Never allowed to speak in House, it's my right as LoP: Rahul
'I am the Leader of Opposition, it is my right. I am never allowed to speak,' Gandhi told reporters outside Parliament, as the House witnessed repeated adjournments on the first day of the Monsoon session.
His remarks came after opposition MPs, led by the Congress, created a ruckus demanding a discussion on Operation Sindoor. The House was adjourned twice amid noisy protests and slogan-shouting by the opposition benches.
'The question is that the Defence Minister and their (the BJP) people are allowed to speak, but if someone from the Opposition wants to say something, he is not allowed,' Gandhi said. Taking a dig at Prime Minister Narendra Modi, he added, 'He ran out of the House in a second.'
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
&w=3840&q=100)
Business Standard
2 minutes ago
- Business Standard
Over ₹44 crore released under MGNREGS so far: Centre tells Lok Sabha
The Centre has released ₹44,323 crore to states and union territories under the Mahatma Gandhi National Rural Employment Guarantee Scheme (MGNREGS) so far, Rural Development Minister Shivraj Singh Chouhan informed the Lok Sabha on Tuesday. In a written reply, the minister gave the figures of disbursements of wages, material and admin components till July 17, 2025. According to the revelation, the amount disbursed is almost half of the total allocation of ₹86,000 crore earmarked for the financial year 2025-26. In a written reply to a separate question, MoS Rural Development Kamlesh Paswan said the allocation included full pending wage liabilities and 50 per cent of Material Liabilities of the previous financial year. "Regarding budget allocation for Mahatma Gandhi NREGS it is submitted that, for the financial year 2024-25, budget allocation of Rs. 86,000 crore has been made, which was the highest ever allocation for the scheme at the Budget Estimate (BE) stage since inception. In the financial year 2025-26, the Government has retained this allocation at ₹86,000 crore, ensuring continued support for rural employment," Chouhan said. He said that keeping in view the demand-driven nature of the scheme, the rural development ministry closely monitors demand for employment at the ground level and seeks additional funds from the Finance as and when required.
Indian Express
2 minutes ago
- Indian Express
Jagdeep Dhankhar accepting Opposition notice to impeach Justice Varma rubbed Govt ‘wrong way'
With no word from the government on the resignation of Jagdeep Dhankhar, barring an acknowledgement by Prime Minister Narendra Modi Tuesday noon, what precipitated his sudden move is being attributed to two signature-collection drives to move a motion to impeach Allahabad High Court judge Justice Yashwant Varma for the alleged cash found in his premises. The first of these was by the Opposition which started two weeks ago but picked up momentum Sunday, to collect at least 50 signatures – the minimum needed to move a motion in the Rajya Sabha – to initiate the removal of Justice Varma. The government saw this as a move by the Opposition to undercut its own motion in this regard in the Lok Sabha, for which it had collected 145 signatures – the minimum for Lok Sabha is 100 – including those of the Opposition. Incidentally, in the run-up to the monsoon session, the Government had made it clear that it would move a motion to impeach the judge. The Modi government hoped that the removal of Justice Varma then would be by 'consensus' and not seen as partisan. (The motion to remove a judge can be initiated in either House.) An Opposition MP told The Indian Express that they were, however, determined to keep NDA members out of their Rajya Sabha initiative, to ensure that the ruling coalition didn't walk away with the anti-corruption plank on the matter. 'We did not want the government to have the moral high ground on the issue,' the MP said. Opposition sources said another reason was that they also wanted to raise the issue of Justice Shekhar Yadav, whose removal has been sought for controversial remarks at a VHP event, along with that of Justice Varma. As Monday morning came, and the Monsoon Session began, the Opposition was still trying to muster enough signatures to give a notice for the removal of Justice Varma. Around 1 pm, Dhankhar held a meeting of the Business Advisory Committee (BAC) to decide the time and nature of discussions to be held in the Rajya Sabha. The meeting was inconclusive, with the Opposition seeking more time to decide on the government's suggestions. Dhankhar then said that another BAC meeting would be held later in the day, at 4.30 pm. By 3 pm, the Opposition submitted its notice for removal of Justice Varma to Dhankhar. At 3.12 pm, Congress leader and Rajya Sabha MP Jairam Ramesh tweeted: 'Today 63 Rajya Sabha MPs belonging to various Opposition parties submitted a notice of motion to the Chairman, Rajya Sabha, for the removal of Justice Yashwant Varma under the Judges Inquiry Act, 1968. A similar motion for the removal of Justice Shekhar Yadav had been submitted to the Chairman, Rajya Sabha, way back on Dec 13, 2024.' According to sources, the government was not too happy about Dhankhar accepting the motion, upstaging its own initiative in the Rajya Sabha. A frantic exercise began allegedly then to rustle up signatures of NDA MPs. There was confusion about the purpose of the move. Several BJP MPs told The Indian Express that the signatures were taken for 'impeachment' of Justice Varma. However, two of their counterparts from the NDA underlined that they had signed on 'blank papers', suggesting that the intention was not clear. Three Cabinet members told The Indian Express that the signatures were meant for a notice against Justice Varma. A minister added that the proceedings, however, 'will be in the Lok Sabha only'. 'But since the Chair (Dhankhar) has taken up the matter in the Rajya Sabha also, the presiding officers of both will form a three-member committee to probe the matter.' Shortly after the Opposition submitted its notice, Dhankhar came to the Rajya Sabha and announced around 4.05 pm Monday that he had received it. 