On Wednesday, the Lok Sabha decisively rejected the Opposition’s no-confidence motion against Speaker Om Birla by a voice vote, following a vigorous defense mounted by Union Home Minister Amit Shah. Shah’s speech was marked by a sharp critique of Congress leader Rahul Gandhi, particularly targeting his attendance and participation in parliamentary proceedings, and challenging Gandhi’s frequent claims that he was not allowed to speak in the House.
Shah began by addressing Gandhi’s contention that he was denied the opportunity to speak in Parliament. He dismissed this claim by pointing out Gandhi’s poor attendance record and limited engagement in crucial debates. Highlighting Gandhi’s repeated absences during key parliamentary sessions, Shah emphasized that the Leader of the Opposition was often abroad when Parliament was in session, which naturally precluded him from speaking. Shah underscored that the Lok Sabha does not have provisions for members to participate remotely via video conferencing, making Gandhi’s claims untenable.
The Home Minister detailed Gandhi’s foreign trips during important parliamentary sessions over the years, citing numerous examples. He noted that during the Winter Session of 2025, Gandhi was in Germany; during the Budget Sessions of 2023 and 2025, he was abroad in England and Vietnam respectively; and earlier, during the Budget Session of 2018, he was travelling in Singapore and Malaysia. Shah also mentioned Gandhi’s extended absence of 60 days during the Budget Session of 2015. Shah sarcastically observed the “coincidence” that Gandhi’s foreign schedules often coincided with critical parliamentary sessions, enabling him to claim he was not allowed to speak, while practically being absent.
Turning to Gandhi’s parliamentary attendance statistics, Shah presented a striking comparison with national averages. In the 17th Lok Sabha, Gandhi’s attendance was 51%, notably below the national average of 67%. In the 16th Lok Sabha, his attendance was 52% against an 80% average, and in the 15th Lok Sabha, it was even lower at 43%, compared to a 76% average. Beyond attendance, Shah criticized Gandhi’s lack of participation in key debates. He pointed out that Gandhi had refrained from speaking in discussions on the President’s Address, the Budget, and various Bills across multiple Lok Sabha terms. For instance, Gandhi did not participate in the Motion of Thanks to the President’s Address in 2019, 2020, and 2021, nor in Budget discussions in several years during the 17th Lok Sabha. Shah further noted that Gandhi had spoken in only one Bill discussion during the current Lok Sabha and had not contributed to the debate on the no-confidence motion brought by his own party against the Speaker.
Shah also addressed an incident in Parliament involving women MPs, where he supported Speaker Birla’s decision to request Prime Minister Narendra Modi to skip a speech to avoid an unprecedented situation. The Home Minister emphasized the need for adherence to parliamentary decorum and procedures, asserting that activists advising politicians must respect House rules.
Responding to Opposition complaints about the expunging of unparliamentary remarks from records, Shah clarified that such language must be removed to maintain decorum. He rejected any notion that the House should tolerate unrestrained language, dismissing such demands by stating, “There is no Emergency that you should have special rights here.”
Shah took a historical perspective to counter the Opposition’s no-confidence motion against Speaker Birla, noting that the BJP had never moved such a motion while it was in opposition. He questioned the alliances to which those who had previously brought three no-confidence motions belonged, implying that the current Opposition’s move lacked precedent and legitimacy.
On the role of the Speaker, Shah reaffirmed that the Speaker’s ruling is final and that questioning the Speaker’s integrity casts a negative light on India’s democratic traditions. He suggested that disputes regarding the Speaker’s conduct should be resolved privately in the Speaker’s chamber. However, he also remarked on the intimidating atmosphere that Opposition members create when approaching the Speaker, suggesting that concerns about the Speaker’s safety in such situations are misplaced.
Shah stressed the importance of following parliamentary rules, reminding members that the House is not a “mela” or a marketplace, but a place requiring decorum. He highlighted the Speaker’s duty to maintain order, including asking members to leave if they violate rules—a responsibility that has been upheld since Jawaharlal Nehru’s time. Further, Shah asserted that even the Supreme Court cannot overrule the Speaker’s decisions, a constitutional safeguard designed