Parliament convened on 25 March 2026 with proceedings in both Houses reflecting a mix of legislative action, fiscal decision-making and sectoral discussions. In the Lok Sabha, the focus remained on the passage of the Finance Bill, 2026–27, alongside the introduction of key legislation and continued debate on economic reforms. Question Hour also saw members raise concerns relating to renewable energy infrastructure and public distribution systems, highlighting ongoing implementation challenges and government responses.
I. Key Highlights Of The Proceedings:
The proceedings of the Lok Sabha and Rajya Sabha commenced at 11:00 AM.
In the Lok Sabha, Shri Om Birla Ji (Speaker, Lok Sabha; BJP, Kota, Rajasthan) commenced the proceedings of the House with Question Hour.
Smt. Varsha Eknath Gaikwad (INC, Mumbai North-Central, Maharashtra) raised concerns about the gap between growing renewable energy production and inadequate transmission capacity, questioning whether increased solar generation is being wasted. In response, Shri Pralhad Joshi (Union Minister, Ministry of New and Renewable Energy; BJP, Dharwad, Karnataka) noted that India’s power capacity has doubled to over 500 GW, ensuring no electricity shortages, and emphasised improved grid stability since 2012. He further highlighted that over 10,000 circuit kilometers have been completed under the Green Energy Corridor, with further phases underway.
In the Lok Sabha, Shri Nityanand Rai (MoS, Ministry of Home Affairs; BJP, Ujiarpur, Bihar) moved a resolution to introduce the Foreign Contribution (Regulation) Amendment Bill, 2026.
Shri Manish Tewari (INC, Chandigarh) and Shri Gowaal Kagada Padavi (INC, Nandurbar (ST), Maharashtra) opposed the Bill, citing constitutional concerns, excessive centralisation, and potential harm to civil society.
Shri Nityanand Rai (MoS, Ministry of Home Affairs; BJP, Ujiarpur, Bihar) defended the Bill as necessary for efficiency, transparency, and national interest. He highlighted safeguards, including asset management provisions, opportunities for NGOs to regularise their status, return of assets, and access to judicial review.
Shri Krishna Prasad Tanneti (TDP, Bapatla (SC), Andhra Pradesh), presiding over the chair, put the motion to a voice vote and declared it approved by majority. He then formally introduced the Bill in the House.
In the Lok Sabha, Smt. Nirmala Sitharaman (Union Minister, Ministry of Finance; BJP, Karnataka) addressed the House while replying to the debate on the Finance Bill 2026–27.
She highlighted reductions in TCS on education, medical remittances, and overseas tours, customs duty exemptions on 17 life-saving drugs, and a disclosure scheme for small taxpayers to declare overseas assets or income without prosecution.
She stated that tax incentives for data centers are conditional on Indian infrastructure, ensuring local jobs, and highlighted $70 billion in investments in semiconductors with 4–5× projected growth in cloud capacity by 2030.
She noted that India’s combined debt-to-GDP ratio is 84.2% and fiscal deficit will be 4.3% in 2026–27, down from 9.3% in 2020–21. She highlighted that India’s debt levels are lower than those of the US, China, and Japan.
Shri Krishna Prasad Tanneti (TDP, Bapatla (SC), Andhra Pradesh) put the motion for the Finance Bill 2026–27, and the Bill was passed by majority via voice vote.
Following this, Smt. Nirmala Sitharaman (Union Minister, Ministry of Finance; BJP, Karnataka) proposed the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code (Amendment) Bill, 2025.
Shri Anurag Singh Thakur (BJP, Hamirpur, Himachal Pradesh) supported the amendment, stating that it strengthens economic reforms and shifts power from defaulters to creditors. He highlighted that 8,654 cases have been resolved with recoveries of about ₹4 lakh crore, achieving 170% of liquidation value and 94% of fair value.
Shri Daggumalla Prasad Rao (TDP, Chittoor (SC), Andhra Pradesh) supported the Bill, stating that it addresses IBC implementation gaps. Further, he highlighted major reforms such as creditor-driven insolvency, group insolvency for related companies, and a cross-border mechanism aligned with global standards.
Shri Rahul Kaswan (INC, Churu, Rajasthan) raised concerns that the Bill gives excessive power to the Committee of Creditors, compromises liquidation independence, favors select financial creditors, and creates legal uncertainty with vague terms like ‘mala fide intent’.
Shri Anup Sanjay Dhotre (BJP, Akola, Maharashtra) stated that the Bill addresses IBC delays and gaps. He highlighted India’s GDP growth, startup expansion, infrastructure improvements, UPI adoption, renewable energy growth, NPA reduction, and Government schemes supporting MSMEs.
The debate on the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code (Amendment) Bill, 2025 remains unfinished and will continue on 27th March 2026.
In the Rajya Sabha, C.P. Radhakrishnan Ji (Chairman, Rajya Sabha) informed the House that the Transgender Persons (Protection of Rights) Amendment Bill, 2026, and the Central Armed Police Forces (General Administration) Bill, 2026, were included in the revised list of business.
In the Rajya Sabha, Shri C.P. Radhakrishnan Ji (Chairman, Rajya Sabha) commenced the Question Hour.
