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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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
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.
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, 1st April, 2026, respectively, to reconvene at 11:00 A.M on Thursday, 2nd April, 2026.
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.
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.
Shri Asaduddin Owaisi (AIMIM, Hyderabad, Telangana) sought a discussion on the issue, citing its implications for prices and broader economic concerns, including international developments.
Shri Om Birla Ji (Speaker, Lok Sabha; BJP, Kota, Rajasthan) stated that the matter would be considered and subsequently put the resolution to vote.
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.
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.
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.
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
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 28th March, 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 23rd 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 2nd June, 2014
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.”
The Minister linked the bill to Prime Minister Shri Narendra Modi Ji’s vision articulated on 15th August, 2022, during the 75th 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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
The proceedings of the Lok Sabha were adjourned at 8:01 PM to reconvene at 11:00 A.M on Thursday, 2nd April, 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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
Shri Mahendra Bhatt (BJP, Uttarakhand) raised concerns regarding the welfare, honorarium, and social security benefits of Anganwadi workers and helpers.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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)
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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..
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.
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.
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.
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%.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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%.
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.
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 22nd installment. 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, 2nd April, 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