INDIA bloc leaders demand PM's presence in Parliament to address key issues
In a post on X, Congress general secretary KC Venugopal said the INDI Alliance has jointly resolved to press for the Prime Minister's presence in the House to directly respond to several urgent matters affecting the nation.
A meeting of INDIA bloc floor leaders from the Lok Sabha and Rajya Sabha was held in Parliament House, here which was attended by Opposition leaders including leaders of Opposition of both the Houses — Mallikarjun Kharge and Rahul Gandhi.
'In the meeting of INDIA bloc leaders in the presence of Rajya Sabha LOP Mallikarjun @kharge ji and Lok Sabha LOP Sh. @RahulGandhi ji, the opposition has decided to press for the PM's presence in the House to answer questions on pressing issues,' Venugopal said.
Among the key issues the Opposition seeks to raise Venugopal said are 'Pahalgam terror attack, Operation Sindoor and Donald Trump's statements on the ceasefire, Bihar SIR process, delimitation, growing atrocities against dalits, adivasis, backward classes and women, AI 171 plane crash and Manipur civil war'.
'These are people's issues and must be given utmost priority,' said KC Venugopal in his post.
The monsoon session of parliament commenced yesterday but was adjourned after opposition parties disrupted proceedings, demanding a discussion on Operation Sindoor.
UNI RBE PRS
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
&w=3840&q=100)
First Post
28 minutes ago
- First Post
India, Israel vow stronger strategic defence cooperation, condemn terrorism in joint statement
This visit by the DG of Israel's Ministry of Defence marks a 'pivotal step in India-Israel defence relations and reinforces both sides' commitment to enhance their strategic partnership', the statement added. read more India and Israel on Wednesday concurred to work towards developing an 'institutional framework' for further deepening their defence ties. Defence Secretary Rajesh Kumar Singh held a bilateral meeting with Director General, Israel's Ministry of Defence, Major General (Res) Amir Baram in New Delhi during which the two sides agreed to further strengthen the bilateral defence cooperation with a 'long-term perspective', officials said. 'They concurred to work towards developing an institutional framework for further deepening of defence ties,' the Indian defence ministry said in a statement. STORY CONTINUES BELOW THIS AD The Israel DG condemned the April 22 terrorist attack in Pahalgam and conveyed 'full support for India's fight against terrorism', it said. Singh reiterated India's zero-tolerance approach to terrorism, condemned the October 7, 2023 terror attacks on Israel and called for the release of all hostages. The two sides also reviewed the progress of the ongoing defence collaboration activities since the last Joint Working Group meeting held in India in July 2024. This visit by the DG of Israel's Ministry of Defence marks a 'pivotal step in India-Israel defence relations and reinforces both sides' commitment to enhance their strategic partnership', the statement added.
India Today
36 minutes ago
- India Today
Why chase someone who won't fight: Smriti Irani's 'tone shift' on Rahul Gandhi
Union Minister Smriti Irani, once known for her fierce criticism of Rahul Gandhi, now appears markedly more conciliatory toward the Congress leader. In an exclusive interview with India Today Group's Anjana Om Kashyap, Irani was asked why she no longer takes an aggressive stance against Gandhi. Her response was direct and pointed: 'Because the Gandhi family refused to fight me in 2024.'advertisementIrani, who famously defeated Rahul Gandhi in 2019 in his long-held Amethi constituency, said that with Gandhi opting out of contesting from Amethi in the 2024 Lok Sabha elections, there was no political battle to engage in.'If they aren't even stepping into the battlefield, what am I supposed to say? I can't go chasing after them,' Smriti Irani said. During the interview, Smriti Irani also pointed out that the Gandhi family moved to contest from Wayanad due to its favourable social demographics.'No intelligent leader willingly chooses a seat where defeat is certain,' she said. 'If a seat like that is given, it's only out of duty to the party. But in 2019, I turned the impossible into possible.'Irani also reflected on her journey and recalled her defeat in Amethi in 2014. She said that she spent the next five years working tirelessly on the ground.'I cleaned drains myself, brought electricity to villages, built over a lakh homes, set up a medical college, a 200 bed hospital, a collector's office, a police line and even a fire station,' she Anjana Om Kashyap asked whether Irani could have defeated Rahul Gandhi again if he had contested in 2024, Irani responded with a smile, 'Absolutely, that's why he didn't contest.'Irani also spoke about the emotional toll of being removed from Amethi, calling it a place she is deeply connected with. 'If I had not worked and people had said I did not deliver on my promises, that would have hurt more. But I did everything I could,' she asked why she lost, Irani responded, 'Because there's a diference between work and political equations. Those who are in politics understand this – electoral politics isn't the same as national service.'When asked whether stepping away from Amethi and the government left her feeling uprooted, she admitted, 'Maybe.''Because I defeated the national president of Congress, I had to tolerate a few barbs,' she Irani clarified that her return to television does not signal a retirement from politics. Dismissing speculation, she said, 'Who retires at 49? At 49, most people's careers are just beginning and I have already been a Member of Parliament three times,' she added with a Irani is making her comeback on the screen with the same show that made her a household name 25 years ago, Kyunki Saas Bhi Kabhi Bahu Thi.- EndsMust Watch
India Today
36 minutes ago
- India Today
What happens if both Houses pass motion for removal of judge on same day?
On the opening day of the Monsoon Session, members of both the Lok Sabha and Rajya Sabha submitted notices seeking the removal of Justice Yashwant Varma of the Allahabad High Court, prompting the initiation of a constitutionally mandated inquiry process into the Sabha Chairman Jagdeep Dhankhar, who has since resigned, acknowledged receipt of the notice in the Upper House, thereby setting in motion the process under the Judges Inquiry Act, 1968. Justice Varma came under scrutiny after large bundles of burnt currency notes were discovered at his residence in Delhi in March this Judges Inquiry Act lays out the process for investigating allegations against a sitting judge. A notice for removal must be signed by at least 100 members in the Lok Sabha or 50 in the Rajya Sabha. In this instance, the motion was submitted in both Houses on the same day — a procedural requirement for joint action under the Act. Under Section 3 of the Act, the presiding officers — the Speaker of the Lok Sabha and the Chairman of the Rajya Sabha — must first consult relevant authorities before admitting the motion. If admitted by both Houses, they are then required to jointly constitute a three-member inquiry committee will include a Supreme Court judge (who may also be the Chief Justice of India), a Chief Justice of a High Court, and a distinguished jurist. The committee is tasked with framing definite charges and presenting them to the judge. Justice Varma will be given a reasonable opportunity to respond in cases alleging incapacity, the judge may be directed to undergo a medical examination. The central government may also be asked to appoint an advocate to conduct the case against the judge if requested by the presiding completing its inquiry, the committee must submit a detailed report with findings on each charge. This report is to be laid before both Houses of Parliament at the earliest possible simultaneous submission of notices in both Houses ensures that the process moves forward under strict constitutional guidelines. If the committee finds the judge guilty of misbehaviour or incapacity, and both Houses adopt the motion for removal by a two-thirds majority, the President may remove the judge.- EndsTune InMust Watch