Shri Mayankkumar Nayak (BJP, Gujarat) asked if the NBCFDC provides specific schemes for De-notified, Nomadic, and Semi-Nomadic Tribes in areas like startups, higher education, and traditional occupations. In response, Shri Ramdas Athawale (MoS, Ministry of Social Justice and Empowerment; RPI (ATHAWALE), Maharashtra) outlined Government efforts, including surveys to assess needs, and noted that DNTs, classified under OBC, benefit from schemes like PM-DAKSH.
Shri Golla Baburao (YSRCP, Andhra Pradesh) raised concerns over the underutilisation of police modernisation funds in 2022–23 and 2024–25, asking for reasons, corrective measures, and the 2026–27 action plan. In response, Shri Nityanand Rai (MoS, Ministry of Home Affairs; BJP, Ujiarpur, Bihar) explained that fund utilisation depends on states, with the Ministry reviewing regularly, and noted that coordination increased the revised estimate from ₹225 crore spent of ₹540 crore to about ₹593 crore.
In the Rajya Sabha, Shri Harsh Malhotra (MoS, Ministry of Finance; BJP, East Delhi, NCT of Delhi) urged the House to accept Lok Sabha’s recommendation to join the Joint Committee on the Corporate Laws Amendment Bill, 2026. Shri Harivansh Ji (Deputy Chairman, Rajya Sabha; JD(U), Bihar) put the motion to a vote, which was adopted by a majority.
In the Rajya Sabha, Shri Nityanand Rai (MoS, Ministry of Home Affairs; BJP, Ujiarpur, Bihar) introduced the Central Armed Police Forces (General Administration) Bill, 2026.
Shri Derek O’Brien (AITC, West Bengal) opposed the bill’s introduction, citing the absence of Shri Amit Shah Ji (Union Minister, Ministry of Home Affairs; BJP, Gandhinagar, Gujarat), calling it ‘anti-federal’ and a threat to democracy.
Shri Tiruchi Siva (DMK, Tamil Nadu) opposed the bill, arguing it overrides Supreme Court judgments on CAPF personnel and IPS deputations, and urged referral to a Select Committee.
Dr. John Brittas (CPI(M), Kerala) opposed on constitutional grounds, citing misuse of Article 312 and a clause nullifying court judgments, claiming it exceeds Parliament’s legislative competence.
Shri Nityanand Rai (MoS, Ministry of Home Affairs; BJP, Ujiarpur, Bihar) defended the bill, stating it is within Parliament’s powers, does not alter the original CAPF Acts, has no financial impact, and does not affect Article 312 or judicial authority.
Shri Harivansh Ji (Deputy Chairman, Rajya Sabha; JD(U), Bihar) presided over the conclusion of the first legislative item. The House voted on the Central Armed Police Forces (General Administration) Bill, 2026, and the motion was adopted, formally introducing the Bill.
In the Rajya Sabha, Shri Harivansh Ji (Deputy Chairman, Rajya Sabha; JD(U), Bihar) initiated the discussion on Transgender Persons (Protection of Rights) Amendment Bill, 2026.
Smt Renuka Chowdhury (INC, Telangana) opposed the Bill, citing concerns about privacy, self-identification, constitutional rights, state interference, weak healthcare infrastructure, and lack of consultation with the transgender community.
Dr. Medha Vishram Kulkarni (BJP, Maharashtra) supported the Bill, emphasising dignity, legal safeguards, identification and certification by authorities, stricter penalties for offences, and protection against misuse.
Dr. Bhim Singh (BJP, Bihar) supported the Bill, highlighting legal protection for transgender persons and their recognition in India’s cultural and historical traditions.
Smt. Priyanka Chaturvedi (SS-UBT, Maharashtra) opposed the Bill, calling it inhuman and noting that it was introduced without proper consultation, affecting over five lakh people.
Dr. Virendra Kumar (Union Minister, Ministry of Social Justice and Empowerment; BJP, Tikamgarh (SC), Madhya Pradesh) highlighted that the Amendment Bill will enforce stricter penalties and more consistent definition so that the benefits can reach the genuine beneficiaries. He then moved the motion for passing the Bill and the House approved it through a voice vote and the Bill was passed.
In the Rajya Sabha, Shri Nityanand Rai (MoS, Ministry of Home Affairs; BJP, Ujiarpur, Bihar) moved a motion for consideration of the Central Armed Police Forces (General Administration) Bill, 2026.
Shri Ajay Makan (INC, Karnataka) opposed the Bill, calling it unconstitutional and an attempt to override Supreme Court judgments. He highlighted the CAPFs’ role in safeguarding democracy and cited multiple court rulings supporting CAPF officers’ rights.
Shri Mahendra Bhatt (BJP, Uttarakhand) supported the Bill, stating it would modernise and strengthen internal security. He emphasised its benefits in simplifying administrative processes, improving coordination, and addressing modern security challenges.
The debate on Central Armed Police Forces (General Administration) Bill, 2026 remains unfinished and will continue on 27th March 2026.
