Nation

IIR DIGITAL DESK : Union Parliamentary Affairs Minister Kiren Rijiju declared on August 6, 2025, that the Lok Sabha is barred from debating the Special Intensive Revision (SIR) of electoral rolls in Bihar because the case is pending before the Supreme Court and thus sub‑judice . He emphasized that Lok Sabha rules explicitly prohibit discussion on matters under judicial consideration—citing clauses from the Rules of Procedure and Conduct of Business such as Rule 186(8) and Rule 352(1 & 5) .

Rijiju affirmed the government’s openness to debate any subject, but strictly within constitutional and parliamentary norms .Since SIR pertains to the functioning of the Election Commission of India—an autonomous constitutional body—he reiterated that its actions are beyond Parliament's remit and cannot be discussed on the floor of the House .

The statement came amid sustained opposition protests in the Lok Sabha. Opposition MPs continued demanding discussion and raising slogans as the House reconvened at 2 pm following earlier adjournments over disruptions during Question Hour and Zero Hour sessions. Rijiju appealed to them to let the House conduct its business, including debating scheduled legislation like the National Sports Governance Bill and the National Anti‑Doping (Amendment) Bill. However, because of persistent protests, the Speaker adjourned the session for the day .

Opposition leaders, including Congress’s Mallikarjun Kharge, have repeatedly called for a debate, arguing that the SIR exercise disproportionately disenfranchises minority communities, tribals, Dalits, migrant and MNREGA workers. They claim it constitutes vote suppression and should be discussed and rectified in Parliament . Priyanka Gandhi Vadra echoed the demand, calling the government evasive and urging it to allow open debate—“We are only asking for a discussion… it is very easy for them to resolve this within five minutes” .

Government sources and legal experts counter that long-standing procedural norms and rulings—such as past assertions by speakers that Parliament may debate all matters except those formally under judicial scrutiny—mandate restraint when cases are sub‑judice .

Meanwhile, more than ten petitions, including one by the NGO Association for Democratic Reforms, are already before the Supreme Court challenging the legality and transparency of the SIR process in Bihar . The apex court has begun hearing these petitions and has sought responses from the Election Commission.

Kiren Rijiju's position is that Parliament must not discuss the Bihar electoral roll revision, because (1) the issue is legally pending before the Supreme Court, (2) parliamentary rules bar discussion of sub‑judice subjects, and (3) the Election Commission’s functions lie outside legislative purview. Opposition parties maintain that democratic accountability requires debate—and their protests led to adjournment of both Houses amid disruption of scheduled business.