Parliament’s Monsoon Session concluded on August 13 with the Lok Sabha recording its lowest productivity since 2016, even as both Houses passed 11 Bills amid repeated disruptions.

According to data from PRS Legislative Research, the Lok Sabha functioned at just 15% of its scheduled time, matching its lowest productivity recorded during the Winter Session of 2016. The Rajya Sabha recorded productivity of 33%, its lowest since the Budget Session of 2023, when productivity stood at 24%.

Session Ends Amid Disruptions

The Monsoon Session was marked by repeated disruptions, which significantly reduced the time available for legislative and parliamentary business.

Despite the disruptions, Parliament managed to pass 11 Bills before the session concluded on August 13.

The legislative output, however, came alongside concerns over the limited opportunity for detailed debate on several pieces of legislation.

Nine Bills Passed Without Debate

One of the notable features of the session was that nine of the 11 Bills passed by Parliament did not have any MP speaking on them.

The development has raised questions about the extent of parliamentary scrutiny of legislation during a session in which disruptions substantially curtailed the functioning of both Houses.

While Bills were taken up and cleared, the limited participation in debates meant that several pieces of legislation moved through the legislative process without recorded interventions from individual MPs.

Lok Sabha Productivity at 15%

The Lok Sabha's productivity stood at 15%, according to PRS Legislative Research data.

This figure equals the lowest productivity recorded by the Lower House since 2016. The disruptions meant that a large portion of the scheduled parliamentary time could not be utilised for debates, discussions and other listed business.

The figure highlights the impact of repeated adjournments and interruptions during the session.

Rajya Sabha Records 33%

The Rajya Sabha recorded productivity of 33% during the Monsoon Session.

Although higher than the Lok Sabha's figure, this was the Upper House's lowest productivity since the Budget Session of 2023, when it recorded productivity of 24%.

The two Houses therefore ended the session with substantial portions of their scheduled working time lost.

11 Bills Cleared

Despite the limited functioning, Parliament passed 11 Bills during the session.

The legislative business demonstrated that the government was able to move several proposals through both Houses even as disruptions affected the overall functioning of Parliament.

However, the fact that nine Bills were passed without any MP speaking on them has drawn attention to the difference between legislative output and parliamentary debate.

Debate Remains a Concern

Parliamentary productivity is generally assessed not only by the number of Bills passed but also by the time spent on debates, discussions, questions and scrutiny of government business.

The Monsoon Session's figures therefore present a mixed picture: 11 Bills were passed, but the Houses operated for only a fraction of their scheduled time.

The low productivity also comes amid continuing concerns over disruptions and the loss of opportunities for MPs to raise issues of public importance.

Session Concludes on August 13

The Monsoon Session formally concluded on August 13, 2026, bringing to an end a session heavily affected by disruptions.

The productivity figures released by PRS Legislative Research provide a measure of the scale of the impact. While legislative business continued, the low utilisation of scheduled parliamentary time and limited debate on several Bills remain key features of the session.

The figures are likely to renew discussions over the functioning of Parliament, the role of debate in the legislative process and the need to ensure that disruptions do not prevent MPs from effectively scrutinising legislation.

Former Union Education Minister Dharmendra Pradhan received a warm welcome from BJP and NDA MPs as he arrived at Parliament on Tuesday, making his first public appearance since stepping down from the post. As he got out of his vehicle at the Parliament complex, several party leaders gathered around him, raising slogans of “Dharmendra Pradhan Zindabad.” Pradhan acknowledged the greetings with a smile and waved at the media before entering the premises. The show of support came just two days after he resigned as education minister amid nationwide criticism over the NEET-UG paper leak controversy. In his resignation letter, Pradhan said his decision was driven by the interests of students and the need to protect the credibility of the education system. According to those present, the reception reflected the BJP leadership's public backing of one of its senior leaders despite the political storm surrounding his exit.