The proceedings of Lok Sabha and Rajya Sabha were adjourned at 6:28 P.M. and 6:58 P.M. respectively to reconvene at 11:00 A.M on Friday, 27th March, 2026.
II. Lok Sabha Proceedings :
The proceedings of the Lok Sabha commenced at 11:00 AM.
Shri Om Birla Ji (Speaker, Lok Sabha; BJP, Kota, Rajasthan) presided over the proceedings of the House and made obituary references on the recent passing of Shri Vishnu Modi (former member of the 8th Lok Sabha from Ajmer, Rajasthan) and Shri Dattatraya Raghobaji Meghe (senior politician with five Lok Sabha terms).
Shri Om Birla Ji (Speaker, Lok Sabha; BJP, Kota, Rajasthan) commenced the Question Hour.
Smt. Varsha Eknath Gaikwad (INC, Mumbai North-Central, Maharashtra) raised concerns about the gap between growing renewable energy production and inadequate transmission capacity. She stated that despite increased solar generation, insufficient infrastructure is leading to energy losses, and questioned whether solar power is being wasted.
In response, Shri Pralhad Joshi (Union Minister, Ministry of New and Renewable Energy; BJP, Dharwad, Karnataka) highlighted that India’s power capacity has doubled to over 500 GW, ensuring no electricity shortage, and emphasised improved grid stability since 2012. He also noted that over 10,000 circuit kilometers have been completed under the Green Energy Corridor, with further phases underway to strengthen transmission. He further highlighted the Government’s performance by comparing it with the UPA era, noting a sharp rise in solar module capacity from 3 GW to 172 GW, solar cell manufacturing from zero to 27 GW, and solar generation from 2.8 GW to 144 GW.
Shri Gyaneshwar Patil (BJP, Khandwa, Madhya Pradesh) appreciated the Pradhan Mantri Garib Kalyan Anna Yojana (PMGKY) scheme and raised concerns about the Annvitra app, asking whether it works offline in remote tribal areas and if digital training is planned for shopkeepers and officials. He also inquired about the Ann-Sahayta platform’s complaint resolution timeline, urging for 72-hour redressal for tribal issues.
Smt. Nimuben Jayantibhai Bambhaniya (MoS, Ministry of Consumer Affairs, Food and Public Distribution; BJP, Bhavnagar, Gujarat) outlined the Government’s push for digital reforms in ration distribution, noting that the system helps eliminate fake ration cards and improves transparency. She also pointed to the Ann-Sahayta WhatsApp service, which enables beneficiaries to register complaints easily from home, ensuring better access and accountability.
Shri Bidyut Baran Mahato (BJP, Jamshedpur, Jharkhand) sought an update on the progress of 6G technology projects and related research initiatives. Further, he questioned the implementation of the Anusandhan National Research Foundation (ANRF), and also about plans for setting up regional innovation or training hubs in Jharkhand and Eastern India.
In response, Shri Jyotiraditya M Scindia (Union Minister, Ministry of Communications; BJP, Guna, Madhya Pradesh) outlined that the ANRF, launched in February 2024, has a ₹50,000 crore budget (2023–28) to boost research and innovation, with multiple programs in areas like EVs, MedTech, and AI. He further highlighted initiatives such as the introduction of research grants, Centers of Excellence, and funding for innovation hubs. On 6G technology, he mentioned India’s goal of contributing 10% of global patents and emphasised that over 4,000 of them have already been filed. He further stated that the country’s ‘Ubiquitous Connectivity’ vision has gained international recognition.
Following this, Papers and Reports were laid on the Table.
Shri Nityanand Rai (MoS, Ministry of Home Affairs; BJP, Ujiarpur, Bihar) on behalf of Shri Amit Shah Ji (Union Minister, Ministry of Home Affairs; BJP, Gandhinagar, Gujarat), moved a resolution to introduce the Foreign Contribution (Regulation) Amendment Bill, 2026. The Speaker informed the House that the President had recommended the Bill’s introduction under Article 117(1) of the Constitution. The discussion on the Bill ensued, and members participated in the same.
Shri Manish Tewari (INC, Chandigarh) opposed the introduction of the Bill, raising constitutional concerns such as excessive delegation of powers to the Government, potential violation of property rights under Article 300A, and undermining of the separation of powers. He also warned that the provisions could adversely affect civil society by allowing disproportionate control over assets, thereby impacting the right to form associations, and concluded that the Bill is constitutionally questionable in its current form.
Shri Gowaal Kagada Padavi (INC, Nandurbar (ST), Maharashtra) opposed the Bill, arguing that the takeover of NGO assets amounts to quasi-expropriation and reflects excessive centralisation of power. He raised concerns that the provisions could violate fundamental rights, including freedom of speech and association, and warned that increased control and scrutiny may shrink the space for civil society organizations. He cautioned that the Bill could adversely affect religious and minority institutions, potentially infringing upon constitutional protections under Articles 25 and 26.
Shri Nityanand Rai (MoS, Ministry of Home Affairs; BJP, Ujiarpur, Bihar) defended the Bill as necessary for improving efficiency, transparency, and alignment with national interests, addressing past administrative issues. He emphasised safeguards such as clear provisions for asset management, opportunities for NGOs to regularise their status, return of assets, and access to judicial review. He also asserted that the Bill targets misuse of foreign funds for illegal activities, while legitimate NGOs would not be affected, and maintained that it does not violate any constitutional provisions.
