Christy Raj, a Bengaluru-based trans rights activist, says he was glued to the screen on the March 24 and 25.

“I barely moved, as if an IPL match was on. Except that this time, it was the Parliament debates on the Trans Bill 2026 on the screen,” he says.

The Transgender Persons (Protection of Rights) Amendment Bill, which limits the definition of “transgender person” to socio-cultural identities and intersex variations at birth and deprives gender minorities of the right to self-declare their identities, has triggered uproar, caused severe anxiety for the community and poses a huge question mark over their identities.

Much to the dread of many like Raj, Parliament passed the Bill on March 25, 2026, in a huge setback to decades of struggle. When a proposed law itself risks invalidating the dignity and erasing sections of the community, they ask, what justice remains for an already marginalised, stigmatised and deeply persecuted group.

Karnataka scenario

According to the 2011 Census, Karnataka is home to 20,266 transgender persons. Even this figure is widely acknowledged as a significant undercount. Yet, based on these numbers alone, Karnataka ranks among the States with the highest proportion of transgender persons relative to its population. This also means that the impact of the Bill is likely to be pronounced in States like Karnataka.

The trans-legal battle in India has been a long-drawn one, with the law often taking gingerly, slow and reactive steps to recognise the rights of the gender minorities.

Karnataka has played a significant role in shaping India’s gender minorities rights movement, with activists, lawyers and community groups laying the groundwork, building public opinion and contributing to some of the key legal milestones.

For example, Sangama was one of the earliest organisations to document instances of violence and police brutality against gender minorities.

In 2004, Kokila, an individual belonging to hijra community, was gang-raped by a group of men in Bengaluru. When she went to the police station seeking help, she was reportedly detained, abused and sexually assaulted again by police personnel. What this exposed was the social as well as institutional violence inflicted upon transgender communities.

Kokila, in 2006, filed an affidavit as part of the Delhi High Court proceedings in the Naz Foundation Vs. Government of NCT of Delhi which challenged Section 377 of the IPC. As the case moved to Supreme Court, Kokila’s affidavit became part of the larger body of material and arguments used to build the case in the apex court.

“In 2008, we held a huge rally in Bengaluru against Section 377, in which around 2,000 people participated. Then there was no looking back,” recalls Manohar Elavarthi, who founded Sangama in 1999.

Akkai Padmashali, who initially worked with Sangama and later founded Ondede, emerged as an important figure from the community in the organised fight for transgender rights during the same period. Petitions filed by Padmashali, among other petitions, became crucial in the reading down of Section 377.

Around the same time, organisations like Alternative Law Forum (ALF) started supporting gender minorities navigate the legal system and helped build legal arguments that connected gender identity to constitutional rights and dignity 

Other community-led organisations and coalitions such as Samara, Aneka, Raahi, KSMF, Solidarity, Okoota, Jeeva, Swatantra, CSGMR and MGSP, and several individuals from the State, have also been crucial in voicing concerns of the working class people of the transgender community and pushing for policy actions.

“The leadership in gender and sexual minorities movements in most cities is English-speaking middle or upper class. In Karnataka, the leaders are predominantly from the working class, so working class issues are at the forefront. That, I think, is the biggest strength of the movement in Karnataka,” says Elavarthi.

Yet another aspect that stands out is how the movement has picked up in smaller towns beyond Bengaluru, even if in smaller numbers. Soon after the Bill was introduced in Parliament, protests were held in at least eights districts in Karnataka. 

State policy and quota

The efforts across decades have borne fruit too. In 2017, Karnataka introduced its State Policy on Transgender Persons and in 2021 became the first State in India to introduce a 1% reservation for transgender individuals in government jobs.

On a national level, the NALSA Vs. Union of India judgment in 2014 recognised the right of transgender persons to self-identify their gender. In 2018, the Supreme Court struck down Section 377. This was followed by the enactment of the Transgender Persons (Protection of Rights) Act, 2019, which, despite its shortcomings, marked a significant legislative step.

But rather than building on and addressing the gaps in the existing Act, the new Bill seeks to roll back years of progress secured through sustained struggle by the community, say the activists.

The Trans Bill, 2026

The Bill not only narrows the definition of “transgender person” to those with socio-cultural identities such as kinner, hijra, aravani, jogta, or eunuch, and persons forced to assume a transgender identity through mutilation or castration, but also folds persons with intersex variations or other congenital traits into this definition. Further, it specifically excludes persons with different sexual orientations and self-perceived sexual identities.

