Home / India News / Dhankhar rejects privilege motion against Amit Shah, cites 1948 document
Dhankhar rejects privilege motion against Amit Shah, cites 1948 document
Rajya Sabha Chairman Jagdeep Dhankhar rejected Congress MP Jairam Ramesh's privilege motion against Amit Shah, citing a 1948 PIB document and stating there was 'no transgression'
4 min read Last Updated : Mar 27 2025 | 3:17 PM IST
Rajya Sabha Chairman and Vice President Jagdeep Dhankhar on Thursday rejected the privilege motion submitted by Congress MP Jairam Ramesh against Union Home Minister Amit Shah. The motion accused Shah of making remarks that allegedly ‘cast aspersions’ on former Congress President and Rajya Sabha MP Sonia Gandhi concerning the functioning of the National Prime Minister’s Relief Fund (NPMRF).
In his ruling, Dhankhar referred to a Press Information Bureau (PIB) release dated January 24, 1948. He said, the notice lacked merit as there was “no transgression and absolute adherence to truth”.
Expressing his disappointment over the motion, Dhankhar said he declined it with “a deep sense of anguish and pain”. He emphasised that the Rajya Sabha should not serve as a platform to “ruin reputations”.
“I have gone through the document. There is no transgression, absolute adherence to truth, which is vindicated by a document that is available to the members. That being the situation, I cannot persuade myself to any code to this notice of question of privilege against Home Minister Amit Shah,” Dhankhar said.
He further criticised the practice of invoking breach of privilege to gain media traction, saying, “I have declined with a deep sense of anguish and pain that we rush to invoke breach of privilege, we rush to the media and give it traction, try to tarnish the image. I have said on multiple occasions, this House will not be a platform to ruin the reputations of people. We have to protect.”
Nehru’s 1948 statement on NPMRF
While citing the PIB document, Dhankhar read aloud the press release from January 24, 1948, which stated: “I (Prime Minister Jawaharlal Nehru) am therefore starting a fund ‘Prime Minister National Relief Fund’... It will be managed by the Prime Minister, the President of the Indian National Congress, the Deputy PM, and some other members.”
Jairam Ramesh’s allegations against Amit Shah
On Wednesday, Congress MP Jairam Ramesh submitted a privilege notice against Amit Shah, alleging that the Home Minister had made unfounded accusations against Sonia Gandhi with a “premeditated motive to malign her reputation”.
Ramesh cited Shah’s remarks made during his reply to the debate on the Disaster Management Bill, 2024, in the Rajya Sabha on Tuesday. In his privilege motion, Ramesh argued that Shah’s statement was “blatantly false and defamatory”, amounting to a “breach of privilege” of Sonia Gandhi and contempt of the House.
Amit Shah’s remarks on NPMRF under scrutiny
During his speech on the Disaster Management Bill, 2024, Amit Shah had said, “The PM relief fund was made during the Congress regime, and during this government tenure, the PM Cares fund was started. During the Congress regime, only one family had control, and the Congress President was a member of this. The Congress President was part of a government fund. What reply will they give to the people of this country? Does not anyone read or see this?”
The Congress argued that this statement constituted a breach of privilege, as it suggested undue control by Sonia Gandhi over the NPMRF.
Congress cites Rule 188, accuses Shah of ‘implied reference’
The privilege notice was submitted under Rule 188 of the Rules of Procedure and Conduct of Business in the Rajya Sabha, which governs privilege matters. Ramesh said that while Shah did not explicitly name Sonia Gandhi, his remarks clearly implied reference to her, imputing motives regarding the management of the NPMRF.
The Congress leader maintained that casting reflections or making derogatory references to any member of the House constitutes a breach of privilege and contempt of Parliament. However, with Dhankhar rejecting the motion, the matter has now been put to rest within the House.
[With agency inputs]
You’ve reached your limit of {{free_limit}} free articles this month. Subscribe now for unlimited access.