Sabha

Annexure III - Matters Raised With Permission In The Rajya Sabha

Annexure IV - Reports And Statements Presented In The Rajya Sabha

Annexure V - Members Who Participated In the Discussion On The Working Of The Ministry Of Environment, Forest and Climate Change in the Rajya Sabha

Annexure VI - Special Mentions in The Rajya Sabha

Rethinking Fiscal Intervention Through STT Hike in Derivatives Market

Mon, 09 Mar 2026 12:03:14 GMT

The Indian economy sits at a delicate juncture where it needs to attract investment while keeping domestic stability intact. The recent move of increasing Securities Transaction Tax (STT) seems to strike at heart of this issue, arguably in an adverse manner. For context, the Union Finance Minister Smt Nirmala Sitharaman hiked the STT rates for the Futures and Options (F&O), which are financial derivatives that allow investors to hedge against or speculate on price movements of underlying listed assets, such as stocks, indices, and commodities, without requiring actual ownership. The changes made in STT structure are as provided below:

The official rationale communicated by Chief Economic Advisor V. Anantha Nageswaran is that the objective of the STT hike is not revenue generation but the protection of household savings. Considering that 90% of retail investors have faced significant losses in 2024, the underlying logic seems to be fair since the volume of contracts within the F&O segment has reached over 500 times the nation’s GDP. This suggests that the line between disciplined wealth creation and high-stakes gambling has been blurred.

I. Industry Perspectives and Challenges to the Security Market

This decision has invited hue and cry from traders and industry experts who are concerned about its immediate impact on market dynamics and the broader economy. Critics argue that the most direct consequence is a sharp rise in trading costs, which disproportionately affects high-frequency and intraday traders. Since STT is levied on every transaction, active participants face a substantial reduction in net profits, forcing them to become overly cautious in their trade selection.

Nithin Kamath, founder of Zerodha, has expressed concerns that the measure may not effectively curb speculation, given that most retail speculative activity is concentrated in options trading (~95%) rather than futures. Further, STT on futures is linked to full contract value where marginal increase in rates can raise trading cost significantly as compared to most options trading, where the STT is levied only on premium at the time of sale. The increased cost will deter all kinds of traders to place their bets cautiously, impacting overall liquidity.

Radhika Gupta, CEO of Edelweiss Mutual Fund, criticised the STT by highlighting that higher STT does not differentiate between retail speculation and institutional participation and is penalising institutional investors and retail investors equally. Dhiraj Relli, CEO of HDFC Securities, said that this hike will have serious repercussions on liquidity, which is already under pressure.

II. The Government's Rationale: A Convergence of Economic and Welfare Perspectives

While critics argue that the hike is counterproductive to the operation of the F&O market, it is essential to consider the Government’s underlying rationale, which focuses on protecting retail investors from systemic losses. The free market proponents conveniently overlook the grim reality of the mounting losses of retail investors in the past 4-5 years. Contrasting this with the influence of institutional players to drive market volatility by leveraging massive positions at the expense of smaller participants, the picture becomes clear. The F&O market is a zero-sum game and the retail investors are often at the losing end.

This policy comes as a long string of government intervention through SEBI to curb retail participation in F&O trading. In this regard, Ashwani Bhatia, whole time member of the Securities and Exchange Board of India (SEBI), in 2024 warned investors against chasing quick returns and turning high-risk trading into a ‘national pastime’. The SEBI Report, 2022 revealed a massive surge in retail participation from 7.1 lakh traders in FY 2018-19 to 86.3. lakhs in FY 2023-24, coupled with alarming financial outcomes. This prompted SEBI to consistently monitor this issue, cautioning against the negative ramifications from excessive retail investment as early as 2023.

Image 1: Loss of Individual Investors in F&O Segment

Image 2: Net loss to individual investors in F&O segment

The intervention made by the regulator is essential to protect the Indian household from the financial trap and protecting their hard earned money from getting eroded. There are many instances where youth, lured by social media, have lost millions. For instance, recently one user reported that his “smartest cousin” lost over ₹1 crore in F&O and is now buried under ₹70 lakh in debt. This is just one of the cases to illustrate a vicious cycle where educated but inexperienced youth continue trading in hopes of recovering lost capital, only to incur greater losses that, in turn, affects their psychological well-being.