Currently, a transgender person can obtain legal recognition through self-declaration via an affidavit submitted to the District Magistrate (DM), without any requirement of medical examination. The proposed amendment, however, mandates a government-appointed Medical Board to provide recommendations to the DM before granting approval.

The Bill set off alarm bells and a spate of protests across India. In Karnataka too, the community rose in protest quickly. Among other things, transgender rights organisations, as well as several civil rights organisations, wrote an open letter to the Prime Minister to withdraw the Bill.

Despite wide and vehement opposition, the Bill was passed by Parliament.

Overlooking nuances

The pressing question now is what happens to those left outside the government’s definitions — those from regional identities, trans women beyond traditional frameworks, and trans men who do not fall within any of the traditional socio-cultural identities.

Karnataka is home to regional identities such as jogamma, jogappa, mangalamukhi, marladi, kothi, shivshakti and so on. Arvind Narrain, lawyer and founding member of ALF, points out that some States, like Kerala, have no traditional transgender identities. The Bill, however, overlooks such regional nuances. Akkai Padmashali terms this a disrespect to cultures and identities other than the ones mentioned in the Bill, and to individuals like her.

“I identify as a woman. I don’t want to be recognised as a Hijra, Jogta, Kinner or Eunuch. I decide my identity and not the State,” she reiterates. Raj notes that even if one belongs to a category mentioned in the Bill, they need to prove their identity in front of a medical board now, which is a violation of personal liberty and contradictory to the NALSA judgment.

Then there is the case of transmen whose existence the Bill has entirely refused to acknowledge. “Within the larger transgender community itself, transmen are the most invisible. There are no traditional communities or cultural backup for them,” says Astha Kalarikkal, executive director at Raahi.

Nathaan, a trans right activist, says he gets several panic calls everyday from people asking what will happen to their existing transgender cards, pending applications, surgeries, and changes in other government documents. “The Bill gives no clarity and pushes already vulnerable people into more vulnerability,” he says.

“This is clearly a Bill rooted in Hindutva notions,” adds Raj. “Not only are all the groups legitimised by the government associated with the Hindu religion, but by refusing to acknowledge the existence of female-to-male individuals, the government has revealed its completely patriarchal mindset.”

Much to the chagrin of the community, the Bill also uses the term “eunuch” among the definitions, which has been historically used to dehumanise and humiliate the community. “I am not a eunuch. I am not impotent. I am a human being. This Bill is disrespectful towards the community and the plurality of the country,” lashes out Padmashali.

Criminalisation

One of the offences mentioned in the Bill is to unduly influence, coerce, force or entice a person into performing amputation, mutilation, surgical intervention, or emasculation to assume a transgender identity against their will. This will warrant a minimum of rigorous imprisonment for 10 years and maximum of imprisonment for life.

But in the case of gender minorities, many, on revealing their identities, are either forced out of their homes or subject to physical and mental harassment by their families. Eventually, many of them seek the help of communities and support groups and join the groups with the help of the community elders.

Under the new Bill, all of this could be interpreted as enticement or undue violence, points out Narrain.

“You cannot just get any person on the street and entice them. But the Bill speaks about criminalisation. Criminalisation of who? It could be any person who helps in any way, support organisations, law-based organisations or traditional communities,” he says.  

Improvements needed

Activists like Raj feel that the Union government has often turned a blind eye to the community members in the South. While the Centre has rolled out the SMILE scholarship scheme for transgender students, not a single person from Bengaluru who applied for it have received it so far, he alleges.

In Karnataka, the government introduced the State Policy on Transgender Persons in 2017 and became the first State to introduce 1% reservation in government jobs for transgender individuals. The Mythri pension scheme for transgender persons was launched by the Karnataka government around 2012–13.

According to government sources, while around 35,000 people avail themselves of the Mythri pension, the 1% reservation has not found much success. As per the figures revealed by Home Minister G. Parameshwara recently, the horizontal reservation has led to four selections in the Home Department.

“Many of the community members haven’t been able to continue their education. So to take up jobs, they need coaching and support. We have been demanding that, but targeted programmes remain absent,” says Elavarthi.

The Karnataka government undertook a first of its kind survey of gender minorities in the State in 2025. A report prepared after the survey recommended free coaching for competitive exams, skill development and employment training and dedicated education support systems for transgender individuals. A dedicated transgender welfare board has also been a long-pending demand of the community. However, the Karnataka Budget saw no such announcements.