Shri Krishna Prasad Tanneti (TDP, Bapatla (SC), Andhra Pradesh), presiding over the chair, put the motion to a voice vote and declared that it was approved by the majority. Following this, Shri Nityanand Rai (MoS, Ministry of Home Affairs; BJP, Ujiarpur, Bihar) formally introduced the Foreign Contribution (Regulation) Amendment Bill, 2026 in the House.
Matters under Rule 377 were laid on the Table of the House.
Smt. Nirmala Sitharaman (Union Minister, Ministry of Finance; BJP, Karnataka)addressed the House while replying to the debate on the Finance Bill 2026–27, noting that amendments approved on 24th March, 2026 would be taken into account.
She outlined several relief measures in the Finance Bill 2026–27. She noted that TCS on education and medical remittances under the Liberalised Remittance Scheme (LRS) has been reduced from 5% to 2%, and on overseas tour packages from 20% to 2%. She further highlighted that customs duty has been removed on 17 life-saving drugs, with expanded benefits for rare diseases. She also introduced a disclosure scheme allowing small taxpayers to declare overseas assets up to ₹5 crore or income up to ₹1 crore without prosecution.
She defended cess and surcharges as constitutionally valid, stating they fund key welfare schemes like Samagra Shiksha, Midday Meal, and National Health Mission (NHM), with ₹11,627 crore transferred to PM Swasthya Suraksha Nidhi. She argued that states benefit more through targeted schemes than the 41% share under the divisible pool, noting that between 2019–25, spending on these schemes exceeded collections.
She explained that tax incentives for data centers are conditional, including a tax holiday till 2047, only if the infrastructure is based in India, ensuring local jobs and use of Indian resellers, with ‘safe harbor’ rules guaranteeing a 15% margin for domestic entities. She noted that $70 billion in investments are underway and projected a 4–5 times growth in cloud capacity by 2030, creating large-scale employment. She also rejected criticism of GST cuts, citing a 26.1% rise in passenger vehicle sales as evidence of improved economic activity.
On the PLI scheme, she pointed to a ₹76,000 crore commitment for semiconductors and emphasised that building such ecosystems takes decades globally.
She further clarified that the combined debt-to-GDP ratio of 84.2% includes both Centre and state borrowings, noting that states also play a significant role and must share responsibility. She highlighted that the fiscal deficit has been reduced from 9.3% in 2020–21 to a projected 4.3% in 2026–27, adhering to the fiscal glide path. Comparing globally, she pointed out that India’s debt levels are lower than those of countries like the US, China, and Japan, and are on a declining trend.
She also alleged underreporting of the fiscal deficit in 2008–09 and noted that the current Government has repaid significant oil bond liabilities, which has impacted available funds for development.
Shri Krishna Prasad Tanneti (TDP, Bapatla (SC), Andhra Pradesh), presiding over the chair, put the motion for considering the Bill to the House. Following this, the bill was moved to a final voice vote and was thereby adopted after a majority vote. Following adoption, the chair informed the House that a total of 17 new clauses had been added to the Finance Bill, 2026-27.
Following this, Smt. Nirmala Sitharaman (Union Minister, Ministry of Finance; BJP, Karnataka) proposed the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code (Amendment) Bill, 2025, for consideration by the House.
Shri Anurag Singh Thakur (BJP, Hamirpur, Himachal Pradesh) supported the amendment, stating that it strengthens economic reforms and has shifted power from defaulters to creditors through the IBC framework. He noted that 8,654 cases have been processed with recoveries of about ₹4 lakh crore, achieving 170% of liquidation value and 94% of fair value.
He further noted that 40% of resolved Corporate Insolvency Resolution Process (CIRP) cases were legacy Board for Industrial and Financial Reconstruction (BIFR) cases, where creditors recovered 18.91%, amounting to 152% of the liquidation value. He supported the amendment as part of ongoing economic reforms, stating that it improves efficiency by allowing faster resolution within 150 days. He concluded by stating that the bill strengthens the IBC framework and supports creditors, businesses, and economic growth.
Shri Virendra Singh (SP, Chandauli, Uttar Pradesh) opposed the Bill, arguing that it creates inequality between small borrowers and large corporations. He stated that despite promises made during the introduction of the IBC 2016, recovery outcomes have been poor, with declining recovery rates and very high haircuts. He cited cases like Videocon Group, Bhushan Steel, and Essar Steel to show significant losses to banks. He alleged that large companies misuse insolvency provisions to write off debts and restart operations, while small borrowers and farmers face strict penalties even for minor defaults. He also raised concerns about unresolved issues like Sahara India, where depositors have not received relief.
Shri Daggumalla Prasad Rao (TDP, Chittoor (SC), Andhra Pradesh) supported the Bill, stating that it addresses key gaps in the implementation of the IBC. He noted that delays in resolution had increased significantly, with many cases exceeding the prescribed timeline and leading to value loss. He highlighted that the Bill introduces three major reforms: a creditor-driven insolvency process for faster resolution, a group insolvency framework to handle related companies together, and a cross-border insolvency mechanism to align with global standards.
