New Delhi : Union Minister for Parliamentary Affairs Kiren Rijiju has formally responded to concerns raised by Congress president and Leader of Opposition in the Rajya Sabha, Mallikarjun Kharge, regarding the ongoing delay in proroguing the Monsoon Session of Parliament. The session concluded on August 13, yet more than two months have passed without a formal prorogation order.
In his correspondence, Rijiju addressed Kharge’s critique of the 64-day interval since the House was adjourned sine die. The minister clarified that the Constitution does not mandate a fixed timeframe for the prorogation of a parliamentary session following an adjournment. He asserted that the absence of such an order during this period does not constitute a breach of constitutional or procedural norms.
Historical Precedents and Legislative Consultations
To support his position, Rijiju pointed to historical data from previous administrations, specifically noting that similar delays occurred during the tenure of the Congress-led United Progressive Alliance (UPA). He highlighted a specific instance from 2008, where the process of proroguing the Houses took as long as 87 days, suggesting that the current timeline is well within established parliamentary practice.
Beyond the procedural debate, the minister addressed Kharge’s recent remarks concerning a proposed Constitutional Amendment Bill related to delimitation. Rijiju stated that the government had made multiple attempts to engage with the Congress party to discuss the legislation. According to the minister, he sent formal communications on March 16, March 26, and April 12, and held personal discussions with both Kharge and the Leader of Opposition in the Lok Sabha, Rahul Gandhi, to seek their cooperation.
Rijiju explained that the government eventually sought input from other political parties only after the Congress failed to provide suitable dates for a meeting. He expressed surprise that the opposition continues to demand further consultation despite these prior efforts. The minister concluded by urging the opposition to adopt a constructive approach, emphasizing the government’s commitment to parliamentary democracy and its desire to avoid obstructionism regarding future legislative business.