'A notice of motion under Article 271 (1) (b), read with Article 218 and Article 124, sub article 4 of the Constitution of India, along with Section 3 (1B) of the Judges (Inquiry) Act, 1968, to constitute a statutory committee for removal of Justice Yashwant Varma, Judge of the High Court of Judicature at Allahabad' had been submitted, the Vice President said. Dhankhar added that according to the Judges (Inquiry) Act, when notices of a motion are submitted on the same day in both Houses of Parliament, a committee to examine the charges is to be constituted by the Lok Sabha Speaker and Rajya Sabha Chairman together. Incidentally, Lok Sabha Speaker Om Birla is yet to inform the House about the Justice Varma notice. So this move from Dhankhar, sources in the BJP said, was 'unexpected, shocking and confusing'. A top source in the government said: 'He did not even wait for our notice on the matter.' Interestingly, Dhankhar went on to also refer to the Opposition notice on removal of Justice Yadav of the Allahabad High Court. Without mentioning Justice Yadav by name, Dhankhar said that the confusion over the signatures in the notice submitted by the Opposition was the reason for the hold-up in the process, initiated in December. He added that he would get back to the House once the probe in the case was completed. This did not go down well with the government either, which has been trying to go easy on the Justice Yadav matter. Dhankhar then mentioned the case of the discovery of a wad of notes in the Rajya Sabha in February last year, allegedly from a seat belonging to MP Abhishek Manu Singhvi. Calling it a serious matter, Dhankhar said the matter would have to be dealt with, and that the floor leaders would have to help him in this. Around half-an-hour later, Dhankhar started the BAC meeting he had announced earlier in the day. But even as the Opposition came for it, no one from the government side – either J P Nadda, the Leader of the House, or Parliamentary Affairs Minister Kiren Rijiju and MoS, Parliamentary Affairs, Arjun Ram Meghwal – turned up. On Tuesday, speaking to journalists at Parliament House, Nadda said Rijiju and he had informed Dhankhar in advance that they would not be able to attend the meeting as they had another engagement. A source from the government said: 'After we informed the Chairman that the ministers would not be able to be present, he said he would wait for some time and carry on with the meeting.' Nadda also gave a clarification regarding his remarks 'Nothing will go on record, only what I say will go on record' in the Rajya Sabha on Monday, saying these were directed at the 'interrupting' Opposition MPs and not the Chair. After Dhankhar's resignation, the Congress had cited this 'insult' to the Vice President as one of the reasons behind his sudden move. On Tuesday, Congress leader Ramesh speculated in a post on X that 'something very serious' occurred between 1 pm and 4.30 pm, which prompted Nadda and Rijiju to skip the BAC 'deliberately', and said Dhankhar had taken 'umbrage' at this. Six hours after government representatives did not turn up for the BAC meeting, at 9.25 pm Monday, Dhankar posted his resignation letter addressed to President Droupadi Murmu on the official X handle of the Vice President, saying he was stepping down due to medical reasons. The first official reaction from the BJP or the government was at 12.13 pm Tuesday, when PM Modi tweeted: 'Shri Jagdeep Dhankhar Ji has got many opportunities to serve our country in various capacities, including as the Vice President of India. Wishing him good health.'
The Hindu
2 minutes ago
- The Hindu
Manipur Congress seeks clarity from Governor on Assembly status
The Manipur Pradesh Congress Committee on Tuesday (July 22, 2025) sought clarification from Governor Ajay Kumar Bhalla regarding the constitutional status of the State's 60-member Legislative Assembly, which has not convened since August 2024. President's Rule was imposed in Manipur on February 13 this year, following the resignation of Nongthombam Biren Singh as Chief Minister on February 9, amid the ongoing ethnic conflict in the State. In a memorandum submitted to the Governor, State Congress president K. Meghachandra Singh questioned whether the 12th Manipur Legislative Assembly 'is still alive or already dead' or 'constitutionally deemed to be dissolved from midnight' of February 11, two days prior to the imposition of President's Rule. 'The last sitting of the 60-member House was held on August 12, 2024, and according to Article 174(1) of the Constitution of India, the next sitting ought to have been mandatorily held on or before February 11. However, Mr. Biren Singh resigned as the Chief Minister on February 9, and on that day, the Governor declared his January 24 order summoning the Assembly for February 11 to be null and void,' said Congress spokesperson and advocate Ningombam Bupenda Meitei. Mr. Meitei was part of a four-member delegation from the Congress's legal department that submitted the memorandum at the Raj Bhavan in Imphal. The other members included Wahidur Rahman, S. Shyamacharan, and L. Brojen Singh. The delegation noted that the Assembly was not in suspension at the time of the Chief Minister's resignation, and thus Article 174(1) — which mandates that no more than six months should elapse between two sittings of a Legislative Assembly — remained applicable. The Congress said the Governor's February 9 order effectively 'circumvented the rigours of Article 174(1)' and further delayed the Assembly's sitting beyond the constitutionally permitted time frame. The party asked the Governor to clarify whether the 12th Legislative Assembly has remained 'alive', 'dead', or 'dissolved' since February 12. It also sought to know whether the Governor would now be 'constitutionally barred from summoning the sitting for the next session' of the current Assembly's remaining term. The memorandum added that any gubernatorial action or order requiring a new Chief Minister to undergo a floor test 'would tantamount to the violation of Article 174(1)'.
