Govt gave 10 hours to Vande Mataram debate in Parliament, but NEET leaks?

In December 2025, the government ensured a 10-hour special debate in the Lok Sabha on the 150th anniversary of Vande Mataram, the extended version of the poem it wanted to adopt as the national song. Last year also saw the Lok Sabha devote 12 hours to debating the provisions of the Waqf Bill. However, on the NEET-UG paper leaks, the youth unrest and the crisis in education, it seems reluctant to devote as much time.

Reacting to the Opposition's demand for a debate on the subject, parliamentary affairs minister Kiren Rijiju has said the government is ready for a discussion, but with a rider. It wants to decide under which rule the debate will be held.

Rule 176 allows for a short-duration discussion lasting two to two-and-a-half hours. Under Rule 267, all other business is suspended to discuss an issue of national importance. The Opposition wants the discussion under Rule 267, but the government has not yet agreed, which is why Parliament has remained stalled for the past three days and no discussion has taken place so far.

The difference is significant because, in a two-hour discussion, the Opposition is allocated only half the time, which is then divided by the speaker among MPs from different Opposition parties. Under Rule 176, therefore, most Opposition MPs get only a few minutes at best to make their points. With interruptions and heckling, the effective speaking time is reduced even further, significantly diluting the debate.

The decision should ordinarily rest with the speaker, who is the custodian of the House and whose word is final. However, Leader of Opposition Rahul Gandhi revealed that when a delegation of Opposition leaders met Lok Sabha Speaker Om Birla in his chamber to request a debate, Birla agreed to take up the matter with the government. Gandhi pointed out at a media briefing that while the speaker is not required to seek the government's approval on how to conduct House proceedings, it appeared that he was doing precisely that.

In recent years, it has become apparent that Birla allows discussions only on subjects that the government wants taken up. Situations are created that compel the Opposition to protest in the House, and these protests then provide the pretext to deny discussions sought by the Opposition on the ground that the House is not in order. The media then amplifies the narrative that the Opposition is being disruptive.

The offices of the Lok Sabha speaker and the Rajya Sabha chairman, however, have been diminished in recent years, with their ability to act independently increasingly eroded.

The speaker is 'independent and impartial' on paper but, in practice, appears to act on the directions of the government. The mysterious and sudden 'resignation' of then Rajya Sabha chairman Jagdeep Dhankhar just before he was reportedly set to allow a discussion demanded by the Opposition, is still fresh in public memory.

It is also significant that since 2019, the government has not allowed the election of a deputy speaker in the Lok Sabha, a post that by convention is held by an Opposition MP. In the Rajya Sabha, however, where no such convention exists, both the chairman and deputy chairman belong to the ruling party or coalition.

On paper, both Houses have a business advisory committee comprising members from multiple parties. As its name suggests, it is the committee's responsibility to decide the agenda for each session through consultation and consensus. In recent years, however, these committees have been routinely bypassed, with the government unilaterally deciding the agenda to be pursued in either House. It now determines the 'tentative' list of Bills to be introduced and often brings in supplementary lists at the last minute, catching the Opposition by surprise.