Lok Sabha Speaker Om Birla on Wednesday accepted the no-confidence motion against the government moved by Congress MP Gaurav Gogoi on behalf of opposition parties of I.N.D.I.A alliance. After Gogoi moved the motion, the Speaker asked about the number of members supporting the motion. He admitted the motion and said the time of the debate will be decided later. The House resumed its normal functioning after the Speaker accepted the demand for no-confidence motion. Opposition members expressed their opinion on the bills being introduced by the government. The two Houses have seen repeated adjournments since the commencement of the monsoon session of Parliament on July 20. Gogoi represents the Kaliabor constituency in Assam and is an MP from the northeast region. Bharat Rashtra Samithi, which has nine members in Lok Sabha, also gave a no-confidence motion notice against the government.

Union Minister Arjun Ram Meghwal said the government is “ready” for every situation. “Let the No Confidence Motion come, Government is ready for every situation. We do want a discussion on Manipur…Before the commencement of the session, they wanted a discussion. When we agreed, they brought up the issue of Rules. When we reached an agreement on Rules, they brought in the new issue that the PM come and initiate discussion. I think these are all excuses…” Meghwal told ANI. Gaurav Gogoi had earlier in the day submitted a notice for no-confidence motion against the government in the Lok Sabha.

Manipur issue at the forefront

The decision to bring a no-confidence motion was taken at a meeting of opposition I.N.D.I.A alliance parties held on Tuesday. As many as 26 Opposition had earlier come together naming their alliance as I.N.D.I.A. Opposition MPs said that they know the numbers are in favour of the government in Lok Sabha but no-confidence motion is a way to seek reply from Prime Minister Narendra Modi on various issues including the violence in Manipur. “This No Confidence Motion is a political move with a political purpose – a political move which will bring results…The No Confidence Motion will compel him (Prime Minister) to come to the Parliament. We need a discussion on the issues of the country, especially on Manipur, inside the Parliament. Forget the numbers, they know the numbers and we know the numbers..,” CPI MP Binoy Viswam said.

Manickam Tagore, Congress Whip in Lok Sabha said INDIA alliance is together and it had proposed the idea of no-confidence motion. Yesterday it was decided. Today, Congress party’s leader is moving it. We wanted to break the arrogance of Mr Modi. He is behaving as an arrogant person – not to come to the Parliament and make a statement on Manipur…We feel that it is our duty to use this last weapon,” he said. AAP MP Raghav Chadha said that some parliamentary procedures are used to have a long-duration discussion and to compel the government to give a reply.

“Many a time in India’s Parliamentary history, critical instruments of debate, dialogue and discussion within Parliament are exercised. Regardless of the outcome of those instruments and motions, they are exercised with the sole objective of a long-duration discussion on an important issue subsequent to which the PM of India is compelled to come to Parliament and respond to the issues raised by the people and the Members of the Lok Sabha,” he said.

“I think these parliamentary instruments actually strengthen India’s democracy and must be exercised time again and again to pressurise the government to come before the Lok Sabha and answer the questions.”

President Joe Biden’s son, Hunter Biden, faced new challenges on the eve of a scheduled court appearance Wednesday in which he’s set to plead guilty in a deal with prosecutors on tax and gun charges. On Capitol Hill, where Republicans are ramping up their investigations of the president and his son, the GOP chairman of the House Ways and Means Committee took the unusual step of filing court documents urging the judge in Hunter Biden’s case to consider testimony from IRS whistleblowers. The whistleblowers alleged the Justice Department interfered with investigations into Biden, a charge that has been denied by the lead prosecutor in the case, who was appointed by former President Donald Trump.

U.S. District Judge Maryellen Noreika, who was also appointed by Trump, will consider whether to accept the plea agreement. Judges rarely throw out plea bargains, but the effort to intervene by Ways and Means Chairman Jason Smith of Missouri amounted to a high-profile push to raise questions about the deal, which is expected to spare the president’s son from jail time.

The dynamics of the case became even more complicated hours after the lawmakers filed their motion. A court clerk received a call requesting that “sensitive grand jury, taxpayer and social security information” it contained be kept under seal, according to an oral order from Noreika. The lawyer gave her name and said she worked with an attorney from the Ways and Means Committee but was in fact a lawyer with the defence team, a clerk wrote in an email to Theodore Kittila, an attorney representing Smith.

When Noreika learned of the situation, she demanded the defence show why she should not consider sanctioning them for “misrepresentations to the court.” Defence attorneys answered that their lawyer had represented herself truthfully from the start, and called from a phone number that typically displays the firm’s name, Latham & Watkins, on the caller ID. Jessica Bengels said in court documents that she did speak to two different clerk’s office employees, which could have contributed to the misunderstanding. The second employee emailed Kittila.

Biden’s attorneys are still seeking to keep information deemed private out of the public court record. Kittila, though, said he had only filed materials that the committee had already released publicly online. The judge agreed to keep the information sealed for a day to consider the issue. The dustup came hours before Biden is expected to plead guilty to misdemeanour tax charges in an agreement that allows him to avoid prosecution on a gun charge if he means certain conditions. Republicans have decried the agreement as a “sweetheart deal” and heard from two IRS agents who claimed the long-running investigation was “slow walked” and the prosecutor overseeing it was refused broader special counsel powers.

Delaware US Attorney David Weiss, a Trump appointee, denied that in a letter to Congress, saying he had “full authority” over the probe and never requested special counsel status. A spokeswoman for Weiss directed queries back to the court clerk’s office.

Leaders of several opposition parties on Monday staged a protest in the Parliament complex demanding that Prime Minister Narendra Modi make a statement in the House on the Manipur issue. Holding placards and banners that read “INDIA for Manipur” and “INDIA demands PM’s statement on Manipur”, the opposition parties raised slogans against the government in front of Mahatma Gandhi’s statue in Parliament complex.

Speaking to reporters, Leader of Opposition in Rajya Sabha Mallikarjun Kharge said it is the prime minister’s duty to make a comprehensive statement in Parliament on Manipur violence. “It is shameful that the prime minister is making a statement outside the House when Parliament is in session. It is his duty to make a comprehensive statement inside Parliament on Manipur violence,” the Congress leader said.

It is shameful that the Prime Minister is making a statement outside the House, when Parliament is in session. It is his duty to make a comprehensive statement inside the Parliament on Manipur violence.

Therefore, we are requesting the Chairman of Rajya Sabha and the Speaker of… pic.twitter.com/oSvB3ZcD8u

— Mallikarjun Kharge (@kharge) July 24, 2023

“We are requesting the Chairman of Rajya Sabha and the Speaker of Lok Sabha that the PM should make a statement on the situation in Manipur. We want a discussion under Rule 167 but the Modi government wants a short duration discussion under Rule 176 for half an hour.We want under Rule 267 under which there can also be voting,” he said.

The prime minister should first make a statement and then we will have a discussion under Rule 267, he said The Modi government and the BJP cannot run away from its constitutional duty and answerability on Manipur, Kharge added.

The government has agreed to hold a short-duration discussion on the Manipur issue with the Home Minister replying to it, but the opposition is adamant on its demand for the prime minister’s statement first. Both Lok Sabha and Rajya Sabha have failed to transact any business during the Monsoon Session amid the stalemate between the opposition and the government over the Manipur issue.