Oppn slams decision to scrap Question Hour and Private Members’ Bills
New Delhi: A major controversy has erupted over the Rajya Sabha’s decision to dispense with Question Hour and Private Members’ Bills to accommodate a discussion on the working of the Home Ministry. Opposition parties, including the Trinamool Congress (TMC), have strongly objected to this move, arguing that it undermines essential parliamentary mechanisms crucial for maintaining accountability and legislative participation.
The removal of Question Hour has particularly drawn criticism, as it is the only forum where members can directly question the Government and receive immediate responses. Opposition leaders argue that this session is vital for transparency, as it allows representatives to seek clarifications, raise pressing national issues, and hold ministers accountable for Government actions. Eliminating this platform, they say, curtails the ability of elected representatives to engage in direct dialogue with the ruling establishment.
“Question Hour should remain as Question Hour because it is the only opportunity where a member gets a direct chance to question the Government, and the Government gets an opportunity to reply. Private Members’ Bills are very close to the hearts of many MPs who do not get a chance otherwise, especially those not sitting in the first two rows. The decision to dispense with both Question Hour and Private Members’ Bills to discuss the Home Ministry is a matter of concern. This is not just the Trinamool Congress’s point of view,” TMC Rajya Sabha member Derek O’Brien said.
On the other hand, soon after the House met, TMC MP Sushmita Dev also questioned why the discussion on the Home Ministry was listed on Friday, even though it is the day for Private Members’ business.
Similarly, Private Members’ Bills serve as a crucial legislative tool for MPs who do not hold ministerial positions. These Bills provide an opportunity for non-ministerial members to introduce proposals and contribute meaningfully to the law-making process. Many of these Bills address issues that may not always be at the forefront of the Government’s agenda but are nonetheless significant. By removing this avenue, critics argue, the Government is stifling diverse voices in legislative debates and limiting the role of non-executive MPs in shaping policy.
The TMC and other Opposition parties have expressed their disappointment over these developments. While they recognise the importance of discussing issues related to the Home Ministry, they insist that it should not come at the cost of established parliamentary procedures. A TMC representative emphasised that this move is not just a concern for the party but for parliamentary democracy itself, warning that such decisions set a dangerous precedent of side-lining crucial legislative practices.
This ongoing debate underscores the broader tension between Government priorities and parliamentary traditions. As discussions continue, Opposition leaders are expected to push for a reconsideration of the decision, emphasising the need to uphold the integrity of democratic processes within the legislature.