Shri Rahul Kaswan (INC, Churu, Rajasthan) raised concerns that the Bill gives excessive power to the Committee of Creditors, compromising the independence of the liquidation process and creating potential bias against other stakeholders. He criticised provisions like the creditor-initiated insolvency process for being limited to select financial creditors, creating inequality and reducing effectiveness. He also warned that vague terms like ‘mala fide intent’ could increase arbitrariness and legal uncertainty.
Shri Anup Sanjay Dhotre (BJP, Akola, Maharashtra)noted that while IBC, 2016 was a major reform, it faced issues like delays and implementation gaps, which the new bill aims to fix. He highlighted India’s economic progress, including significant GDP growth, strong startup expansion, improved infrastructure, growth in digital payments through UPI, increased renewable energy capacity, and a sharp decline in Non-performing assets (NPAs). He also mentioned various Government schemes supporting MSMEs, street vendors, farmers, and startups through loans, subsidies, and incentives.
Shri Gurmeet Singh Meet Hayer (AAP, Sangrur, Punjab) raised concerns about the bill, stating that the proposed 14-day timeline for admitting insolvency cases was unrealistic without strengthening the capacity of institutions like NCLT and NCLAT, where many cases are already pending. He warned that strict insolvency provisions could harm MSMEs, especially seasonal businesses, by pushing them into early bankruptcy and causing job losses.
Shri Darshan Singh Choudhary (BJP, Hoshangabad, Madhya Pradesh) supported the bill, stating that the IBC, 2016 was a major reform that brought discipline, transparency, and accountability to the banking system, especially after issues like rising NPAs and prolonged disputes. He further acknowledged challenges such as delays, procedural complexities, and difficulties faced by MSMEs, and stated that the amendment addresses these by ensuring faster, time-bound resolution and simplifying processes.
The discussion on the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code (Amendment) Bill, 2025 will further continue on 27th March, 2026.
The Lok Sabha was adjourned at 6:28 PM to reconvene at 11:00 A.M on Friday, 27th March, 2026.
III. Rajya Sabha Proceedings:
The proceedings of the Rajya Sabha commenced at 11:00 AM.
Shri C.P. Radhakrishnan Ji (Chairman, Rajya Sabha) presided over the proceedings of the House and informed the House about the recent passing of Shri Dattatraya Raghobaji Meghe (senior politician with five Lok Sabha terms).
Following this, papers and Reports were laid on the table.
Shri C.P. Radhakrishnan Ji (Chairman, Rajya Sabha) informed the House that 2 Bills, i.e., the Transgender Persons (Protection of Rights) Amendment Bill, 2026, and the Central Armed Police Forces (General Administration) Bill, 2026, were included in the revised list of business, with provisions for introduction and further consideration. He directed members to submit amendment notices through the e-portal by the specified deadlines of 12:00 PM and 2:00 PM, for the day respectively.
Shri C.P. Radhakrishnan Ji (Chairman, Rajya Sabha) informed the House that the Business Advisory Committee has allotted 4 hours each for the Transgender Persons (Protection of Rights) Amendment Bill, 2026 and the Foreign Contribution (Regulation) Amendment Bill, 2026. The committee further recommended cancelling Private Members’ Business on 27th March, 2026, to prioritise Government business.
Matters raised with permission were taken up in the House.
Following this, Shri C.P. Radhakrishnan Ji (Chairman, Rajya Sabha) commenced the Question Hour.
Shri Mayankkumar Nayak (BJP, Gujarat) questioned whether the National Backward Classes Finance and Development Corporation (NBCFDC) provides specific schemes for De-notified, Nomadic, and Semi-Nomadic Tribes, particularly in areas like startups, higher education, and traditional occupations, and sought clarity on any dedicated services for these communities. In response, Shri Ramdas Athawale (MoS, Ministry of Social Justice and Empowerment; RPI (ATHAWALE), Maharashtra) outlined the Government’s efforts for the welfare of De-notified, Nomadic, and Semi-Nomadic Tribes, mentioning surveys conducted through commissions to assess their needs. He noted that while Denotified Tribes (DNT) fall under OBC, they benefit from schemes like Pradhan Mantri Dakshta Aur Kushalta Sampann Hitgrahi (PM-DAKSH) for skill development.
Smt. Rekha Sharma (BJP, Haryana) addressed the House regarding women-led development and inquired whether specific targets have been fixed under Pradhan Mantri Kaushal Vikas Yojana (PMKVY) 4.0 in Haryana to increase female participation in emerging sectors such as drones, AI, and green energy. In response, Shri Gajendra Singh Shekhawat (Union Minister; Ministry of Culture; BJP, Jodhpur, Rajasthan) explained that under Skill India and PMKVY 4.0, reskilling programs are demand-driven with no gender restrictions, while offering special support for women, PwDs, and SC/ST groups. He noted that women’s participation is about 50% overall and around 46% in new-age sectors, though lower in Haryana at 36%. Further, he added that interest among women in emerging technologies is steadily increasing.
