Oppn demand for long session fizzles out
By Arun Pratap Singh
Garhwal Post Bureau
GAIRSAIN/DEHRADUN, 14 Mar: The budget session of the Uttarakhand Legislative Assembly held at Gairsain concluded after five days of proceedings. The House sat for a total of 41 hours and 10 minutes. During the session, the budget for the financial year 2026–27 was passed along with 12 Bills, while four ordinances were also approved by the House. The proceedings on the concluding day on Friday continued well past midnight when the budget for FY 2026-27 to the tune of Rs 1.12 lakh crores was passed by voice vote and the House was adjourned sine die.
The budget session began on March 9 and continued for five days. During this period, the Assembly received 50 short notice questions and 545 starred questions. Replies were provided to 291 questions during the course of the proceedings. Apart from the passage of the budget and the appropriation Bill, several legislative proposals were approved during the session. Like it has been happening in the past years, the questions for the ministries held by Chief Minister Pushkar Singh Dhami could not be submitted and also not responded to. Monday has been the day fixed for the Questions related to the departments under direct charge of the Chief Minister, but the budget session began on Monday with Governor’s address and the Question Hour was not on the agenda. During the past sessions in recent years, the House began the sessions on Tuesdays or later day in the week and the session did not last beyond that week itself.
The budget session, expectedly witnessed political exchanges between the ruling party and the Opposition over its duration and conduct. There were heated exchanges too during the session. Even personal rivalries appeared to have turned into sharp political exchanges including personal attacks on each other by some members. It may be recalled that the Opposition had initially demanded that the budget session should last at least 21 days, arguing that a longer sitting was necessary for meaningful discussions on governance and financial matters. In reality, however, neither the Opposition members nor those on the treasury benches appeared prepared for such an extended session.
During the proceedings, Chief Minister Pushkar Singh Dhami even stated in the House that if the Opposition wished, the session could be extended beyond the scheduled five days. He suggested that additional sittings could be held on Saturday and Monday, thereby continuing the session till Monday. Despite this offer, the proposal finally did not gain traction. Neither did the Government appear particularly serious about extending the sittings, nor did the Opposition really press for such an extension.
By the final day of the session on Friday evening, the lack of enthusiasm for prolonging the proceedings was visible on the floor of the House. By late evening, several Opposition members were seen absent from the Assembly, even as the remaining business of the session was being completed.
Leader of the Opposition Yashpal Arya said the Opposition had discharged its responsibility in the House with complete sincerity during the budget session. He alleged that the Government wanted to conclude the session earlier than necessary, but the Opposition ensured that the Government was cornered on several issues through Question Hour and other parliamentary procedures. According to Arya, the Opposition had raised many matters inside the House which left the Government without satisfactory answers. He further described the Government’s budget as a “bundle of false claims”, asserting that it contained little that could be appreciated.
The Congress MLAs also claimed that the session exposed weaknesses in the Government’s functioning. Congress MLAs Manoj Tiwari and Harish Dhami said the proceedings had helped bring out several shortcomings of the Government. They alleged that ministers often did not have adequate replies to departmental questions and that officials sometimes presented incorrect figures in the House.
Members of the ruling BJP however, described the budget session as productive and accused the Opposition of indulging in mere political rhetoric. BJP MLA Vinod Kandari said the Congress appeared interested only in opposing the Government throughout the session. He pointed out that Congress had not participated in the meeting of the Business Advisory Committee but later demanded a longer duration for the session on the floor of the House. According to him, this contradiction indicated that the demand for a longer session was largely political posturing.
During the budget session, the Assembly approved four ordinances, namely the Uttarakhand Shops & Establishments (Employment Regulation and Service Conditions) Amendment Ordinance, 2025; the Uttarakhand Jan Vishwas (Amendment of Provisions) Ordinance, 2025; the Uttarakhand Goods and Services Tax (Amendment) Ordinance, 2025; and the Uttarakhand Uniform Civil Code (Amendment) Ordinance, 2026.
In addition, 12 Bills were passed during the session. These included the Uttarakhand Shops & Establishments (Employment Regulation and Service Conditions) Amendment Bill, 2026; the Uttarakhand Jan Vishwas (Amendment of Provisions) Bill, 2026; the Uttarakhand Goods and Services Tax (Amendment) Bill, 2026; the Uttarakhand Uniform Civil Code (Amendment) Bill, 2026; the Uttarakhand (Uttar Pradesh Public Services Reservation for the Physically Disabled, Dependents of Freedom Fighters and Ex-Servicemen Act, 1993) Amendment Bill, 2026; the Uttarakhand Prisons and Correctional Services (Amendment) Bill, 2026; the Uttarakhand Minority Commission (Amendment) Bill, 2026; the Uttarakhand Bhasha Sansthan (Amendment) Bill, 2026; the Uttarakhand Devbhoomi Parivar Bill, 2026; the Uttarakhand Private Universities (Amendment) Bill, 2026; and the Uttarakhand Public Gambling Prevention Bill, 2026.
With the completion of legislative business and passage of the State budget for 2026–27, the five-day budget session of the Uttarakhand Assembly formally came to an end leaving behind a political debate over whether the demand for a longer session was more rhetorical than real.
