Budget – Kerala Opposition Disrupts Parliament and Assembly Over Centre, Parole Dispute
Budget – Opposition members of Parliament from Kerala staged protests in both Houses on Monday, denouncing the Union Budget 2026 as unfair to the state. Describing the financial plan as discriminatory, the MPs said Kerala’s interests had been overlooked, triggering strong reactions both in New Delhi and back home.
Protests Extend From Parliament to State Assembly
The political tension soon spilled into the Kerala Legislative Assembly, where opposition parties raised objections over the Speaker’s refusal to allow a discussion on alleged violations of prison regulations by the state government. The Opposition sought an urgent debate, claiming that the administration had failed to follow provisions under the Kerala Prisons and Correctional Services (Management) Act.
Congress leaders reacted sharply to the decision, arguing that the matter had serious public implications. Following the Speaker’s ruling, Congress legislators, led by Leader of the Opposition V D Satheesan, walked out of the House in protest and boycotted the day’s proceedings.
Allegations Over Parole Practices Take Centre Stage
Addressing reporters after the boycott, Satheesan accused the government of misusing parole provisions for political purposes. He alleged that convicts linked to the ruling CPI(M), including those jailed in murder cases, were being granted parole in violation of established rules.
According to Satheesan, the Opposition’s attempt to raise the issue was blocked to shield the government from scrutiny. He claimed the Speaker’s decision undermined democratic debate and prevented legislators from discussing what he termed a serious law-and-order concern.
Adjournment Notice and Speaker’s Ruling
The controversy followed the rejection of an adjournment motion notice submitted by UDF MLA K K Rema. She had sought to suspend regular House business to discuss alleged irregularities in granting parole to CPM convicts sentenced to 20 years in the Payyannur steel bomb attack case.
Rema’s notice also cited reports suggesting that certain police officers had accepted bribes to facilitate parole for accused individuals in political murder cases. These allegations, she argued, had raised public anxiety over the integrity of the prison system and internal security.
Speaker A N Shamseer declined the request, stating that the issue did not meet the criteria of urgent public importance required for an adjournment motion. He noted that the matter could instead be raised through a submission at an appropriate time.
Opposition Questions Legislative Priorities
The Leader of the Opposition challenged the Speaker’s reasoning, asking under which specific rule the notice had been dismissed. Satheesan said incidents involving convicted criminals returning to the streets could not be treated as routine matters.
He further questioned whether issues uncomfortable for the government were being systematically excluded from Assembly debates. If such concerns were not considered urgent, he asked, what purpose did convening the Assembly serve.
Government Defends Its Position
Parliamentary Affairs Minister M B Rajesh rejected the Opposition’s accusations, asserting that parole was a standard administrative process granted to prisoners across categories. He said the most recent parole approval dated back to January 8, 2026, and noted that the Assembly had convened several times since then.
Rajesh argued that if the matter truly required urgent attention, the Opposition could have submitted its notice earlier. He accused opposition parties of lacking substantive issues and maintained that the government had no objection to the topic being raised through proper procedural channels.
Uproar and Claims of Pre-Planned Protest
As tensions escalated, Opposition members moved into the well of the House holding placards and banners, leading to prolonged disruption. Rajesh alleged that the demonstration was planned in advance, pointing out that banners had been prepared despite knowledge that an adjournment motion was unlikely to be accepted.
He further claimed that the Opposition’s approach indirectly benefited the BJP, especially at a time when the Centre’s treatment of Kerala in the Union Budget was under sharp criticism.
Speaker Shamseer echoed similar concerns, stating that the Opposition leadership was aware of procedural limitations. He questioned the intent behind bringing protest materials into the House and described the conduct as inappropriate. Repeatedly urging members to restore order, the Speaker reminded legislators that the public closely followed Assembly proceedings.