Guided more by emotion and the fear of missing out than by financial literacy, today’s youth are entering the market in large numbers. Influenced by social media hype and easy-to-use trading apps, their journey often lacks a long-term vision. The SEBI Investor Survey 2025 shows derivative awareness is below 15%, unlike 53% for Mutual Funds, with limited functional understanding. A case study from Chaitanya University, also notes that 90% of retail traders lose money in the ‘F&O mania’ due to errors like overconfidence and misunderstanding complex instruments.

Originally, F&O was meant as a hedging tool for institutional investors, but now lets people make huge, leveraged bets on small price changes. This excessive speculation causes sudden, large sell-offs, making the market much more unpredictable than simple stock buying. This lack of functional understanding of derivative markets, makes retail participants particularly more vulnerable to the market’s inherent volatility.

Data from a SEBI’s study on the equity derivatives segment (FY 2022–2024) highlights a distressing wealth transfer from lower-income households to the market. Investors earning less than ₹5 lakh annually suffered a collective net loss of ₹42,790 crore, with a staggering 92.2% of traders in this bracket losing money. In contrast, only the “Very High Income” category (earning over ₹1 crore) managed to post a positive net profit.

Furthermore, SEBI data shows that while individuals lost money, proprietary traders and Foreign Portfolio Investors (FPIs) earned gross profits of ₹33,000 crore and ₹28,000 crore, respectively, in FY2024. Crucially, 97% of FPI profits and 96% of proprietary profits were generated by “Algo entities,” highlighting a massive technological and information asymmetry among the retail investors and institutional investors. The participation of retail inventors is further fueled by aggressive marketing from “finfluencers” who promote short-term strategies without adequate risk disclosure. This increasing participation in F&O trading is significantly fueled by aggressive social media marketing from “finfluencers” who promote short-term profit strategies without adequate risk disclosures or transparency regarding conflicts of interest.

These staggering losses are not just bad luck but rather represent a ‘market failure.’ When retail traders with limited information compete against institutional investors like, the ‘invisible hand’ of the market stops working for the common good and starts causing harm. In this regard, the recent STT hike aligns well with the recent Policy measures of SEBI such as October 2024 circular and crackdown on unregistered influencers to guard the retail investors from the negative fallout of the market. The STT acts as a targeted tax, curbing excess trading, protecting retail investors, and restoring efficiency, hence addressing market failures arising out of information asymmetry, negative externalities and misuse of dominant position.

Furthermore, the Government aims to redirect household savings from traditional schemes to stable, long-term capital market investments such as mutual funds for sustainable wealth creation. By adjusting taxes on quick trades, the policy discourages risky short-term bets in favor of steady, stable and more predictable financial investments. This regulatory change can also be seen as part of a broader vision to significantly increase the low participation rate of India’s households (only 9.5% of 33.72 crore) in the securities market. In general, the risk appetite of retail investors is low compared to institutional and large investors. This policy encourages retail investors to invest in stable equity funds such as mutual funds by making the F&O trading costly for them.

Lastly, Government interventions must be evaluated independently of the narratives pushed by institutional lobbying groups, who often prioritise profit margins over the precarious reality of the retail investor in F&O trading. In the face of global geopolitical turmoil and a surge in retail investors in risky investments, the state’s shift toward stricter oversight is a necessary corrective measure. In no way, this hike restricts market access as for long term investors, the impact is minimal, and for institutional entities with substantial balance sheets, the effect is negligible.

III. Way Forward:

Notwithstanding the government’s noble intention to protect retail investors and their household savings, any intervention in the free market must be balanced and effectively designed to meet the desired goal. The STT hike has undoubtedly raised the cost of entry for everyone. Taxation, being one lever in a larger regulatory machine, should function as a last resort utilised primarily when administrative nudges have failed to achieve the intended outcome. The logical step is to pursue calibrated fiscal reforms (if at all) to avoid unintended outcomes with a genuine investor centric regulation regime, which empowers all strata of investors to make informed decisions..