Continuing the fight

While the strong resistance from the State is a reflection of how Karnataka’s gender and sexual minorities movement has evolved and strengthened over the years, the community members feel that they are at a juncture where the fight, even for basics such as being treated with dignity and on par with others, seems far from over. 

“We will not sit quietly. We are all set to file a petition before the Supreme Court,” says Padmashali. The SC-appointed committee led by Asha Menon, in which Padmashali is a member, has also passed a resolution against the Bill that was introduced without consulting the National Council for Transgender Persons. She highlights the need for political representation of transgender and intersex individuals.

Raj demands that the Karnataka goverment must ensure that, if the Act is passed, the law is not implemented in the State.

Activists also question the Union government’s rationale behind the Bill, which is ‘prevention of misuse of schemes and protection of genuine transgender persons who face discrimination.’ “The 2011 Census shows close to 5 lakh transgender individuals. Only around 30,000 transgender cards have been availed so far. So, what misuse are they referring to?” Narrain wonders.

Elavarthi argues that invasion of personal space is typical to the right wing. “They want to police what I eat, what I wear, my body, my relationship, my identity, when the reality is that everyone, even the cis heterosexual people, fall in a spectrum.”

New Delhi:

A new Income Tax bill — promised by Union finance minister in her last year’s budget — will be tabled in parliament on Thursday, sources have told NDTV. The bill is meant to simplify the language of the tax laws and it would later be sent to Parliament’s Standing Committee on Finance. It will not change the existing tax slabs or review the tax rebates given. 

Sources said simplification of the language will make the Act concise, clear, and easy to understand, which will reduce disputes, litigations, and provide greater tax certainty to taxpayers. 

The CBDT had set up an internal committee to oversee the review. Also, 22 specialised sub-committees have been established to review the various aspects of the proposed law that would replace the six-decade-old law. 

Ahead of drawing up the bill, the government had sought inputs from the people under four categories — simplification of language, litigation reduction, compliance reduction, and redundant/obsolete provisions.

The income tax department received 6,500 suggestions from stakeholders on review of the law.
 

New Delhi:

Movie distribution company Geek Pictures on Sunday said it is set to organise a special screening of the 1993 Japanese-Indian anime film “Ramayana: The Legend of Prince Rama” at the Parliament on February 15.

According to a press release, the screening will be attended by Lok Sabha Speaker Om Birla along with members of Parliament as well as special invitees from the cultural sectors.

“We are deeply honoured by this gesture from the Parliament of India. It is a privilege to see our work being recognised at such a prestigious level.

“This screening is not just a showcase of a film but a celebration of our rich heritage and the timeless story of the Ramayana, which continues to inspire and guide us,” Arjun Aggarwal, co-founder of Geek Pictures, said in a statement.

“Ramayana: The Legend of Prince Rama” released in India with new dubs in Hindi, Tamil and Telugu alongside its original English version on January 24 in the 4K format.

Also distributed in the country by AA Films and Excel Entertainment, the animated film was eyeing an October 18, 2024 release which was rescheduled to make the film accessible in a significantly greater number of cinemas.

“Ramayana: The Legend of Prince Rama” is directed by Yugo Sako, Ram Mohan and Koichi Sasaki.

In its earlier Hindi version, “Ramayan” star Arun Govil voiced the character of Ram, Namrata Sawhney voice starred as Sita and the late Amrish Puri lent his voice to Raavan. Veteran actor Shatrughan Sinha served as the narrator.

Screenwriter V Vijayendra Prasad, known for the “Baahubali” franchise, “Bajrangi Bhaijaan” and “RRR”, has overseen the creative adaptation of the new versions of the film.

“Ramayana: The Legend of Prince Rama” was screened in India at the 24th International Film Festival of India (IFFI) in 1993 but wasn’t released in cinema halls. It became popular with Indian audiences upon its re-runs on TV channels in the early 2000s.

(This story has not been edited by NDTV staff and is auto-generated from a syndicated feed.)

New Delhi:

The parliamentary panel reviewing the Waqf bill circulated a 655-page report today, incorporating all the changes suggested by its members. The Opposition, though, has alleged that none of its amendments have been incorporated.

Amid fears that the existing Waqf properties will be subject to scrutiny after the amended law comes into force, the committee has recommended that no cases will be reopened against such properties on a retrospective basis, provided the asset is not in dispute or belongs to the government.