Shri Shambhu Sharan Patel (BJP, Bihar) noted that despite India being the world’s largest producer of dairy products, its exports remain relatively low and sought reasons for this gap. In response, Shri Rajiv Ranjan Singh (Union Minister, Ministry of Fisheries, Animal Husbandry and Dairying; JD(U), Munger, Bihar) explained that while India leads in milk production, rising from 146.3 million tonnes in 2014–15 to 248 million tonnes in 2024–25, exports remain low mainly due to the prevalence of Foot-and-Mouth Disease (FMD). He noted that many developed countries restrict imports from non-FMD-free nations. To address this, the Government is working on eradication efforts and moving toward FMD-free certification in select states, which is expected to boost dairy exports.
Shri Golla Baburao (YSRCP, Andhra Pradesh) raised concerns about the underutilisation of funds for police modernisation, noting a gap between high allocations and low spending in the years 2022–23 and 2024–25, and asked for reasons, corrective steps, and the 2026–27 action plan. In response, Shri Nityanand Rai (Minister of State, Ministry of Home Affairs; BJP, Ujiarpur, Bihar) explained that police modernisation funds depend on state-level utilisation, as states handle planning and implementation. He noted that the Ministry conducts regular reviews, and despite only ₹225 crore of the ₹540 crore being spent initially, persistent coordination increased the revised estimate to about ₹593 crore.
The proceedings of the Rajya Sabha were adjourned to reconvene at 2:00 PM with Shri Harivansh Ji (Deputy Chairman, Rajya Sabha; JD(U), Bihar) presiding over the chair.
Shri Harsh Malhotra (MoS, Ministry of Finance; BJP, East Delhi, NCT of Delhi) urged that the House concur with the recommendations of the Lok Sabha to join the Joint Committee on the Corporate Laws Amendment Bill, 2026. The motion further resolved that 10 members of the House be nominated by the Chairman to serve on the said Joint Committee. Following the formal introduction, Shri Harivansh Ji (Deputy Chairman, Rajya Sabha; JD(U), Bihar) put the motion to a vote. After a majority vote, the motion was adopted.
Shri Harivansh Ji (Deputy Chairman, Rajya Sabha; JD(U), Bihar) called upon Shri Nityanand Rai (MoS, Ministry of Home Affairs; BJP, Ujiarpur, Bihar) to introduce the Central Armed Police Forces (General Administration) Bill, 2026. He noted that 6 notices of amendment had been received for the bill.
Shri Derek O’Brien (AITC, West Bengal) opposed the bill’s introduction, citing the absence of Shri Amit Shah Ji (Union Minister, Ministry of Home Affairs; BJP, Gandhinagar, Gujarat), and described the legislation as ‘anti-federal’ and an encroachment on legislative powers. He expressed dissatisfaction and spent the remaining time in silence as a form of protest, calling it a parliamentary right and a stand against ‘muzzling of democracy.’
Shri Tiruchi Siva (DMK, Tamil Nadu) opposed the bill’s introduction, arguing that it seeks to override past Supreme Court judgments, including a ruling favoring CAPF personnel on reducing IPS deputations. He noted that the Government’s review petition was dismissed and expressed concern over the impact on the separation of powers. Further, he urged that the bill be referred to a Select Committee for detailed scrutiny.
Dr. John Brittas (CPI(M), Kerala) opposed the bill on legal and constitutional grounds, arguing that it wrongly invokes Article 312 to mandate IPS deputations without the required two-thirds resolution. He stated that ordinary legislation cannot override this constitutional provision. He also objected to a clause seeking to nullify court judgments, asserting that while laws can be changed prospectively, Parliament cannot directly override judicial decisions, making the bill exceed legislative competence.
Shri Nityanand Rai (MoS, Ministry of Home Affairs; BJP, Ujiarpur, Bihar) defended the bill, asserting that it falls within Parliament’s legislative powers under Entries 1 and 2 of the Union List. He clarified that the original Acts governing CAPFs would remain unchanged and that the bill has no financial burden on the Consolidated Fund. He emphasised that Article 312 is not affected and rejected concerns about interference with judicial authority.
Shri Harivansh Ji (Deputy Chairman, Rajya Sabha; JD(U), Bihar) moved the introduction of the Central Armed Police Forces (General Administration) Bill, 2026, to a vote. The motion was adopted, and the Bill was formally introduced.
The House then moved to a consideration of the Transgender Persons (Protection of Rights) Amendment Bill, 2026. Shri Harivansh Ji (Deputy Chairman, Rajya Sabha; JD(U), Bihar) issued a directive that the scope of the discussion must be strictly confined to arguments for or against the specific provisions of the Bill.
Smt. Renuka Chowdhury (INC, Telangana) opposed the Bill, raising concerns about privacy, self-identification, and constitutional rights. She argued that it undermines the principles established by the NALSA judgment and amounts to state interference in personal identity. She questioned the lack of proper consultation with the transgender community and highlighted practical issues such as weak healthcare infrastructure and legal inconsistencies with existing identity documents. She urged the House to withdraw the Bill or refer it to a Select Committee for detailed examination.
