Eight Congress MPs were suspended from the Lok Sabha during the Budget Session after a dramatic two-day uproar over Leader of Opposition Rahul Gandhi’s attempt to cite excerpts from former Army chief General MM Naravane’s unpublished memoir on the India–China conflict, triggering violent disruptions and adjournments.
On 2–3 February 2026, the Lok Sabha witnessed one of the most chaotic sessions in recent memory as Leader of Opposition Rahul Gandhi sought to quote material from what he described as Four Stars of Destiny, an unpublished memoir by former Army chief General MM Naravane, to raise questions about India’s handling of the 2020 India–China border standoff.
Government benches – including Defence Minister Rajnath Singh, Home Minister Amit Shah and Parliamentary Affairs Minister Kiren Rijiju – strongly objected, saying the book was neither published nor authenticated, and that quoting it in Parliament violated established rules of procedure.
Speaker Om Birla, and later Chair Dilip Saikia in the Chair, repeatedly urged members to follow rules and confined discussion to the Motion of Thanks to the President’s Address.
As proceedings descended into protests, slogans, and paper-throwing in the Well of the House, the Speaker cited “unruly behaviour” and, on a resolution moved by Mr Rijiju, suspended eight Congress MPs for the remaining period of the Budget Session, which runs until April 2. The motion was passed by voice vote amid cross-bench noise.
Who Was Suspended and What Happened in the House
The eight suspended members are Congress MPs: Hibi Eden, Amarinder Singh Raja Warring, Manickam Tagore, Gurjeet Singh Aujla, Prashant Yadaorao Padole, C Kiran Kumar Reddy, S Venkatesh and Dean Kuriakose. (
Their suspension followed loud protests, slogan-shouting and torn paper thrown towards the Chair – acts the Speaker said breached parliamentary norms and dignity.
The disruptions repeatedly forced adjournments and delayed the routine consideration of parliamentary business, including debates on the President’s Address and pending legislation. Parliamentary observers noted how fast the tone shifted from discussion to discord, highlighting deepening political polarisation in the House.
After the suspension motion passed, Congress members, led by Rahul Gandhi, staged a symbolic protest outside the Parliament building, decrying the action as an attempt to silence legitimate scrutiny.
Rules, National Security and Conflicting Narratives
At the heart of the row is a nuanced procedural and constitutional question: can MPs cite unpublished material during parliamentary debates? Parliamentary rules – particularly Rule 349 as interpreted by experts – bar members from reading unrelated books, newspapers or documents not directly tied to the motion under discussion unless properly authenticated and tabled.
Critics of Gandhi’s move argue that citing an unpublished manuscript, especially one involving sensitive defence matters, violated this rule.
Government leaders countered that allowing such citations could set a dangerous precedent, potentially opening the door to unverified claims entering official records under the guise of debate. They also emphasised the need to safeguard national security considerations when discussing defence-related content.
The Congress, however, insisted that the issue – which touched on India’s strategic decisions during a major border crisis – deserved parliamentary scrutiny. Priyanka Gandhi Vadra publicly defended her brother, asserting that his intent was not to defame the Army but to raise critical questions grounded in widely reported excerpts.
The Logical Indian’s Perspective
A functioning democracy depends on two foundational pillars within its legislature: orderly conduct and robust debate. Parliament must uphold strict standards of decorum and respect for procedure so that all voices can be heard without descending into chaos.
At the same time, elected representatives have a duty to raise substantive questions on matters that affect national life and security.
In this instance, the Speaker’s role in enforcing rules and maintaining order was essential to prevent further breakdown of the House.
But the swift resort to suspension – and the intensity of reactions it sparked – reflects a deeper challenge: political polarisation is undermining the very institution meant to channel disagreement through dialogue and democratic process.
Citizens rightly expect transparency and accountability, especially on matters such as border integrity and defence policy. Yet, when procedural disputes overshadow substantive engagement, the result is neither clarity nor consensus – but public frustration and cynicism.
As the Budget Session continues, The Logical Indian urges all political actors to balance respect for parliamentary protocol with meaningful, evidence-based debate that serves the public interest.