The committee has accepted 14 amendments, which have been suggested by members of the BJP or its allies.

The bill proposes numerous changes to the way Waqf boards are administered, including nominating non-Muslim and (at least two) women members.

The bill also has a provision that says the central Waqf Council must include a union minister and three MPs, two ex-judges, four people of ‘national repute’, and senior government officials, none of whom need be from the Islamic faith.

Further, under the new rules the Waqf Council can’t claim land.

The Opposition leaders have also criticised the committee alleging a very short time has been allowed for studying the draft report.

The committee chaired by BJP leader Jagdambika Pal is expected to adopt the report on Wednesday.

“The parliamentary committee on Waqf Bill has been reduced to a farce. We were told that the draft report of the committee and its bill will be discussed tomorrow at 10 am. It is a 655-page report which has been sent to us just now,” said DMK leader A Raja.

Mr Raja said the MPs are expected to go through it, provide comments and submit dissent notes.

“This is simply not possible. What is the point of an independent parliamentary committee if the government does as it pleases anyway,” the former Union minister asked.

Key Provisions of the Waqf Amendment Bill, 2025

• Two Muslim women will continue to be included as members in both the State Waqf Boards (Section 14) and the Central Waqf Council (Section 9) to ensure Muslim women’s empowerment and participation in waqf management.
•    The State Waqf Boards will now include one member from the Muslim OBC community, ensuring broader representation (Section 14).
•    The State Government may establish separate Waqf Boards for Aghakhani and Bohra communities, acknowledging their distinct religious needs (Section 13).
•    In Waqf Alal Aulad (family waqfs), women’s inheritance rights will be safeguarded. A waqif can dedicate property only after ensuring that female heirs receive their rightful share (Section 3A(2)).
•    Registered Waqf by User will continue to be recognized as waqf, except in cases where the property is under dispute or owned by the government (Section 3(r)).
•   The Limitation Act will apply to all waqf-related cases from the commencement of this Act, ensuring timely resolution and preventing prolonged litigation (Section 107).
•   The online registration process will be introduced to automate the entire life cycle of waqf properties through the portal.
•    Waqf Boards must upload all waqf property details on a central portal within six months. The Waqf Tribunal may grant extensions on a case-by-case basis.
•    If a government property is claimed as waqf, an officer above the rank of Collector, notified by the State Government, will conduct an inquiry as per the law. Until the report is submitted, such government properties will not be treated as waqf (Section 3C).
•   Muslim trusts that function similarly to waqf but are governed by trust laws will be excluded from the Waqf Act, 1995, preventing legal conflicts (Section 2A).
•   The income from Waqf Alal Aulad can be used to support widows, divorced women, and orphans, if specified by the waqif (Section 3(r)(iv)).
•   The finality of tribunal decisions has been removed. Any aggrieved person can now appeal to the High Court within ninety days of the tribunal’s decision.
•   Online registration certificates of waqf properties will be issued through the portal.
   

The dates for the forthcoming Budget session of Parliament have been announced. Once again, at very short notice. We did some research and here is what we found. Historically, the Indian Parliament provided ample time for preparation. The first two Lok Sabhas (1952–1962) averaged a commendable 47 days between the time the notice was given, and the start of the session. Over the years, however, this gap has narrowed significantly. Under the current government, the average has plummeted to 17 days’ notice for summoning sessions—one of the lowest in the history of independent India. This time around, the Parliamentary bulletin announcing the starting date (January 31) of the Budget Session, was announced on January 17. Abysmal. Fifteen days’ notice!    

India’s Parliament has seen this troubling trend in the last two decades. The lack of proper planning hurts the functioning of a Parliamentary democracy. The diminishing lead time between the issuance of summons and the commencement of sessions is only one of the many ills that are ‘turning Parliament into a deep, dark chamber’. If schools and colleges can set up their calendars way in advance, why can’t Parliament? There are multiple advantages of preparing and then announcing a calendar for Parliament with sufficient lead time. Proper lead time will ensure higher quality of outputs from Members of Parliament (MPs).  

