The Lok Sabha witnessed high-voltage drama on Wednesday as Union Home Minister Amit Shah launched a blistering counterattack on Leader of the Opposition Rahul Gandhi during the debate on the no-confidence motion against Speaker Om Birla. Shah accused Gandhi of consistently avoiding parliamentary debates while frequently traveling abroad, as the treasury bench rallied to defend the Speaker against opposition allegations of partisan conduct .
The motion, moved by Congress MP Mohammad Jawed with support from 118 opposition MPs, alleges that Speaker Om Birla failed to maintain impartiality and deliberately suppressed opposition voices, particularly targeting Rahul Gandhi . However, as the debate entered its second day, Amit Shah turned the tables on the Congress leader with detailed statistical counterattacks.
'When It's Time to Speak, Rahul Is in Germany or England'
Taking a sharp dig at the Leader of Opposition, Amit Shah highlighted that despite the Congress receiving significantly more speaking time than the BJP in both the 17th and 18th Lok Sabha, Rahul Gandhi remained conspicuously absent during crucial debates .
"When it is time to speak, Rahul ji is in Germany or England," Shah remarked in the House, pointing out that the opposition consistently fails to utilize its allocated time for substantive discussions on the budget, the President's address, and important legislation .
Shah substantiated his claims with attendance data, revealing that in the 17th Lok Sabha, Rahul Gandhi's attendance stood at merely 51 percent, far below the national average of 67 percent. The gap widened further in the 16th Lok Sabha, where Gandhi recorded 52 percent attendance against an 80 percent national average. During the 15th Lok Sabha, his attendance dropped to 43 percent while the national average remained at 76 percent .
'Mics Are Switched Off for Rule-Breakers, Not Opposition'
Addressing the opposition's core grievance that their microphones were being silenced, Amit Shah delivered a pointed clarification: microphones are turned off for any member—whether from the opposition or treasury—who violates House rules .
Shah cited a specific instance when even Union Minister Giriraj Singh's microphone was cut while he was speaking against Pappu Yadav, emphasizing that the Speaker applies rules uniformly. "The Speaker has the authority to intervene and stop members if the rules are violated," Shah stated, adding that unparliamentary words must necessarily be expunged from records as per established parliamentary norms .
He reminded members that protests must remain within the framework of parliamentary rules, criticizing opposition MPs for approaching the Prime Minister's chair during demonstrations and tearing papers toward the Speaker's podium .
Speaker Om Birla Represents the Entire House
Defending the Speaker against what he termed a "regrettable" motion, Amit Shah stressed that Om Birla belongs to no single party but represents the entire House. He noted that this marked the first time in nearly four decades that such a motion had been brought against a Speaker .
Shah pointed out procedural lapses in the opposition's notice itself, alleging that the initial submission mentioned the year 2025 instead of 2026. After the mistake was corrected, Shah claimed that in the second notice moved by Gaurav Gogoi, only a few signatures were original while several others were photocopies . Despite these irregularities, Shah acknowledged that Speaker Om Birla allowed the opposition two opportunities to rectify errors on moral grounds.
The Larger Political Battle
The debate comes amid escalating tensions between the government and opposition over multiple fronts, including the West Asia crisis and rising LPG prices. Parliamentary Affairs Minister Kiren Rijiju had earlier suggested that Congress should have made Priyanka Gandhi Vadra the Leader of Opposition instead, triggering sharp responses from the Congress camp .
With the NDA commanding over 290 MPs in the Lok Sabha, the no-confidence motion against Speaker Birla faces virtually no chance of passage . However, the debate has provided both sides a platform to air their grievances over parliamentary conduct—with the opposition alleging suppression and the government countering with charges of chronic absenteeism and rule violations.
As the 10-hour debate continues, all eyes remain on the treasury bench's coordinated defense of Speaker Om Birla and the opposition's determined push to question his impartiality—a constitutional rarity that has transformed the Budget Session into a referendum on parliamentary democracy itself .
