Opposition boycotts Tripura budget session after uproar over rejected privilege motion against minister

Chaudhary announced the Opposition boycott of the rest of the session.

Chaudhury later said his privilege motion was unfairly rejected and accused the Speaker of bias, calling it “a shameful dark day” in the Assembly’s history. He had sought to move a privilege motion against Nath under Rule 173, citing remarks made during his discussion on the budget for 2025-26.

He quoted Nath as saying that “Jitenbabu jater porichoy diyechen (Jiten babu has demonstrated his tribe)”, which the CPM leader said was not only derogatory and abusive but a racial reference against him, his family and community.

Nath, in his privilege motion, said his words had been distorted to mislead the public. He clarified, “Yesterday, during the session, after Chaudhury concluded his speech, I remarked, ‘Unar bhashone uni jat chiniye diyechen’ (He has identified his jaat in his speech). To prevent misinterpretation, I later clarified, ‘Jitendrababu unar bhashone communist-er jaat chiniyechen’ (Jitendrababu has identified the jaat of communists in his speech).”

Nath said there was nothing unparliamentary in his statement and accused the CPM of deliberately misrepresenting his words. He explained that by using the term ‘jaat,’ he meant ‘level’ or a person or excellence, not community. “If someone politicises it, I am helpless,” he added.

Nath elaborated on legislative procedures regarding privilege motions, stating that a breach of privilege could be raised by a member, secretary, petitioner, or the privilege committee. He noted that if a breach occurs in the House, action may be taken without a complaint. If a complaint is made against a member, the Speaker must hear him before granting consent. He emphasised that privilege motions must be raised immediately after the incident and before the next day’s business list.

Nath also clarified that he did not mention caste or tribal identity during his remarks and distinguished between ‘upajati’ and ‘janajati,’ which refer to tribal identities, and ‘jaat,’ which refers to level or excellence.

Recounting the events leading to the privilege motion, Chaudhury said, “The leader of the Opposition starts the budget discussion in the Assembly as per convention. I began my discussion, and typically, the Speaker indicates how much time members will have. In my experience as a Parliament member, this is not determined by the size of the Opposition. In Tripura, those who were once in the Congress have now joined the BJP and occupy the treasury benches. When they were in Opposition, they discussed the budget for at least an hour. The Opposition’s role is to highlight government mistakes and offer constructive suggestions. However, there were efforts to silence me. The parliamentary affairs minister said I could not be given more than 35 minutes, a decision that should have come from the Speaker… I had just begun my discussion when points of order were raised and the Speaker indulged them.”

After sitting down, Chaudhury stood up again and said a member of the House claimed to belong to the below-poverty-line category, yet a family member was recently recognised as one of the highest taxpayers.

“I questioned how someone could go from rags to riches overnight without malpractice. The level of corruption in Tripura has reached untold heights. In response, the parliamentary affairs minister said I had identified my race and spoken like my race,” Chaudhury said.

Alleging that the Speaker disregarded rules and procedures, Chaudhury said the Assembly had become a “farce”. He said that no other letters were received at the Assembly’s receipt and dispatch office when he submitted his privilege motion. The CPM leader further said the Speaker mentioned that the minister’s personal assistant had submitted a letter to his assistant on Tuesday.

“I figured out that since I was not getting justice from the Speaker, I could seek redress under breach of privilege. I sent someone to the registrar’s office, and there was no letter from the parliamentary affairs minister. They became aware of my letter and acted accordingly. Ratan Lal Nath sat here until 1 PM yesterday, possibly trying to destroy records before submitting a letter. The Speaker could not hide the fact that the letter was submitted to his assistant. Does the parliamentary affairs minister not know the receipt and dispatch protocol? Letters are accepted on a first-come, first-served basis. It is unfortunate that the Speaker is demeaning his office. He killed democracy in broad daylight,” he said.

Congress MLA Sudip Roy Barman told reporters that the Opposition’s boycott was a shameful turn of events for the government. “I’ve never seen the Assembly tarnished like this before. The ruling side benefits from their majority, while the Opposition is suppressed, and the Opposition leader is insulted. If someone insults the Speaker’s chair, new members will assume this is how the House operates. The Assembly is running contrary to all rules and procedures,” he said.

“It pains us to see the CPM, the prime Opposition party, sidelined. It is shameful for the government that the budget is being passed in the absence of the main Opposition party. I urge the chief minister to intervene positively, but members of the treasury benches shout him down when he tries to speak,” he said.