The Constitutional Gap

Unlike many other democracies, India does not have a fixed parliamentary calendar. Conventionally, Parliament meets for three sessions a year:

1. Budget Session (usually February-May),
2. Monsoon Session (usually July-August), and
3. Winter Session (usually November-December)

The only constitutional requirement is that there should not be more than six months between two sessions. The gap has enabled successive governments to carve out timing for sessions to suit themselves. This selfish tactic undermines the robustness of Parliament and raises serious questions.  Can a Parliament that meets sporadically, with just two weeks’ notice, be an effective amplifier to voice concerns of citizens? Can a Parliament that gives MPs insufficient time to prepare, be a shining example of representative governance? Members of the Lok Sabha and the Rajya Sabha are elected not just to legislate, but also to hold the government accountable, scrutinise its actions, and debate matters of national importance. These responsibilities will be fulfilled far better with a structured and predictable Parliamentary calendar.  

Efforts to address this issue go back many decades. In 1955, the General Purposes Committee of the Lok Sabha explored the idea of a fixed Parliamentary calendar. Then again in 2002, the National Commission to Review the Working of the Constitution, emphasised the need for a minimum number of sittings. Unfortunately, these proposals have still not been implemented.  

The 2019 Bill

In 2019, your columnist introduced a Private Member’s Bill in Parliament to establish a fixed calendar for Parliamentary sessions and mandate a minimum of 100 sitting days annually. This aimed to enhance the functioning of Parliament by ensuring governments do not evade accountability by delaying sessions or cutting them short. A fixed schedule would allow Members of Parliament to plan their legislative and constituency responsibilities effectively, ensuring adequate time for debating and scrutinising bills, policies, and issues of public importance. By guaranteeing at least 100 sitting days, the bill sought to strengthen the democratic process, improve legislative efficiency, and uphold transparency and accountability in governance.

Restoring The Purpose

During the Constituent Assembly debates, members like K.T. Shah argued that the flexibility of not having a fixed calendar should not lead to misuse, emphasising that Parliament must meet often to ensure proper oversight of the executive. India prides itself on being the world’s largest democracy. Yet, the strength of a democracy is measured not by its size but by the effectiveness of its institutions. Parliament is the cornerstone of this system, and its proper functioning is essential for ensuring that the voices of citizens are heard and their concerns addressed. A fixed Parliamentary calendar is not just a procedural reform, it will be a big step toward restoring some measure of the dignity and purpose of this institution.  

In countries like the UK and the US, Parliament and Congress have fixed session schedules. For instance, the UK House of Commons follows an annual calendar approved months in advance, ensuring MPs can prepare and balance their legislative and constituency duties.

This issue transcends political affiliations. It is about safeguarding the democratic framework and ensuring that Parliament fulfils its constitutional mandate. Seventy-five years after adopting the Constitution, is as good a time as any, to give the world’s largest Parliamentary democracy a calendar with a well-planned schedule, and at least 100 days of Parliament being in session.  

Let’s get this done.  

(Derek O’Brien, MP, leads the Trinamool Congress in the Rajya Sabha)

(Additional research: Chahat Mangtani, Dheemunt Jain)

Even in a competitive democracy where political rivals joust fiercely and yet maintain a semblance of informed and civil discourse, it is a difficult task to push through legislation on contentious issues. When a competitive democracy becomes deeply polarised, to the extent that civil discourse is replaced by bitterness, abuse and mistrust, legislation of any kind becomes extremely difficult, if not impossible. At this point in time, the planned law on One Nation, One Election (ONOE) could become a victim of such a situation. 

There could be competing views on the need for ONOE and its impact on polity in a federal democracy like India. But in the absence of sagacity and pragmatism, hyperbole, rhetoric and polemics have ended up destroying both the discourse and the process of legislation for an amendment for simultaneous elections that the NDA regime proposed during the “washed out” winter session of the Parliament. As expected, the Bill has been referred to a select committee. It is anybody’s guess whether the NDA regime will manage to cobble together a two-thirds majority of “present” members to be able to pass the Bill.

No Time To Govern

However, what about the idea of ONOE? On the face of it, there is some merit to the argument in favour of simultaneous elections. There can be no dispute that the political landscape in India is littered with elections the way the Indian calendar is littered with festivals. Look at what has happened over the last year. There were elections to state assemblies in Rajasthan, Chhattisgarh and Madhya Pradesh. Soon after that came the 2024 Lok Sabha elections. When political parties, voters and analysts had barely even begun to digest the import of the verdict, assembly elections became due in Haryana and Jammu & Kashmir (after a gap of 10 years). Even before one could delve deeper into the surprise verdicts, elections in Maharashtra and Jharkhand were announced. Just as India starts the new year in 2025, elections to the Delhi assembly will be announced. For Indian voters, pollsters, pundits and assorted debaters alike, the year 2025 will be a relatively dull year as only Bihar will go for elections towards the end of the year. But 2026 will see a flurry, with Kerala, Tamil Nadu, West Bengal and Assam being the major states that will elect new governments. That will be followed in 2027 by shenanigans in Uttar Pradesh, Uttarakhand, Punjab, Goa and some others. There will be another series of assembly elections soon after, and then the 2029 Lok Sabha elections will be due before you can pause to take a breath.

