Nehru sat through debate, requested more time for oppn: Cong slams Rijiju for 1954 comparison
New Delhi (PTI): The Congress slammed Union Minister Kiren Rijiju on Wednesday for contrasting the 10 hours allocated for a debate on the resolution for the Lok Sabha speaker's removal with the two-and-a-half-hour debate on a similar resolution in 1954, saying Jawaharlal Nehru had then requested the bulk of the time be allotted to the opposition.
The debate is likely to conclude on Wednesday with Union Home Minister Amit Shah's response to the resolution.
Congress general secretary in charge of communications, Jairam Ramesh, said that in Tuesday's debate in the Lok Sabha on the motion for the removal of the Speaker, Minister of Parliamentary Affairs Rijiju proudly claimed that 10 hours had been allotted for the debate, whereas in December 1954, only 2.5 hours had been set aside for a similar motion.
"What he forgot to mention was that on December 18, 1954, the prime minister himself sat through and took part in the debate. While speaking, Jawaharlal Nehru requested the deputy speaker, who was presiding in the House, that the bulk of the time should be allotted to the opposition," Ramesh said on X.
When the motion was moved in the Lok Sabha on December 1, 1954, the Congress had 364 MPs in a House of 489 members, he pointed out.
"On December 18, 1954 (as on later occasions in 1966 and 1987), there was a deputy speaker in the Chair in the Lok Sabha while the motion against the Speaker was being debated. Since mid-2019, there has been no deputy speaker in the Lok Sabha, which is a clear violation of the Constitution," Ramesh said.
Intervening in the debate on the resolution for the removal of Om Birla from the Speaker's post, Rijiju on Wednesday slammed TMC's Saugata Roy for questioning the decision on who will preside over the proceedings during the discussion on the opposition's resolution.
"Such senior MPs should know that in 1954, when the opposition party brought a resolution against G V Mavalankar, a full day's time was demanded for discussion. Jawaharlal Nehru had allocated an hour and a half.
"There was a lot of debate over it, and finally, a consensus was reached on a two-hour discussion. Within that two-hour time, the minister had 15 minutes. Today, we are having a discussion for two days. This government is not going to run away. You are comparing a two-and-a-half-hour discussion with a two-day debate," Rijiju said.
Hitting back at the BJP leader, Ramesh shared on X a screenshot of the 1954 debate's transcript.
It quoted the prime minister Nehru as saying, "Normally you do adopt some kind of proportion, but I would like to submit that in this particular case, more time should be allowed to the opposition than to the government benches.
"We do not wish to take too much time, and I hope the hon. members on this side will not take up too much time of the House in their speeches. Naturally, we will have to say something, which we will do. But. I would submit for your consideration that the Opposition should have more time," Nehru had said.
The ruling NDA on Tuesday strongly defended Speaker Om Birla in the Lok Sabha, asserting that the resolution for his removal was brought only "to create spectacular headlines", while the opposition accused him of partisanship, claiming he made "baseless" allegations about certain women MPs and did not permit Leader of Opposition Rahul Gandhi to express his views on "critical issues".
Participating in the debate on the resolution, several opposition MPs said Birla has good relations with members but stressed that they want him to conduct the House proceedings "fairly" without succumbing to "pressure" from the government, as they questioned his decisions on the suspension of their colleagues.
Treasury bench members, however, insisted that Birla was impartial and that the opposition MPs faced action due to their improper conduct.
Though the Constitution allows the Speaker to be present in the House to defend himself or herself and to vote, Birla preferred to stay away from Tuesday's proceedings.
In yesterday's debate in the Lok Sabha on the motion for the removal of the Speaker, the Minister of Parliamentary Affairs proudly claimed that 10 hours has been allotted for the debate whereas in Dec 1954, only 2.5 hours had been set aside for a similar motion. What he forgot to… https://t.co/ZyLjtK4an7
— Jairam Ramesh (@Jairam_Ramesh) March 11, 2026
Let the Truth be known. If you read VB and like VB, please be a VB Supporter and Help us deliver the Truth to one and all.
BCI urges CJI to take action against Andhra HC judge for sending young lawyer to 24-hour custody
New Delhi (PTI): The Bar Council of India on Wednesday sought the urgent intervention of Chief Justice of India Surya Kant following a "deeply disturbing" incident where a judge of the Andhra Pradesh High Court reportedly sent a young advocate to
24-hour judicial custody over a procedural lapse.
The Bar Council of India (BCI) Chairperson and senior advocate Manan Kumar Mishra, in a formal representation, termed the conduct of Justice Tarlada Rajasekhar Rao "grossly inappropriate" and "damaging to the confidence of the Bar".
“I most respectfully request your Lordship to kindly take immediate institutional cognizance of the matter and call for the video recording of the proceedings, the order passed, and the surrounding circumstances.
“I further request that appropriate administrative action may kindly be considered, including withdrawal of judicial work from the learned Judge pending review, his immediate transfer to some far off High Court, and his nomination for appropriate judicial training/orientation on court management, judicial temperament, Bar-Bench relations, and proportional exercise of contempt/judicial authority,” Mishra wrote.
This representation is made to preserve the “dignity, moral authority and public confidence of the judiciary”, he said, adding, “Judges command the highest respect not by fear, but by fairness, patience, restraint and constitutional humility”.
The communication urged the CJI to intervene at the earliest to ensure that the faith of Bar, particularly young advocates, in the protective and corrective role of the judiciary is restored.
The controversy stems from proceedings on May 5.
According to the BCI, a video circulating online shows Justice Rao rebuking a young advocate who was unable to produce a specific order copy during a hearing.
The letter said that despite the advocate "repeatedly seeking pardon and mercy" and claiming he was in physical pain, the judge remained "unmoved".
The judge allegedly told the lawyer, "now you will learn," and mocked his experience before directing the Registrar and police personnel to take him into custody for 24 hours.
The BCI chairperson said that the judge’s actions lacked proportionality and fairness.
"The dignity of the court is not enhanced when a lawyer is made to beg for grace in open court and is still sent to custody for a procedural lapse," the letter said.
"A young lawyer... is an officer of the Court, still learning, still growing, and entitled to correction without humiliation," it added.
The bar body said that such actions create a "chilling effect" on the legal fraternity, particularly among junior members, and undermine the mutual respect required between the Bench and the Bar.
