Under which rule did Birla ask PM Modi to stay away from LS, Congress asks

The unprecedented decision by Prime Minister Narendra Modi to skip the customary reply in the Lok Sabha to the discussion on the motion of thanks to the President's address to Parliament on 4 February is snowballing into a major controversy, with the Congress now writing to the Speaker to clarify certain crucial points.

While Leader of the Opposition Rahul Gandhi sardonically quipped, "Jo uchit samjha woh kiya (he did what he thought best)," repeating the PM’s alleged instruction to the Indian Army during the Chinese incursion in Ladakh in 2020 (jo uchit samjho woh karo), others have accused Speaker Om Birla of disregarding rules while allowing the PM to skip his reply.

There is also a growing demand that the Speaker should divulge the "definite and concrete" information he claimed to have about an impending disruption in the form of a supposed 'assault' on the PM by Congress members within the House.

History was made in Parliament this week when Modi became the first prime minister to skip his reply in the Lok Sabha to the discussion on the motion of thanks to the Presidential address. It was also the first time in history that a Speaker of the Lok Sabha declared he had advised the prime minister not to appear in the House because of ‘concrete information’ he had of an ‘unexpected act’ by MPs to disrupt proceedings and damage democratic traditions. 

Birla apparently did not use the phrase ‘physical threat’. Various media reports quoted him as saying, “I had concrete information that many members of the Congress could carry out an unexpected act by reaching the spot where the prime minister sits” and “If this incident had taken place, then it would have left the democratic traditions of the country in shreds”.

The full and verbatim transcript of the Speaker’s statement was still not available at noon on Friday, 6 February. The prime minister was scheduled to reply to the discussion on the motion thanking President Droupadi Murmu for her address to a joint session of Parliament at around 5.00 pm on 4 February. The House was adjourned, however, as several women Opposition MPs walked across the aisle and held up banners in front of the PM’s front-row seat.

Before adjourning the House, the Speaker claimed he had advised the PM not to come to the House on 4 February owing to “definite information” that Opposition members were prepared to protest in an “unprecedented manner”. The House therefore passed the motion of thanks on the President’s address on 5 February without the customary reply from the PM.

While the Speaker is yet to spell out the ‘definite’ and ‘concrete’ information he had about the planned disruption and threat to the PM, BJP spokespersons on TV channels levelled several bizarre allegations. One of them claimed that women Congress MPs would have bitten the PM; another hinted that the MPs could have torn their own clothes and accused BJP MPs to discredit the party and the prime minister.

Meanwhile, Congress MP and general-secretary (organisation) K.C. Venugopal has written to Birla and pointed out that several rules were violated while allowing the PM to skip his address. Rule 20 makes it mandatory for the discussion on the President’s address to conclude with the PM’s reply. In case the PM is unable to do so, the rule requires him to inform the House of his inability. Neither of these conditions, Venugopal states in his letter, were met.

In case the House desires to close the discussion without the mandatory reply by the PM, Rule 362 requires a resolution to this effect to be adopted by the House. No such resolution was moved or adopted by the House, Venugopal’s letter points out, requesting the Speaker to ‘apprise the House’ of the procedures he followed while closing the debate on the Presidential address. An analysis of the rules and procedures followed by the Speaker would greatly benefit the House, he writes in conclusion.

Birla is known to assert that the House is run by rules. But he has been presented with a Hobson’s choice — between replying and further stoking the controversy or keeping quiet and confirming that he acted in violation of the rules.