This is clearly not a healthy situation. National-level parties are perpetually in campaign mode because of this never-ending stream of assembly elections. Purely regional parties don’t suffer as much as their footprint normally doesn’t extend beyond one state. For instance, Tamil Nadu chief minister and DMK chief M. K. Stalin and his son-cum-inheritor Udaynidhi Stalin couldn’t care much about elections to West Bengal and Assam, which will be held along with Tamil Nadu in 2026. Perhaps even neighbouring Kerala won’t be too important for them. 

A Case For ONOE

Yet, there is an impact on governance because elections mean the Model Code of Conduct, a period when policy decisions are paralysed. In a rapidly changing and evolving geopolitical scenario, this doesn’t augur well. Since the Bharatiya Janata Party (BJP) leads the National Democratic Alliance (NDA) at the centre, it cannot announce significant policy decisions in 2026 as they could impact voter behaviour in states like Kerala, Tamil Nadu, West Bengal and Assam. Any window for serious governance and policymaking would be brief because soon it would be time for elections in Uttar Pradesh et al. Besides, there is the issue of costs, the diversion of human and other resources for the conduct of elections, and the question of organising paramilitary forces every few months. 

These factors do suggest that there is a case for simultaneous elections. On the other hand, what could be the reasons that present a case against it? There are some who argue that a single burst of elections to Parliament and all the state assemblies would give an unfair advantage to resource-rich national parties like the BJP, which would outgun and steamroll opponents who can’t match its resources, particularly at the regional level. That’s simply not true. The year 1967 was the last time India saw simultaneous polls. Even then, while Indira Gandhi led the Congress to a victory in the Lok Sabha, she lost about 10 states to various opposition groups and alliances. Even in contemporary times, the Narendra Modi-led BJP has won massive victories in Delhi in the Lok Sabha elections, to be followed soon by massive victories for the Arvind Kejriwal-led AAP in assembly elections. The Indian voter is astute and knows how to distinguish between national and local issues. In any case, many regional parties have publicly announced their support for ONOE.

Give And Take

The problem is not the idea but the deeply divisive and polarised nature of Indian politics. The Janata Dal (United) (JD-U), an NDA ally, is in favour of simultaneous polls. On the other hand, its rival, the Rashtriya Janata Dal (RJD), which is also largely confined to Bihar, is fiercely opposed to it. Both support and opposition don’t seem to stem from merits but from political divide and a deep mistrust. The manner in which the recent winter session of the Parliament was conducted reveals how bitter and deep this gulf is. In such a situation, it would take an extraordinary level of pragmatic give-and-take politics to make ONOE a reality. 

It is possible, the contentious GST Bill was passed in 2017 despite deep divisions. But for the sake of pragmatism, the authors would suggest two solutions. First, start with One Nation, Two Elections, wherein assembly elections are divided into two separate bunches. Second, and more important, the government should seriously consider a law that would enable referendums in India, as held in other major democracies. Why not have a national vote where citizens deliver a verdict on ONOE and other major issues?

(Yashwant Deshmukh is the Founder & Editor-in-Chief of CVoter Foundation and Sutanu Guru is Executive Director)

Disclaimer: These are the personal opinions of the author

New Delhi:

Parliament was adjourned sine die on Friday, capping off a tumultuous session that saw a robust debate on the country’s constitutional journey and the introduction of two landmark bills on simultaneous elections before plunging to a new low of political animosity over alleged insult of B R Ambedkar.

As Parliament met on the last day of Winter Session, the overhang of mutual bitterness involving the ruling National Democratic Alliance and opposition parties following Thursday’s spat persisted, forcing Speaker Om Birla in Lok Sabha to adjourn the House within three minutes without even the customary summing up of the Session’s highlights.

It was only a little better in Rajya Sabha as opposition parties, which have been protesting against Home Minister Amit Shah’s alleged insulting comments for Ambedkar, agreed to let Chairman Jagdeep Dhankhar read out his valedictory remarks before adjourning the House sine die.