To truly safeguard the public interest while fostering a mature market, the Government can bridge the information gap through nationwide awareness campaigns. A successful example is the AMFI’s marketing scheme promoting ‘Mutual Funds Sahi Hai‘, that prompted retail investment in the mutual funds segment. SEBI could launch a similar collaborative campaign for the F&O segment as well. By making the retail investors more informed, the state can move away from simply making the market more expensive and instead make the retail investors more resilient and empowered. This vision of an investor-centric regulatory framework involves pairing educational efforts with tighter accountability measures. This can be done by SEBI through fixing accountability of “finfluencers”. These measures would ensure that the digital advice reaching common people is unbiased.

Further, by exploring other administrative measures and considering recommendations from industry experts, such as fixing the eligibility criteria based on the financial profile in F&O trading, fixing some cooling off period after series of losses, putting more checks and balances on algorithmic trading would further help in strengthening the security market by protecting the retail investors at the same time. By evolving from the broad stroke of the STT toward these behavioural nudges and structural reforms, the Government can transform the market into a space where the common man doesn’t just participate out of hope, but thrives with genuine confidence and informed clarity.

This piece was authored by Shinjani, Team Lead at NFPRC with interest in economic laws and Rohit, intern at NFPRC, pursuing his MPP from NLS Bangalore (X: @ShinjaniAgNO3 and X :@Rohitg334)

Examining the Supreme Court’s Key Constitutional Matters for 2026

Tue, 03 Mar 2026 11:31:24 GMT

The Supreme Court is grappling with a growing backlog of constitutional cases, a concern openly acknowledged by Chief Justice Surya Kant. In response, the Court has taken a significant step toward addressing judicial delays by adopting a formal Statement of Procedure (SoP) that establishes set timelines for oral arguments and page limits for written submissions. The Chief Justice, with a longer tenure of 15 months, is in a better position to deal with pending constitutional matters in a systematic manner. The apex court has accordingly listed several important constitutional matters for hearing.

Kantaru Rajeevaru v. Indian Young Lawyers’ Association (2018), relating to the review of the Sabarimala judgment, and the State of Uttar Pradesh v. Jai Bir Singh (1978), concerning the scope of the term ‘industry’ under the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 are both scheduled for hearing by nine-judge Benches under strict timelines. In the Sabarimala review, a Bench led by Chief Justice Surya Kant has scheduled arguments from 7^thApril, 2026, with hearings spread across specific dates and concluding submissions on 22^ndApril, 2026. In the industry matter, the final arguments on the scope of Section 2(j) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947, will commence on 17^th March, 2026, with two days allotted to address questions arising from the 2005 reference. Counsels in both matters have been directed to adhere to the Court’s SoP. The constitutional challenge to the Citizenship (Amendment) Act, 2019, is also being taken up by a Chief Justice-led three-judge Bench after a gap of two years, with arguments from parties to be heard from 5^th to 7^th May, 2026.

