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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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 17th Lok Sabha recorded 97% productivity and the 18th Lok Sabha 93.33% productivity, with initiatives such as digitization and the creation of 64 Parliamentary Friendship Groups.
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.
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.
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 17th Lok Sabha and 8 in the 18th 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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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).
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.
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, 10th March, 2026, respectively, to reconvene at 11:00 A.M on Wednesday, 11th March, 2026.
I. Lok Sabha Proceedings
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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 19th 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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
Shri Kiren Rijiju (Union Minister, Ministry of Parliamentary Affairs; BJP, Arunachal West, Arunachal Pradesh) further stated that the 17th Lok Sabha recorded 97% productivity, while the 18th 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 18th 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.
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.
He stated that during the 18th Lok 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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
She further alleged that about 120 MPs had been suspended, including 117 in the 17th Lok Sabha and 8 in the 18th 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.
She also highlighted the decline in Bills referred to Parliamentary Standing Committees, stating that about 60% and 71% of Bills were referred during the 14th and 15th Lok Sabha, compared with 27% in the 16th Lok Sabha and about 16% in the 18th 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.
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.
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 17th Lok Sabha. He cited the Andhra Pradesh Reorganisation Act, 2014, stating it was passed on 18th February, 2014 despite rejection by the Andhra Pradesh Legislative Assembly.
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 17th Lok Sabha, 5,567 Zero Hour matters, 1,821 in the 18th 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.
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.
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, 11th 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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
Amid disruptions, the Shri C.P Radhakrishnan Ji (Chairman, Rajya Sabha) assured that the matter would be examined and appropriate action taken if necessary.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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, 11th 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