The Lok Sabha’s productivity was nearly 58 per cent, according to its secretariat, a far cry from days when it hovered around 100 per cent and even beyond.

In his concluding remarks, Dhankhar called upon parties to rise above political differences and restore the sanctity of parliamentary discourse, striking a note of balance amid opposition’s charge that he has often been partisan.

He said the House effectively functioned for just 43 hours and 27 minutes with a productivity of merely 40.03 percent during the Winter Session that began on November 25.

At a press conference, Parliamentary Affairs Minister Kiren Rijiju laid the blame on the door of opposition, especially the Congress, saying their continuous protest despite an earlier agreement to allow Parliament to run was the principal reason behind the low productivity.

He said all parties must reflect on what is a matter of great concern, adding that as the minister in-charge of parliamentary affairs he will continue to reach out to opposition leaders.

During the Session, five bills were introduced in Lok Sabha, which passed four of them. The Rajya Sabha passed three bills. A special session was also held in the ‘Samvidhan Sadan’ to commemorate the Constitution Day on November 26.

If Thursday’s pushing and shoving involving MPs of rival parties, which left two BJP members hospitalised and led to a police case against Leader of the Opposition in Lok Sabha Rahul Gandhi, was the low point of the Session, a spirited discussion on the “Glorious journey of 75 years of the Constitution of India” for two days in each House reflected the best of parliamentary debate.

Prime Minister Narendra Modi’s sharp denunciation of the Congress, especially the Nehru-Gandhi family, for its “mutilation” of constitutional values was heard by opposition benches in the Lok Sabha without any serious disruption, and so was Home Minister Amit Shah’s reply to the debate in Rajya Sabha.

However, opposition parties seized on a couple of sentences of Shah’s reply to accuse him of insulting B R Ambedkar, the architect of India’s Constitution, and launch protests inside and outside Parliament.

The BJP-led NDA MPs led counter protests, accusing the Congress of slighting Ambedkar and ignoring his legacy during its long decades in power.

As Modi led Shah’s defence and counterattack on the Congress, both sides turned up political heat, which blew up in an ugly spat on Parliament’s premises on Thursday. Both sides lodged police complaints against each other, and an FIR was registered against Gandhi, blamed by the BJP for injuries to two of its MPs.

Speaker Birla warned all parties against holding protests at the entrance, the site of the spat on Thursday, of Parliament.

Opposition parties have filed notices for breach of privilege against Shah in the two Houses, while the BJP did the same against Rahul Gandhi.

Rijiju told reporters that it is now up to the respective Chair in the two Houses to take a call on the matter.

Congress leader Jairam Ramesh said his party’s performance in Parliament was “100 per cent” as it raised all relevant issues, including the charges in the US against the Adani group, but the government ran away from debate.

Incidentally, it was the government’s readiness to hold a discussion on the Constitution which had broken the early deadlock in Parliament as the Congress stuck to its demand for a debate on the Adani row.

While the opposition INDIA bloc was a divided House with parties like the Samajwadi Party and Trinamool Congress not agreeing with the primacy given to the Adani issue by the Congress, they rallied together over Shah’s comments.

The highlight of the Session’s legislative agenda was two landmark bills — the Constitution (One Hundred and Twenty-Ninth) Amendment Bill and the Union Territories Laws (Amendment) Bill — to give effect to the mechanism of simultaneous elections to Lok Sabha and assemblies.

It was introduced in Lok Sabha on December 17 and was referred to a 39-member Joint Committee of Parliament on Thursday.

Singalling the deepening divide among different stakeholders in Parliament, opposition parties submitted a notice to move a motion of no-confidence against Dhankhar, but it was dismissed by Rajya Sabha Deputy Chairman Harivansh, who slammed it as an act of impropriety, being severely flawed and drawn in haste to mar the Chairperson’s reputation.

At least 60 opposition members had signed the notice on December 10 for removal of Dhankhar from his post, alleging he was “biased” and they did not have trust in him.

(Except for the headline, this story has not been edited by NDTV staff and is published from a syndicated feed.)

New Delhi:

The Crime Branch of the Delhi Police will investigate the First Information Report (FIR) against Congress MP Rahul Gandhi, who has been accused of injuring two Bharatiya Janata Party (BJP) MPs at the Parliament complex, an officer said on Friday.

Besides, the crime branch will probe a counter-case filed by the Congress against members of the ruling Bharatiya Janata Party (BJP), in connection with the face-off between the two sides on Thursday, the officer added.