Pradhan's resignation followed weeks of protests over alleged irregularities in the NEET-UG examination. Student groups and opposition parties had demanded accountability, arguing that the paper leak had shaken the confidence of lakhs of aspirants across the country. Following his resignation, the Union government assigned the additional charge of the Education Ministry to Pralhad Joshi, who already handles the Consumer Affairs, Food and Public Distribution, and New and Renewable Energy portfolios. Officials indicated that the move was intended to ensure continuity in the ministry's functioning while the government deals with the fallout from the examination controversy. Meanwhile, videos of BJP MPs chanting slogans in support of Pradhan outside Parliament quickly circulated on social media, triggering political reactions from both supporters and critics.

Even after his resignation, several senior BJP leaders publicly praised Pradhan's contribution to the education sector. Union Home Minister Amit Shah credited him with playing a key role in implementing major education reforms, particularly the National Education Policy (NEP) 2020. Assam Chief Minister Himanta Biswa Sarma also acknowledged his efforts to strengthen India's education system and promote educational reforms during his tenure. BJP leaders maintained that Pradhan's resignation was a voluntary decision reflecting accountability rather than political pressure. The opposition, however, continued to question the government's handling of the NEET-UG paper leak and demanded a broader investigation into the examination process. Political observers believe the growing anger among students and young voters may have influenced the government's decision, although no official statement has confirmed that assessment. With the Monsoon Session of Parliament underway, education reforms, examination security, and the NEET controversy are expected to remain central issues in the days ahead.

EC Announces Rajya Sabha Polls for 24 Seats on June 18

The Election Commission of India on Friday announced that elections to 24 Rajya Sabha seats from 10 states will be held on June 18. The move comes as 24 sitting members, including Congress chief Mallikarjun Kharge and senior leader Digvijaya Singh, are set to retire between June 21 and July 19. Nominations can be filed till June 8.

The announcement sets the stage for a fresh round of indirect elections to the Upper House, where members are chosen by elected representatives of state assemblies rather than directly by voters.

Key States and Vacancies

Andhra Pradesh, Gujarat and Karnataka will each see polls for four seats. Madhya Pradesh and Rajasthan will elect three members each, while Jharkhand will fill three seats. Single seats will be up for grabs in Manipur, Meghalaya, Arunachal Pradesh and Mizoram.

Among the prominent faces retiring are former Prime Minister H.D. Deve Gowda from Karnataka and several other senior leaders across parties. The list of retiring MPs includes names like Ayodhya Rami Reddy Alla and Parimal Nathwani from Andhra Pradesh, and George Kurian and Sumer Singh Solanki from Madhya Pradesh.

How the Process Works

Unlike Lok Sabha or assembly elections, Rajya Sabha polls follow a system of proportional representation by means of the single transferable vote. The value of each MLA’s vote is fixed based on the strength of the state legislative assembly and the number of seats going to polls. 

Each MLA’s vote carries a value of 100 in the calculation. This method ensures that larger parties usually secure most seats in line with their strength in the respective assemblies. However, cross-voting and strategic alliances sometimes throw up surprises.

Political Significance

The upcoming elections hold importance for the Congress party, which is seeing several senior leaders step down from the Upper House. Mallikarjun Kharge’s seat from Karnataka and Digvijaya Singh’s from Madhya Pradesh will particularly be watched closely as both leaders continue to play influential roles in national politics.

The results will also reflect the current ground realities in these states following recent assembly elections and shifts in political equations. Parties will now begin intense calculations to finalise candidates and manage their numbers in the assemblies.

Timeline and Preparations

With polling scheduled for June 18, the Election Commission has set a tight schedule. The last date for withdrawal of candidatures is expected to be around June 10, though official notification is awaited. Counting of votes is likely to take place on the same day as polling or shortly after.

State election authorities have already been directed to make necessary arrangements. Security and logistical preparations for the smooth conduct of these elections are expected to begin soon.

Impact on Upper House Composition

The Rajya Sabha, with a total strength of 245 members, sees one-third of its elected members retiring every two years. Of the 233 elected seats, these 24 vacancies represent a significant batch. The 12 nominated members, appointed by the President, remain unaffected by this exercise.

As political parties gear up for candidate selection, the focus will be on balancing experience, regional representation and loyalty. The outcome will influence the strength of various parties in the Upper House, where debates on key legislation often play out.

The Election Commission’s timely announcement gives parties enough window to strategise while maintaining the constitutional schedule for the continuous functioning of the Rajya Sabha.

