BJP MP Nishikant Dubey submitted a substantive motion in the Lok Sabha seeking the cancellation of Rahul Gandhi’s membership and a permanent ban on his participation in elections.
Dubey alleged that Gandhi engaged with foreign organisations such as the Soros Foundation, USAID, and the Ford Foundation, accusing him of undermining national institutions and lowering the dignity of Parliament.
Congress dismissed the move as a “self-defence strategy” by the BJP, arguing that Gandhi’s criticism of the government during the Budget debate was factual and should have been addressed by ministers.
A substantive motion is a formal, independent proposal brought before Parliament for approval. It is self-contained and complete in itself. If admitted by the Speaker, it must be debated and voted upon. Resolutions and no-confidence motions are also classified as substantive motions.
The process begins with notice to the Speaker, who examines whether the motion is in order. The Speaker may admit or reject it. If admitted, the motion is scheduled for discussion and then put to a vote.
However, substantive motions cannot directly disqualify an MP. Disqualification is governed by Articles 101–103 of the Constitution and the Representation of the People Act, 1951. The President decides on disqualification based on the Election Commission’s opinion in certain cases. The Speaker has powers under the anti-defection law, but not through substantive motions alone.
Substantive motions are rarely used in Parliament. In 1997, Speaker P.A. Sangma admitted a substantive motion moved by the Opposition BJP against then-Governor Romesh Bhandari. In the current case, the motion ensures debate and a compulsory vote if admitted, but disqualification would require constitutional procedures beyond the motion itself.
Comments are closed.