I. The review of the Sabarimala judgment - Kantaru Rajeevaru v. Indian Young Lawyers’ Association

Background -
In Indian Young Lawyers Association v. State of Kerala (2018), a five-judge Bench of the Supreme Court struck down the Sabarimala Temple practice that barred women aged 10 to 50 from entering the temple by a 4:1 majority. The majority held that the custom, which prohibits the entry of women in menstrual age bracket due to the celibate nature of the deity and Rule 3(b) of the Kerala Hindu Places of Public Worship Rules, 1965 which validated such prohibition (as opposed to the general rule under Article 25(2)(b) of throwing open Hindu temples to all sections of society) violated right to practice religion under Article 25(1). They concluded that the exclusion of women was not an essential religious practice and declared the restriction unconstitutional and discriminatory.
In 2019, a five-judge Bench led by Former Chief Justice Ranjan Gogoi referred the review petitions to a larger Bench, noting that the issues raised had implications for gender justice across religions. In 2020, a nine-judge Bench led by then Chief Justice S.A. Bobde affirmed that such broader questions of law could be referred even in a review jurisdiction. After delays, final hearings are scheduled to begin on 7^th April, 2026.
The 2018 Judgment -
Former CJI Dipak Misra, speaking for himself and Justice Khanwilkar, held that exclusion of women from the Sabarimala Temple violated their right under Article 25(1) to practice religion. He rejected the argument that Ayyappa devotees form a separate religious denomination, holding that they are Hindus and that denominational rights under Article 26(b) are subject to the State’s power of social reform under Article 25(2)(b), which allows Hindu temples to be opened to all classes and sections. The Court found that the exclusion was not an essential religious practice and struck down Rule 3(b) of the 1965 Rules as unconstitutional and beyond the Parent Act. Justice Nariman delivered a concurring opinion holding that denominational freedom cannot override women’s Article 25 rights.
Justice Chandrachud, in a separate concurring opinion, by invoking constitutional morality, held that the exclusion undermined women’s dignity, autonomy, and equality, and that notions of purity and pollution cannot justify discrimination. He gave Article 17 - a broad interpretation, suggesting that constitutional protection against exclusion extends beyond caste-based untouchability and includes a gendered dimension as well.
In dissent, Justice Indu Malhotra held that constitutional morality requires respect for religious autonomy in a plural society. She concluded that Sabarimala devotees do constitute a separate religious denomination deserving protection under Article 26(b), and that Article 25(2)(b) does not override such rights. She also held that Article 17 applies only to caste-based untouchability, not gender-based exclusion.
The Review Petition & Arguments by The Petitioners
Under Chief Justice Surya Kant, a nine-judge Bench is set to clarify key constitutional questions arising from the Sabarimala reference, with a decision expected by 22^ndApril, 2026. The larger Bench will examine the scope of religious freedom under Articles 25 and 26, the meaning of “morality,” the extent of judicial review in identifying essential religious practices, and related issues.
In the review proceedings, organisations such as the All Kerala Brahmins Association and the Nair Service Society have challenged the 2018 judgment. They argue that the Court exceeded its jurisdiction under Article 145(3) by deciding disputed questions of fact and by overlooking earlier findings of the Kerala High Court in Indian Young Lawyers Association (2018). They also contend that the exclusion of women was linked to the celibate character of the deity as a Naishtika Brahmachari and was regulatory, not discriminatory. Emphasising denominational autonomy under Article 26, they maintain that essential religious practices cannot be overridden by social reform.
Opening the Floodgates or Recalibrating Faith?
The ongoing constitutional debate presents a clear tussle between judicial review and religious autonomy. Justice Indu Malhotra had cautioned in her dissent that permitting public interest litigations in matters of faith could open the floodgates to challenges by those who are neither believers nor worshippers, which may be particularly sensitive in a pluralistic society and could affect religious minorities. Senior advocate Fali Nariman expressed a similar concern when he questioned the Court’s decision to expand the Sabarimala review into a broader examination of essential religious practices across faiths. Although a nine-judge Bench has affirmed its authority to undertake such a wide reference, the inquiry has moved beyond a single temple practice to a larger question of how constitutional morality interacts with religious traditions. It remains to be seen whether the Court will reshape the essential religious practices doctrine, reinforce denominational autonomy, or strike a balance between religious freedom and gender equality.

