Summary
- Kiren Rijiju says the government is compelled to push critical bills amid continued Parliament disruptions.
- Opposition parties demand discussion on the Bihar Special Intensive Revision (SIR) of electoral rolls.
- Speaker cites precedent disallowing debates on Election Commission administrative actions.
Kiren Rijiju on Parliament Protests: Standoff Intensifies Between Centre and Opposition
The ongoing political turmoil in India’s Parliament deepened this week as Kiren Rijiju on Parliament protests sparked fresh debate. The Parliamentary Affairs Minister made it clear that the government, while willing to engage in discussion, is left with no option but to proceed with legislative business despite Opposition-led disruptions. At the heart of the logjam is the contentious Special Intensive Revision (SIR) of electoral rolls in Bihar, which the Opposition argues merits urgent parliamentary debate.
In an unusually candid statement, Kiren Rijiju on Parliament protests suggested that national interest and governance cannot be held hostage to procedural deadlock. With crucial bills such as the National Sports Governance Bill and the National Anti-Doping (Amendment) Bill awaiting passage, the Centre is preparing to push forward from Tuesday. The government contends these bills are critical for the country’s administrative and regulatory integrity.
As Speaker Om Birla invoked precedents disallowing discussions on Election Commission (EC) functioning, the opposition remained defiant. The political impasse is unlikely to resolve soon, particularly with the Monsoon Session already witnessing repeated adjournments.
Parliament belongs to the People of India.
— Kiren Rijiju (@KirenRijiju) July 26, 2025
हम चर्चा के लिए तैयार हैं। मैं विपक्ष से अपील करना चाहता हूँ कि वे सदन की कार्यवाही में बाधा न डालें।
संसदीय कार्य मंत्री के रूप में मैंने हर विपक्षी दल से संवाद किया, नेता प्रतिपक्ष से बैठक की, पहल की, और करता रहूंगा। pic.twitter.com/CmFMQXIlS8
Legislative Logjam: Centre’s Justification and Opposition Resistance
- The Opposition insists on prioritising a debate on the Bihar electoral revision before any legislative activity proceeds.
- Government counters that the Election Commission’s actions are beyond the purview of parliamentary discussion.
The deadlock in Parliament began shortly after the Monsoon Session commenced on July 21. A key flashpoint emerged over the Election Commission’s ongoing SIR in Bihar, where over 65 lakh names were reportedly left out of draft electoral rolls. This sparked outrage from several opposition parties, who claim it reflects systemic voter suppression. However, Kiren Rijiju on Parliament protests stated that the government cannot hold Parliament hostage to a matter that lies entirely within the domain of an autonomous constitutional body.
Rijiju invoked past rulings by former Speaker Balram Jakhar to argue that discussions on EC functioning are impermissible. The government maintains that while electoral reforms can be debated, specific actions of the EC — such as revisions — cannot be scrutinised in Parliament.
Despite agreeing in principle to a two-day debate on key sports-related bills, the opposition disrupted proceedings on Monday. According to Kiren Rijiju on Parliament protests, this behaviour reflects a political strategy rather than a genuine legislative concern.
Unpacking the Bihar SIR Dispute and Its Fallout
- Opposition leaders claim the SIR process has disenfranchised lakhs of voters in Bihar.
- The Election Commission asserts that the omissions are part of standard procedural checks and verifications.
At the core of the controversy is the Special Intensive Revision of electoral rolls in Bihar, which was initiated by the Election Commission in 2024. According to EC officials, the aim was to correct errors and remove duplicate or outdated entries. However, opposition parties allege that lakhs of names were arbitrarily struck off the list, many belonging to marginalised communities.
While the EC has maintained that affected voters can reapply with proper documentation, public confidence has been shaken. Civil society groups have flagged potential discrepancies and urged the EC to publish clarifying reports. Still, Kiren Rijiju on Parliament protests indicates that these concerns, though valid, must be addressed through electoral mechanisms, not legislative intervention.
The government has so far stood by the EC, citing Article 324 of the Constitution, which grants the poll body full autonomy in conducting and managing elections. This legal shield, combined with procedural precedent, has allowed the government to resist calls for a parliamentary probe.
Bills in Limbo: The Governance Cost of Disruption
- The National Sports Governance Bill and the Anti-Doping Bill face delays due to opposition protests.
- Government warns of setting a dangerous precedent if parliamentary work is continuously stalled.
With each passing day of adjourned sessions, the cost to governance grows. The National Sports Governance Bill, for instance, is designed to bring transparency to sports federations, many of which have been mired in allegations of corruption and mismanagement. The Anti-Doping (Amendment) Bill seeks to align India’s laws with the latest global standards.
In his statement, Kiren Rijiju on Parliament protests reiterated that these reforms cannot wait indefinitely. “We are not rushing. We are ready for discussions. But the functioning of Parliament cannot be paralysed every time there’s a difference in priorities,” he said.
According to data from the Ministry of Parliamentary Affairs, nearly 68 percent of working hours in the Lok Sabha and 72 percent in the Rajya Sabha have been lost to disruptions since July 21. This statistic underlines the urgency in Rijiju’s tone.
The Role of the Speaker and Constitutional Boundaries
- Speaker Om Birla rules out debate on EC functioning, citing constitutional limitations.
- Past rulings reinforce the separation of powers between Parliament and constitutional bodies.
In defending the government’s stance, Kiren Rijiju on Parliament protests cited the Speaker’s interpretation of parliamentary procedure. Speaker Om Birla referenced the ruling of late Congress Speaker Balram Jakhar, which upheld that constitutional bodies like the EC are not subject to legislative scrutiny regarding administrative decisions.
This precedent provides the Centre with a solid procedural foundation to deflect opposition demands. Nevertheless, it has also raised questions about democratic accountability and checks and balances. Opposition MPs argue that when an administrative action affects such a large number of citizens, Parliament must at least have a forum to express concern.
Yet Rijiju remains firm, stressing that circumventing constitutional limitations could set a problematic precedent for future debates. In a time where Parliament’s efficacy is being globally watched, the integrity of constitutional roles becomes paramount.
Where the Monsoon Session Goes From Here
- Government expected to table bills from Tuesday, even amid opposition noise.
- No consensus in sight over the SIR issue, raising prospects of further washouts.
As the standoff continues, the government is preparing to introduce and potentially pass key legislation even without opposition cooperation. This includes using provisions that allow business to proceed amid noise or low attendance. Kiren Rijiju on Parliament protests paints a picture of reluctant urgency — wanting a full debate, but not at the cost of total legislative paralysis.
According to the PRS Legislative Research group, 15 bills are listed for introduction or passage during this Monsoon Session, but only three have seen any movement. If disruptions persist, the government may be forced to invoke stronger procedural tools, possibly including voice votes without extensive debate.
While opposition leaders remain adamant on a full-fledged debate on the Bihar SIR exercise, the Election Commission’s position and the Speaker’s ruling continue to stand in the way.
Editorial Closing Note
The impasse in Parliament over the Bihar electoral revision controversy showcases the enduring tension between constitutional autonomy and democratic accountability. The government’s legal stance, backed by historical rulings, may be technically sound — but optics matter in a democracy. Kiren Rijiju on Parliament protests has highlighted the challenge of balancing governance urgency with public sentiment, especially when voters are directly affected. As the Monsoon Session inches closer to being another washout, the bigger loss may be the erosion of faith in India’s legislative process — from both sides of the aisle.
