The complaint, lodged in April 2023 by Sudhanshu Trivedi of the Bharatiya Janata Party, alleges that Ramesh made remarks that breached parliamentary privilege by undermining the impartial role of the presiding officer. The panel convened on Monday under the chairmanship of Deputy Chairman Harivansh and heard Ramesh’s defence that his intent was never to disrespect the Chair or question the dignity of the office.
In March 2023, during a tumultuous session in which the then-Chairman was criticised publicly, Ramesh intervened. He maintained that the presiding officer must act as an umpire rather than align with the government, saying the Chair cannot be the “cheerleader” of the ruling dispensation. His comment triggered the privilege motion that Trivedi filed, accusing him of casting aspersions on the neutrality of the Chair. Ramesh told committee members that he held the House and its office with full respect and that his words were meant to protect parliamentary dignity, not undermine it.
Committee members present at the meeting included Trivedi, Deepak Prakash, Kartikeya Sharma, Surendra Singh Nagar and G. K. Vasan, who reviewed the matter in light of submissions, precedent and procedural norms. The panel monitors questions of privilege, weighing evidence to determine whether conduct merits recommendation to the House for sanction or remediation.
Officials familiar with the meeting say the committee treated the issue with elevated gravity, signalling that it views the potential implications for parliamentary decorum as significant. One person privy to the discussion said that the next step might involve calling Ramesh again for deeper explanation or inviting additional evidence. Ramesh’s counsel offered to provide detailed context for his remark and emphasised that the House’s procedures and traditions remain paramount in his view.
The unfolding episode comes ahead of the winter session of the Legislature scheduled to begin on December 1. With the House facing multiple contentious issues, the committee’s handling of this matter may set a tone for how behavioural standards in the chamber are enforced. Analysts say the scrutiny of statements that challenge institutional impartiality reflects a broader push by parliamentary authorities to curb confrontational discourse and reinforce procedural norms.
Observers note that while members of the legislature enjoy freedom of speech within the House, the committee retains the authority to examine whether a member’s remarks amount to contempt, breach of privilege or interference with the presiding officer’s role. If the committee finds against Ramesh, it could recommend a motion in the House, along with suggestions for censure, apology or suspension. Ramesh told the panel he relies on the traditions of parliamentary governance and constitutional conventions, adding that his remarks were framed in the interest of upholding the House’s dignity rather than seeking partisan advantage.