II. Revisiting the Definition of “Industry” Under the Industrial Disputes Act

Background
In Bangalore Water Supply & Sewerage Board v. A. Rajappa (1978) (BWSSB), a seven-judge Bench interpreted the meaning of “industry” under Section 2(j) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947. The Court adopted a broad and worker-oriented approach, drawing guidance from the Directive Principles of State Policy, particularly Articles 38, 39, and 43. Although the Act defines “industry” in a wide manner, earlier rulings had limited the scope of the term to activities similar to business or trade. The Court had laid down the “triple test” to determine whether an activity qualifies as an industry, the three prongs of the test are:
1. There must be a systematic and continuous activity.
2. It must involve cooperation between the employer and the employee.
3. It must relate to the production or distribution of goods or services to satisfy human needs.
Justice Krishna Iyer, writing for the majority, expanded the meaning of “industry” to also include educational, charitable, and research institutions that meet the triple test. Owing to continued uncertainty in these institutions and judgments that followed, the issue was referred in 2017 to a nine-judge Bench of the Supreme Court, which will begin hearing final arguments on 17^th March, 2026.
Issues with BWSSB
Several concerns have emerged regarding the expansive interpretation adopted in the landmark BWSSB case. The judgment treated research and scientific institutions as “industry” on the basis that they generate social and technological benefits, even without a profit motive. However, in Physical Research Laboratory v. K.G. Sharma (1997) (PRL), a two-judge Bench adopted a narrower approach, holding that research bodies engaged in purely governmental or academic functions, and lacking commercial or service-oriented objectives, fall outside the purview of Section 2(j). The introduction of “commercial character” by PRL created a tension with the BWSSB judgment.
Uncertainty also arose regarding the scope of sovereign functions of the State, meaning duties performed in the exercise of its constitutional authority and core governmental responsibilities, which were treated as an exception even where State functionaries satisfied the triple test and would otherwise fall within the definition of “industry.” In BWSSB, the Court had limited the sovereign function exception to the primary and inalienable constitutional functions. Yet, in Bombay Telephone Canteen Employees’ Association v. Union of India (1997), the Court treated telecommunication services as sovereign and held that the canteen employees, being holders of civil posts governed by statutory rules, were not workmen under the Industrial Disputes Act.
Further, in Coir Board v. Indira Devi (1998), the Court expressed concern over including charitable and welfare institutions within the ambit of “industry” as the Act imposed stringent labour compliance on non-profit entities. Finally, in the State of U.P. v. Jai Bir Singh (2005), a five-judge Bench questioned BWSSB’s precedential value, stating the lack of unanimity and the unsettled nature of its formulation owing to the polyvocal nature of the bench.
Legislative Intent
The Industrial Disputes (Amendment) Act, 1982 reflected a clear legislative intent to narrow the broad interpretation of ‘industry’ laid down in the BWSSB judgment by expressly excluding hospitals, research institutions, and philanthropic organisations from the definition under Section 2(j), on the basis that such institutions have a distinct character and ought not to be treated like commercial establishments. However, despite being passed over forty years ago, the amendment was never brought into force. In Aeltemesh Rein v. Union of India (1988), the Union Government explained that the notification was withheld due to the absence of an alternative legal framework to address employee grievances in the excluded sectors, leaving the broader BWSSB interpretation in continued operation. The Industrial Relations Code, 2020, which consolidates several labour laws, largely retains a wide definition of ‘industry’ consistent with BWSSB interpretation, while exempting institutions engaged mainly in charitable or social services, but falls short of clearly addressing research institutions, adding to the persisting uncertainty around the scope of the term.
Possible Way Forward
A pragmatic way to address this confusion is to shift the focus from the nature and definitional aspect of the “industry” to the existence of an employment relationship. Rather than debating whether a particular organisation falls within Section 2(j), the law could adopt a more universal and activity-neutral framework intended for labour protection. The Second National Commission on Labour (2001) recommended a single, composite law applicable to all establishments employing twenty or more workers, regardless of the activities carried on, thereby reducing classification disputes and prioritising worker protection. Similarly, in the United Kingdom, the Employment Rights Act 1996 grants key protections such as safeguards against unfair dismissal and redundancy pay to anyone working under a contract of employment, based on the employer–employee relationship rather than the nature of the enterprise. South Africa’s Labour Relations Act, 1995, also adopts a broad definition of “employee,” extending protection to most workers while excluding only limited categories such as members of the armed forces and intelligence services. These approaches provide insights to reduce disputes while keeping the focus on worker protection.

III. The Constitutional Challenge to the Citizenship (Amendment) Act, 2019

The Citizenship (Amendment) Act, 2019, amends the Citizenship Act of 1955 to provide an expedited pathway to Indian citizenship for Hindu, Sikh, Buddhist, Jain, Parsi, and Christian migrants from Pakistan, Bangladesh, and Afghanistan who entered India on or before 31^st December, 2024. Rules notified on 11^th March, 2024, simplified the application process by permitting alternative documents in place of a passport or visa. Nearly 200 petitions challenging the Act have been consolidated before the Supreme Court, with hearings scheduled for May 2026.