Shri Tiruchi Siva (DMK, Tamil Nadu) opposed the Bill, expressing concern that it violates constitutional rights under Articles 14, 15, 19, and 21 by undermining the dignity, privacy, and self-identification of transgender persons. He argued that the legislation conflicts with Supreme Court judgments, lacks proper consultation with states and stakeholders, and could further marginalise the community.
Dr. Medha Vishram Kulkarni (BJP, Maharashtra) supported the Bill, stating that it aims to ensure dignity, identity, protection, and legal safeguards for transgender persons. She highlighted its focus on identification, certification by authorities, and stricter penalties for offences. Referring to 2011 Census data, she noted variations across states and raised concerns about possible misuse or forced identity in some cases, stressing the need to identify genuine beneficiaries.
Shri Subhasish Khuntia (BJD, Odisha) described the Bill as a sensitive issue, emphasising that transgender persons hold cultural and social respect in Indian tradition. He referred to the 2014 NALSA judgment affirming their right to self-identification and stressed that any law must uphold dignity, equality, and constitutional rights. While acknowledging the Bill’s intent to improve benefit delivery, he raised concerns about identity verification through medical or administrative processes.
Shri Manoj Kumar Jha (RJD, Bihar) raised concerns over the bill, stating that a legislative majority does not equal moral legitimacy. He argued that the Bill reflects excessive state control and undermines personal freedom, emphasising that gender identity must remain self-determined and not subject to medical or bureaucratic approval.
Dr. Bhim Singh (BJP, Bihar) strongly supported the Bill, stating that it aims to strengthen legal protections for transgender persons. He emphasised that transgender individuals have long been part of India’s cultural and historical traditions, citing references from texts like the Mahabharata, Arthashastra, and Kamasutra. He criticised previous Governments for inaction and credited the current Government with enacting the 2019 law and further improving it through this amendment.
Smt. Priyanka Chaturvedi (SS-UBT, Maharashtra) strongly opposed the bill, calling it inhuman and demanding its withdrawal. She argued that the Bill was introduced without proper consultation with the transgender community, affecting over five lakh people without their participation.
Dr. Virendra Kumar (Union Minister, Ministry of Social Justice and Empowerment; BJP, Tikamgarh (SC), Madhya Pradesh) stated that the Bill is aimed at ensuring equality, dignity, and justice for a community that has historically faced discrimination. He emphasised that the amendment seeks to clarify definitions and improve implementation so that benefits reach genuine beneficiaries. He highlighted that the Government has taken several steps in recent years to promote inclusion through education, training, employment opportunities, and awareness programmes. He concluded by stating that the Bill would provide clearer legal recognition, stronger safeguards, and promote social inclusion, and urged the House to support it in the interest of equality and social justice.
Shri Harivansh Ji (Deputy Chairman, Rajya Sabha; JD(U), Bihar) introduced a motion to take up the Transgender Persons (Protection of Rights) Amendment Bill, 2026, for consideration. Consequently, all clauses of the Bill were put to a vote and adopted without changes. Following this, Dr. Virendra Kumar (Union Minister, Ministry of Social Justice and Empowerment; BJP, Tikamgarh (SC), Madhya Pradesh) moved the motion for passing the Bill. The House approved it through a voice vote, and the Bill was passed.
Shri Nityanand Rai (MoS, Ministry of Home Affairs; BJP, Ujiarpur, Bihar) moved the motion for consideration of the Central Armed Police Forces (General Administration) Bill, 2026.
Shri Ajay Makan (INC, Karnataka) opposed the Bill, describing it as an attempt to undermine Supreme Court judgments and harm the career prospects of CAPF personnel. He emphasised the crucial role of CAPFs in safeguarding democracy, especially during elections, and contrasted them with forces in countries like Pakistan to highlight their independence. He pointed to multiple court rulings that supported CAPF officers’ rights and questioned why the Government was attempting to override them through legislation.
Shri Mahendra Bhatt (BJP, Uttarakhand) supported the bill, stating that it would strengthen and modernise India’s internal security system. He highlighted that CAPFs play a vital role in border security, counter-insurgency, and disaster response, but have long faced administrative complexities, which the bill aims to simplify and make more transparent. He stated that the bill would improve coordination among forces and address modern security challenges like terrorism, cybercrime, and internal unrest. It would also bring a unified legal framework for CAPFs, reducing disputes and improving efficiency for over 10 lakh personnel.
The discussion on the Central Armed Police Forces (General Administration) Bill, 2026 will further continue on 27th March, 2026.
Following this, special mentions were initiated in the House. (Refer Annexure XI for further details.)
The proceedings of Rajya Sabha were adjourned at 6:58PM to reconvene at 11:00 A.M on Friday, 27th March, 2026.
IV. Events Outside The Parliament :
Shri Pralhad Joshi (Union Minister, Ministry of Consumer Affairs, Food and Public Distribution; BJP, Dharwad, Karnataka) criticised Shri Rahul Gandhi’s (Leader of Opposition; INC, Rae Bareli, Uttar Pradesh), stating that the opposition should act responsibly and support the Government during global crises, and questioned his approach to national issues. On the opposition’s protest, he added that such actions are politically motivated and not aligned with the nation’s interest.
