In an unprecedented parliamentary development since 2004, the Lok Sabha on Tuesday adopted the motion of thanks to the President’s Address without a reply from the Prime Minister. The move marked a rare departure from long-standing parliamentary convention, where the Prime Minister traditionally responds to the debate on the President’s speech before the motion is put to vote.
The President’s Address, delivered at the start of the Budget Session, outlines the government’s vision, priorities, and policy roadmap. Over the past few days, members from across party lines participated in a detailed debate on the address, raising issues related to governance, the economy, social welfare, and national security. However, the absence of the Prime Minister’s reply drew sharp reactions from the Opposition.
Opposition leaders termed the development a serious breach of parliamentary practice, arguing that the Prime Minister’s response is a crucial element of accountability. They said the reply serves as an opportunity for the head of the government to address concerns raised by Members of Parliament and clarify the government’s stand on key issues discussed during the debate.
The Treasury benches, however, maintained that the constitutional requirement was fulfilled with the adoption of the motion of thanks and that parliamentary procedures were followed. They dismissed Opposition criticism as politically motivated and said the government had already articulated its position through ministers who participated in the debate.
Parliamentary experts noted that while there is no constitutional mandate requiring the Prime Minister to reply, convention and precedent have given the practice significant importance. The last instance of the motion being adopted without a Prime Ministerial reply dates back to 2004, making the current episode particularly noteworthy.
The development is likely to add to the already charged political atmosphere of the ongoing session, with the Opposition indicating that it may raise the issue again in the coming days. As Parliament continues with legislative business, the episode has reignited discussions on parliamentary traditions, executive accountability, and the evolving nature of legislative proceedings in India.