The Act is primarily challenged on the ground that it violates Article 14 of the Constitution, which guarantees equality before the law, by conferring fast-tracked citizenship exclusively on six non-Muslim communities from three Muslim-majority countries while excluding Muslims from the same nations. Petitioners also raise concerns about the CAA operating alongside the National Register of Citizens (NRC), arguing that non-Muslims unable to establish citizenship under the NRC process may seek protection under the CAA, while Muslims in the same position would have no comparable recourse. The Court may consider this under the doctrine of reasonable classification, which requires that any classification bear a rational nexus with the legislation’s objective. The Court may strike down the law if the classification based on religion is found lacking or uphold it, if deemed reasonably connected to the stated aim, i.e., protecting the persecuted minorities, or may interpret it conservatively, deferring to Parliament’s legislative competence in the spirit of separation of powers.

NFPRC Foundation

West Bengal Budget Analysis 2026-27

I. Introduction

II. Financial Highlights :

III. Policy Highlights :

IV. West Bengal’s Economy :

V. Expenditure :

VI. Revenue Receipts :

VII. Deficits and Debt :

VIII. Social Services Expenditure :

Legislative Brief on The Jan Vishwas (Amendment of Provisions) Bill, 2026

I. Key Takeaways :

I. Introduction :

II. Details of the Bill and Key Provisions:

III. Sectoral Achievements :

Parliamentary Proceedings for 2nd April, 2026

I. Key Highlights of The Proceedings:

II. Lok Sabha Proceedings:

III. Rajya Sabha Proceedings:

IV. Events Outside The Parliament:

Parliamentary Proceedings for 1st April, 2026

I. Key Highlights of The Proceedings:

I. Lok Sabha Proceedings:

III. Rajya Sabha Proceedings:

Parliamentary Proceedings for 30th March, 2026

I. Key Highlights of The Proceedings:

II. Lok Sabha Proceedings:

III. Rajya Sabha Proceedings:

Parliamentary Proceedings for March 25th, 2026

I. Key Highlights Of The Proceedings:

II. Lok Sabha Proceedings :

III. Rajya Sabha Proceedings:

IV. Events Outside The Parliament :

Kerala Budget Analysis 2026-27

Executive Summary :

I. Key Highlights :

II. Policy Highlights :

III. Kerala’s Economy :

IV. Expenditure :

V. Revenue Receipt :

VI. Deficits And Debts :

VII. Borrowings :

IX. Welfare Spending

Annexures

Parliamentary Proceedings for 24th March, 2026

I. Key Highlights of The Proceedings

II. Lok Sabha Proceedings:

III. Rajya Sabha Proceedings:

IV. Events Outside The Parliament :

Parliamentary Proceedings for 23rd March, 2026

I. Key Highlights of The Proceedings:

II. Lok Sabha Proceedings:

III. Rajya Sabha Proceedings:

IV. Events Outside The Parliament:

Parliamentary Proceedings for 18th March, 2026

I. Key Highlights of The Proceedings:

II. Lok Sabha Proceedings:

III. Rajya Sabha Proceedings:

IV. Events Outside The Parliament

Parliamentary Proceedings for 17th March, 2026

I. Key Highlights Of The Proceedings:

II. Lok Sabha Proceedings:

III. Rajya Sabha Proceedings:

III. Events Outside The Parliament:

Parliamentary Proceedings for 16th March, 2026

I. Key Highlights Of The Proceedings:

II. Lok Sabha Proceedings:

III. Rajya Sabha Proceedings:

IV. Events Outside The Parliament

Parliamentary Proceedings for 14th March, 2026

I. Key Highlights of The Proceedings:

I. Lok Sabha Proceedings:

III. Rajya Sabha Proceedings:

III. Events Outside The Parliament

Parliamentary Proceedings for 12th March, 2026

I. Key Highlights of The Proceedings:

I. Lok Sabha Proceedings:

III. Rajya Sabha Proceedings:

IV. Events Outside The Parliament :

Parliamentary Proceedings for 11th March, 2026