A sharp procedural dispute has broken out in the Lok Sabha after Congress MP K. C. Venugopal wrote to Speaker Om Birla alleging that the conclusion of the Motion of Thanks debate on February 5 breached established parliamentary practice by ending without a reply from the Prime Minister. The letter, circulated among opposition leaders, claims the episode left “the whole nation shocked and confused” and has raised fresh questions about the conduct of business in the House.In his communication to Om Birla, Venugopal said the debate on the President’s Address was brought to a close without the customary response from Narendra Modi, a role that opposition members argue is central to parliamentary accountability. He contended that the absence of such a reply, or an explicit motion to dispense with it, amounted to a “serious procedural violation” under the Lok Sabha’s rules of procedure.
Venugopal, the deputy leader of the Congress in the Lower House, pointed to Rule 362, which outlines how debates are to be concluded, and said no motion under that rule was moved or adopted. In his view, the Prime Minister’s reply is not a matter of discretion but an obligation attached to the Motion of Thanks, which traditionally allows the government to address points raised by members and clarify its position on policy and governance.
The Motion of Thanks on the President’s Address is one of Parliament’s most significant debates, setting the tone for the legislative session. It provides members across parties an opportunity to scrutinise the government’s agenda, and convention has long held that the Prime Minister responds at the end, even if ministers have intervened earlier. Opposition leaders argue that this response carries symbolic and practical weight, signalling executive accountability to the House.
According to Venugopal’s letter, the House was adjourned after speeches from treasury benches without any indication that the Prime Minister would speak or that the debate would be formally concluded through a procedural motion. He has asked the Speaker to clarify what rule was invoked to close the discussion and to place the explanation on record, stressing that ambiguity over procedure risks setting an “unhealthy precedent”.
The issue has quickly taken on political overtones. Congress leaders say the matter goes beyond partisan disagreement and touches on the institutional integrity of Parliament. They argue that allowing a Motion of Thanks debate to end without a Prime Ministerial reply weakens legislative scrutiny, particularly at a time when opposition space in the House has been a subject of contention.
Members from other opposition parties have echoed these concerns privately, noting that while the rules do permit flexibility in managing House business, departures from convention are usually explained by the Chair. Some have said that even if the Prime Minister was unavailable, the House should have been formally informed and the debate concluded through a clear procedural step.
The Speaker’s office has not issued a detailed public response to the letter. Parliamentary officials note that the Speaker exercises wide discretion in conducting proceedings, including deciding when debates are sufficiently concluded. They add that past sessions have occasionally seen deviations from convention due to time constraints or scheduling pressures, though such instances are typically accompanied by explanations from the Chair.
From the government side, leaders have maintained that ministers adequately addressed issues raised during the debate and that the business of the House was conducted in accordance with rules. They argue that the Prime Minister’s presence throughout the session and earlier interventions on related matters demonstrate engagement, even if a formal closing speech was not delivered on that day.
The controversy also reflects broader tensions over parliamentary norms. Over multiple sessions, opposition parties have complained about curtailed debates, limited discussion time and the frequent use of voice votes. Government leaders counter that disruptions and logjams have forced the Chair to take firm decisions to ensure legislative work is completed.