Congress MP Priyanka Gandhi Vadra has rejected allegations by Parliamentary Affairs Minister Kiren Rijiju that she incited fellow party members during a heated exchange in the Lok Sabha Speaker’s chamber, stating that she intervened only at the end of the episode and that no abusive language was used.The confrontation, which unfolded amid heightened tensions between the treasury benches and the opposition, drew sharp reactions from both sides of the aisle. Rijiju had claimed that Gandhi encouraged colleagues during the altercation, suggesting her presence escalated the dispute. Gandhi responded that she neither provoked nor endorsed any misconduct and maintained that her remarks were measured and peaceful.
The incident took place against a backdrop of strained parliamentary proceedings, with repeated adjournments over contentious issues ranging from governance matters to demands for discussions on national policy questions. According to accounts from members present, the disagreement in the Speaker’s chamber stemmed from procedural grievances raised by opposition MPs, who have accused the government of limiting debate and curtailing their opportunities to speak.
Gandhi, who entered Parliament as an elected representative from Uttar Pradesh and has since emerged as a prominent voice within the Congress ranks, said she arrived at the chamber after the exchange had already intensified. She asserted that she sought to calm tempers rather than inflame them. “There was no abuse from my side,” she told reporters, adding that her intervention was limited and respectful.
Rijiju, a senior minister in Prime Minister Narendra Modi’s government, had described the confrontation as unacceptable and suggested that opposition members crossed parliamentary norms. He maintained that decorum must be upheld within the precincts of the House and that the conduct of MPs should reflect institutional dignity.
The Lok Sabha has witnessed several disruptions during the current session, reflecting deepening political polarisation ahead of key legislative business. Opposition parties, including the Congress, have frequently protested what they describe as the government’s reluctance to allow full-fledged debates on matters they consider urgent. The ruling Bharatiya Janata Party has countered that disruptions orchestrated by opposition MPs have hampered legislative productivity.
Parliamentary experts note that confrontations within the Speaker’s chamber are rare but not unprecedented. The chamber is typically regarded as a neutral space for consultations between the presiding officer and members across party lines. Any altercation in that setting tends to attract heightened scrutiny because it touches on the core conventions of parliamentary conduct.
Political observers say the exchange underscores the increasingly personalised tone of political disagreements. Gandhi has taken on a more visible role in national debates, often criticising government policies and framing them as issues of accountability and institutional integrity. Her supporters argue that she has sought to project composure amid provocation, while critics contend that the opposition has contributed to the acrimony in the House.
The Congress leadership has defended Gandhi’s version of events, insisting that allegations of instigation are unfounded. Party figures have argued that attempts to single her out reflect broader political rivalries rather than the facts of the incident. They have also reiterated calls for the government to address opposition demands through structured debate rather than confrontation.
Within the treasury benches, lawmakers have stressed that rules of procedure and established conventions exist to ensure orderly conduct. Some BJP MPs have expressed concern that repeated flashpoints could erode public confidence in parliamentary institutions.
The Speaker’s office has not issued a detailed public account of the exchange, though officials have emphasised the importance of maintaining decorum. Procedural rules empower the Speaker to admonish or discipline members who breach standards, but such measures are generally invoked after formal review.
The episode comes at a time when parliamentary functioning has been under close public scrutiny. Civil society groups and constitutional scholars have urged both government and opposition to prioritise substantive debate over spectacle, warning that sustained disorder diminishes the credibility of legislative oversight.