“The crime branch will now investigate the two cases,” the officer said.

Mr Gandhi has been booked under sections 117 (voluntary causing grievous hurt), 115 (voluntary causing hurt), 125 (act of endangering life or personal safety of others), 131 (use of criminal force), 351 (criminal intimidation), and 3(5) (common intention) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita. 

On Thursday, ugly scenes unfolded between the Opposition and National Democratic Alliance (NDA) MPs at the Parliament steps, during protests over Union Home Minister Amit Shah’s alleged insult to B R Ambedkar in the House on Tuesday. A tussle between the two sides left former minister Pratap Chandra Sarangi and Mukesh Rajput injured.

Both leaders, one of whom is 69 years old, are in the hospital.

Mr Sarangi claimed that he got injured after Mr Gandhi pushed Mr Rajput. They were standing on the stairs when Mr Rajput allegedly fell on him. “Rahul Gandhi pushed a member of Parliament who fell on me after which I fell down…I was standing near the stairs when Rahul Gandhi came and pushed an MP who then fell on me…” Mr Sarangi had said. 

Various leaders of the BJP subsequently accused Mr Gandhi of hooliganism – allegations the Leader of the Opposition in the Lok Sabha has denied. 

Later on Thursday, former Union Minister and BJP MP Anurag Thakur, and party lawmakers Bansuri Swaraj and Hemang Joshi, filed a complaint against the Congress leader, and, among other things, accused him of attempt to murder. 

The opposition party, however, strongly rejected the claim and alleged that BJP MPs pushed Congress President Mallikarjun Kharge and “physically manhandled” Mr Gandhi. “Now they are accusing us of shoving them,” Mr Kharge said on Thursday.

A delegation of Congress MPs, including Digvijaya Singh, Mukul Wasnik, Rajiv Shukla and Pramod Tiwari, also filed a police complaint. In a letter to Lok Sabha Speaker Om Birla, several Congress MPs asked him to initiate an inquiry into the incident.

New Delhi:

Lok Sabha Speaker Om Birla has issued strict instructions to ensure no MP is allowed to hold protests at any of the gates in Parliament House, sources have said. The instructions came after chaos and ruckus unfolded earlier today between the ruling National Democratic Alliance (NDA) and Opposition MPs at the Makar Dwar of the Parliament House.

Mr Birla has also issued instructions to all MPs not to block or hold protests at any of the entry gates to the parliament.

MPs from the NDA and the Opposition bloc INDIA took out separate protest marches over the BR Ambedkar issue earlier today. The situation escalated when both came face to face outside the Parliament House, leading to jostling in which BJP MP Pratap Sarangi was injured.

He was taken to hospital with an injury on his forehead. BJP MPs alleged Mr Sarangi was pushed by Congress MP Rahul Gandhi. Another BJP MP Mukesh Rajput was also injured, the party said.

Rahul Gandhi, Leader of the Opposition in the Lok Sabha, later told reporters that while he was trying to enter Parliament House, BJP members pushed and “threatened” him.

“It is our right to enter Parliament,” he said.

Both the Lok Sabha and the Rajya Sabha were adjourned following the noisy protests by the Opposition seeking an apology from Home Minister Amit Shah for his remarks on BR Ambedkar.

The Delhi Police this evening registered a first information report (FIR) against Rahul Gandhi after the BJP filed a complaint accusing him of “physical assault and incitement”.

A police officer said they are likely to call Rahul Gandhi for questioning in connection with the case. The police will also request the Lok Sabha secretariat to provide CCTV footage of the area where the alleged incident happened.

The Congress has strongly rejected the assault claim, alleging BJP MPs pushed its chief Mallikarjun Kharge and “physically manhandled” Rahul Gandhi. The Congress also filed a complaint in connection with the matter.

In his two-page police complaint, BJP MP from Vadodara Hemang Joshi said, “They intentionally used physical force to push Mukesh Rajput and Pratap Rao Sarangi and others who were standing on the narrow stairs at the entrance.”

He alleged Mukesh Rajput suffered a “severe injury” to the back of his head and Mr Sarangi to his forehead.

“My colleague, Dr Byreddy Sabari, MP, who is also a qualified doctor, immediately provided first aid to the injured individuals. I personally witnessed the incident as I was standing next to my injured colleagues and attempted to reason with Shri Rahul Gandhi and his accomplices,” Mr Joshi said in the complaint.