The above image is an illustrative representation, created with AI and does not depict actual individuals or events.
February 5, 2026, New Delhi : In a rare parliamentary development, the Lok Sabha approved the Motion of Thanks to the President’s Address without a reply from the Prime Minister, prompting sharp reactions from opposition parties who described the move as unprecedented in recent legislative practice. The government maintained that the procedure followed House rules, while opposition leaders argued that bypassing the Prime Minister’s customary response weakened parliamentary convention and debate.
The Motion of Thanks is traditionally followed by a detailed reply from the Prime Minister addressing issues raised during the discussion on the President’s Address, which outlines the government’s policy priorities and legislative agenda. However, during the latest session, the motion was put to vote and cleared after debate without the Prime Minister delivering a concluding intervention.
Treasury bench members said the House completed its scheduled business within the procedural framework and noted that rules do not make the Prime Minister’s reply legally mandatory for passage of the motion. They described the criticism as politically motivated and said the government had already responded through other ministers during the discussion.
Opposition parties, led by the Congress, staged protests and questioned the departure from established practice. Several members said the Prime Minister’s reply serves as a key accountability moment in parliamentary democracy, allowing the head of government to respond directly to concerns raised across party lines.
Congress leaders also cited a historical parallel from 2004, recalling that then Prime Minister Manmohan Singh was unable to deliver his reply to the Motion of Thanks in the Lok Sabha due to repeated disruptions and adjournments. They argued that while that instance resulted from disorder in the House, the current situation was different because the motion itself was cleared without scheduling the Prime Minister’s response.
Parliamentary affairs observers noted that while rules provide flexibility in handling House business, deviations from long-standing conventions often trigger political controversy. With both sides firm in their positions, the episode has added to the already charged atmosphere of the ongoing session and is likely to remain a point of contention in debates over parliamentary norms and executive accountability.
