Congress flags ‘procedural irregularities’ in Motion of Thanks debate

Congress MP K.C. Venugopal on Thursday (February 5, 2026) wrote to Lok Sabha Speaker Om Birla alleging “serious procedural irregularities” and questioning the “authenticity” of the procedure adopted to pass the Motion of Thanks to the President’s Address without the customary reply by the Prime Minister.

In his letter, Mr. Venugopal said that under Rule 20 of the Rules of Procedure, it is mandatory for the Prime Minister to explain the government’s position at the end of the discussion. If the Prime Minister is unable to do so, the House must be informed, he said, adding that neither of these requirements was met.

“In the present case, neither did the Hon’ble Prime Minister reply to the debate nor was the House informed about his inability to do so. This clearly amounts to a violation of provisions of Rule 20,” the Congress leader wrote.

Seeking explanation

Mr. Venugopal also referred to Rule 362, under which a debate may be closed without a Minister’s reply only if a motion to that effect is moved by a member and approved by the House. He said that no such motion had been moved before the Motion of Thanks was put to vote around noon, abruptly bringing the debate to a close. “This action, therefore, constitutes a violation of Rule 362,” he added.

MPs were “confused and pained” by the departure from established rules and requested a detailed explanation of the procedure adopted, Mr. Venugopal said.

“Therefore, I would most respectfully request you to apprise the House of the procedure followed by you in dealing with the Prime Minister’s reply to the debate on the Motion of Thanks and also the closure of the debate. A proper analysis of the concerned Rules and the procedure adopted by you in this regard will greatly benefit the House,” he added.

Noting that the Speaker is the “custodian of the Rules of the House”, Mr. Venugopal said that proceedings must adhere to the rules framed under Article 118 of the Constitution.

The Congress leader also invoked Article 105, which guarantees freedom of speech to Members of Parliament, and said it was the Speaker’s “sacred duty” to ensure that this freedom was protected.