On the Women’s Reservation Bill, Smt. Thamizhachi Thangapandian (DMK, Chennai South, Tamil Nadu) stated that Shri M. K. Stalin (Chief Minister of Tamil Nadu, DMK) has consistently supported women’s reservation but questioned the timing of the Bill and called for detailed consultations with opposition parties before taking a final position. Further, regarding the all-party meeting regarding the West Asia conflict, she said the opposition seeks a serious and constructive discussion to understand India’s stance and diplomatic approach.
Shri Chandra Shekhar (ASP (KR), Nagina (SC), Uttar Pradesh) termed the West Asia conflict an ‘invited crisis’, criticising the Government’s foreign policy and calling for greater accountability. He said the situation affects ordinary citizens the most and urged Prime Minister Shri Narendra Modi Ji (BJP, Varanasi, Uttar Pradesh) to clearly outline the Government’s policies and future preparedness.
On the notice to vacate the INC office at 24 Akbar Road, Shri Pramod Tiwari (INC, Rajasthan) criticised the BJP Government, calling the move unfortunate and stating that the party will respond after internal discussions once the notice is formally received.
Shri Giriraj Singh (Union Minister, Ministry of Textiles; BJP, Begusarai, Bihar) criticised Shri Asaduddin Owaisi (AIMIM, Hyderabad, Telangana), alleging that he presents one stance in Parliament based on the Constitution and another outside, and accusing him of raising issues related to historical figures like Akbar and Babur.
Smt. Kiran Choudhary (BJP, Haryana) said that despite global conflicts and economic downturns, India remains relatively unaffected due to the Government’s forward-looking approach. She added that the opposition should contribute constructively, and not participating in discussions reflects a lack of concern for national interests.
Shri Mallu Ravi (INC, Nagarkurnool, Telangana) criticised the Finance Bill, alleging that amendments are restricting foreign funding to NGOs and impacting support for vulnerable sections. He accused the Government of neither adequately serving the people nor allowing civil society organisations to assist them.
Shri Dinesh Sharma (BJP, Uttar Pradesh) praised Prime Minister Shri Narendra Modi Ji (BJP, Varanasi, Uttar Pradesh), highlighting his global stature and role in promoting peace through dialogue and coordination. He said the Prime Minister’s influence has enhanced India’s prestige internationally, with countries respecting his leadership during conflicts.
On the Women’s Reservation Bill, Smt. Hema Malini (BJP, Mathura, Uttar Pradesh) said that the move is important for further empowering women and increasing their participation in Parliament. On the Opposition raising questions over the all-party meeting on the West Asia situation, she said it is the Opposition’s role to question, but emphasised that unity is essential during times of conflict.
Shri Karti P. Chidambaram (INC, Sivaganga, Tamil Nadu) said the party supports the Women’s Reservation Bill but wants clarity on its provisions, urging parties to field more women candidates. He welcomed the all-party meeting on West Asia, asking the Government to consult the opposition.
On the all-party meeting and the West Asia conflict, Shri Amarinder Singh Raja Warring (INC, Ludhiana, Punjab) said the presence of Hon’ble Prime Minister Shri Narendra Modi Ji (BJP, Varanasi, Uttar Pradesh) is crucial for meaningful discussion and clarity on the Government’s plan of action. On the notice to vacate the Congress office at 24 Akbar Road, he alleged that such moves are aimed at intimidating the party.
The day’s proceedings underscored Parliament’s continued engagement with economic policy, regulatory reforms and social legislation. While the Lok Sabha concluded key fiscal business with the passage of the Finance Bill, discussions on the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code (Amendment) Bill, 2025 and the introduction of the FCRA Amendment Bill, 2026 reflected an ongoing reform agenda. In the Rajya Sabha, the Transgender Persons (Protection of Rights) Amendment Bill, 2026 was passed, while deliberations on the Central Armed Police Forces (General Administration) Bill, 2026 remain ongoing, indicating continued scrutiny of institutional and governance frameworks.
Annexure I - Matters Raised Under Rule 377 In The Lok Sabha
Annexure II - Reports And Statements Presented In The Lok Sabha
Annexure III - Members Who Opposed The Introduction of The Foreign Contribution (Regulation) Amendment Bill, 2026 in the Lok Sabha
Annexure IV - Members Who Participated In Debate on The Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code (Amendment) Bill, 2025, In The Lok Sabha
Annexure V - Reports And Statements Presented In The Rajya Sabha
Annexure VI - Matters Raised With Permission In The Rajya Sabha
Annexure VII - Bills Introduced In The Rajya Sabha
Annexure VIII - Bills Passed In The Rajya Sabha
Annexure IX - Members Who Participated In The Discussion On The Transgender Persons (Protection of Rights) Amendment Bill, 2026 In The Rajya Sabha
Annexure X - Members Who Participated In The Discussion On The Central Armed Police Forces (General Administration) Bill, 2026 in the Rajya Sabha
Annexure XI - Special Mentions In The Rajya Sabha