In an extraordinary escalation of parliamentary tensions, India's opposition parties have initiated a rare constitutional process to remove Lok Sabha Speaker Om Birla from his post, accusing him of partisan conduct and violating the neutrality expected of his high office. The move, invoking Article 94(c) of the Constitution, marks the first such attempt against a Speaker in nearly four decades and has triggered a significant standoff during the crucial Budget Session.

The notice for removal, submitted on Tuesday with signatures from approximately 118 MPs of the Congress, Samajwadi Party, DMK, and left parties, alleges systematic bias against opposition members. This dramatic development follows weeks of acrimony in the Lower House, centered on the Speaker's decisions regarding debate protocols and member suspensions.

The Core of the Controversy: Neutrality Under Question

The opposition's grievances crystallized when Leader of Opposition Rahul Gandhi was prevented from quoting from former Army Chief General M.M. Naravane's unpublished book during a debate. The treasury benches argued that referencing unpublished material violated parliamentary norms, a ruling the opposition contends was selectively applied.

Beyond this specific incident, opposition MPs allege a pattern of behavior where their voices are systematically stifled. "The concern has been the Leader of the Opposition has not been allowed to speak on numerous occasions," stated Congress's Deputy Leader Gaurav Gogoi, who submitted the removal notice. The recent suspension of eight opposition MPs for the remainder of the Budget Session further fueled these allegations.

A Speaker's Moral Stand: Recusal from the Chair

In a consequential development, Speaker Om Birla has voluntarily decided not to preside over the House until the motion against him is resolved. Although not mandated by rules, Birla has taken this step on "moral grounds," stating that some members have expressed a lack of confidence in him.

Sources indicate that both government and opposition leaders attempted to persuade him to reconsider, but the Speaker remained firm in his decision. During this period, the House will be presided over by members of the Panel of Chairpersons.

The Constitutional Path: Understanding Article 94(c)

The process to remove a Lok Sabha Speaker is clearly defined yet seldom tested. It operates under Article 94(c) of the Constitution and Lok Sabha Rule 200, distinct from a no-confidence motion against the government.

Initiation: A written notice must be given to the Secretary-General at least 14 days in advance.

Minimum Support: The notice requires the support of at least 50 members to be admitted for discussion.

The Vote: Crucially, removal requires an "effective majority"—more than 50% of the House's total current strength (excluding vacancies), not just a majority of those present and voting. In the 543-member Lok Sabha, this means at least 272 votes.

The Hurdle: With the ruling NDA coalition commanding 293 seats, the motion's passage is considered politically improbable. The move is widely seen as a symbolic political gesture to highlight the opposition's grievances on the parliamentary record.

Procedural Hiccup and Revised Timeline

The initial notice faced a technical setback. The Lok Sabha Secretariat found "shortcomings," including multiple references to events dated "February 2025," which could have led to its rejection. Speaker Birla himself directed the Secretariat to have the notice corrected rather than reject it outright.

Consequently, the timeline has shifted. The revised notice will be taken up only after the second phase of the Budget Session commences on March 9, 2024. The first part of the session will recess on February 13.

A Look at History: A Rare Parliamentary Tool

This motion is a historical rarity. Since independence, only three such removal motions have been initiated:

1.  Against the first Speaker, G.V. Mavalankar, in 1954.

2.  Against Speaker Sardar Hukam Singh in 1966.

3.  Against Speaker Balram Jakhar in 1987.

None succeeded, underscoring the high constitutional and political threshold for removing a presiding officer.

The Road Ahead

As Parliament heads for a recess, all eyes are on March 9. While the numbers suggest the motion is unlikely to succeed, its very introduction has profound implications. It has brought the debate over the Speaker's impartiality—a cornerstone of Westminster parliamentary democracy—to the forefront of national discourse.

The coming weeks will test the opposition's cohesion and the government's response to this constitutional challenge. Regardless of the vote's outcome, this episode has already etched itself as a significant chapter in India's parliamentary history, highlighting the fragile balance between majority power and minority rights in a vibrant democracy.

This is a developing story. Follow for updates on the parliamentary proceedings when the Budget Session resumes.