DMK MP Tiruchi Siva Files Breach of Privilege Notice Against Commerce Minister Piyush Goyal
In a significant parliamentary development, DMK MP Tiruchi Siva on Monday submitted a formal breach of privilege notice against Commerce Minister Piyush Goyal. The notice alleges that Goyal violated parliamentary norms by disclosing details of an interim trade agreement between India and the United States during a press conference while Parliament was actively in session.
Raising the Issue in the Rajya Sabha
Siva brought this matter to the forefront shortly after the Rajya Sabha convened on Monday morning. He argued that Goyal's actions constituted a serious breach of privilege, as the minister discussed a key government policy decision outside the parliamentary chamber during its session. "He (Goyal) has given an interview with regard to a policy decision of the government outside the House when Parliament was in session. It amounts to a breach of privilege of this House," Siva stated emphatically during the proceedings.
Support from the Leader of the Opposition
The DMK MP's move garnered immediate support from the Leader of the Opposition, Mallikarjun Kharge, who backed the call for accountability. This bipartisan concern highlights the gravity of the alleged breach, underscoring the importance of maintaining parliamentary decorum and protocol.
Chairman's Response and Minister's Statement
In response to the notice, Rajya Sabha Chairman C P Radhakrishnan acknowledged the issue and assured the House that he would look into the matter thoroughly. He also noted that Commerce Minister Piyush Goyal had already made a formal statement within the House regarding the trade deal, potentially mitigating some aspects of the controversy. However, the breach of privilege notice remains pending, with further parliamentary scrutiny expected.
The interim trade deal between India and the US, which is at the center of this dispute, involves critical economic and diplomatic implications. By discussing it publicly during a parliamentary session, Goyal's actions have sparked a debate on transparency versus procedural adherence in governance.
This incident raises broader questions about the balance between government communication and parliamentary privileges, especially in an era of rapid media dissemination. As the matter unfolds, it will be closely watched for its impact on parliamentary ethics and the conduct of ministers during legislative sessions.
