The Centre is making efforts to build political consensus on referring the contentious Foreign Contribution (Regulation) Amendment Bill, 2026 to a Joint Parliamentary Committee (JPC), amid continued opposition to the proposed legislation, people familiar with the matter said on Tuesday. The government has been reaching out to political parties as well as stakeholders, including Church representatives and non-government organisations, to address concerns over provisions of the bill, which was introduced in the Lok Sabha in March.&nbsp;A BJP lawmaker said the government has taken note of concerns raised by several political parties and civil society groups. Union Home Minister Amit Shah has also assured Mizoram Chief Minister Lalduhoma that the amended FCRA provisions will not be applied retrospectively. “…We are in touch with parties and what we have gathered is that some are in favour of sending the bill to a JPC. The Congress and the TMC [Trinamool Congress] are against it…but discussions with other parties are ongoing,” said the BJP lawmaker and added the government is also reaching out to the Dravida Munnetra Kazhagam (DMK) to agree to a JPC.&nbsp;The lawmaker said Parliamentary Affairs Minister Kiren Rijiju is leading the government's outreach to Opposition parties in an attempt to secure agreement on referring the bill to a JPC. “There are several parties that have demanded scrapping the bill entirely. While some have concerns about specific provisions…now these can be examined and discussed in detail. The government has refuted the perception that the bill will adversely impact minorities or social organisations,” the BJP lawmaker said.&nbsp;The government's move comes amid growing political pressure over the proposed changes. Opposition parties and several organisations have raised concerns about the potential impact of the legislation on NGOs, charitable institutions, religious organisations and other entities that receive foreign contributions. The bill seeks to amend the existing Foreign Contribution (Regulation) Act, 2010, including provisions dealing with foreign-funded assets, registration, penalties and investigations. The proposed legislation would create a framework under which foreign contributions and assets could be placed under the control of a designated authority in certain circumstances.&nbsp;Also Read: <a href="https://www.wionews.com/india-news/pm-modi-amit-shah-and-gandhis-top-leaders-attend-wedding-reception-of-supriya-sule-s-daughter-1786451662920">PM Modi, Amit Shah, and Gandhis: Top leaders attend wedding reception of Supriya Sule’s daughter</a><h2>FCRA Bill unlikely to be taken up this session</h2>With the Monsoon Session of Parliament scheduled to conclude on Friday, the chances of the FCRA Amendment Bill being taken up for detailed discussion and passage appear limited. A second BJP leader said the bill is unlikely to be taken up during the remaining days of the session. However, if the government manages to reach a consensus on the JPC proposal, it could make a statement in Parliament announcing the decision to refer the legislation for further scrutiny. The bill's absence from the final days of the Lok Sabha agenda has already fuelled speculation that the government may be considering a more cautious approach to the contentious legislation. A JPC would allow lawmakers from both Houses of Parliament to examine the provisions in greater detail and hear representations from stakeholders before submitting recommendations.<h2>BJD open to JPC scrutiny</h2>The Biju Janata Dal (BJD) has indicated that it is not opposed to the bill being examined by a JPC. A BJD lawmaker said several provisions require closer examination, particularly those relating to administrative procedures and the functioning of organisations involved in education and healthcare. “There are some issues that need to be addressed, such as administrative procedures and processes that should not create problems for organisations that work in the sectors of education or health care,” said the BJD lawmaker.&nbsp;The party also raised concerns about organisations that may have opaque foreign funding or divert funds from their stated purpose. “There should be scrutiny of international organisations that have opaque funding; those which divert funds meant for one particular purpose to another and those organisations that are involved in proselytisation… But if any organisation gets caught in administrative lapses and loses their licence, there has to be recourse for that.” The BJD's position could be significant as the government seeks support beyond its immediate allies for a JPC referral.<h2>Church representatives meet Amit Shah</h2>Concerns over the FCRA Bill have also come from Christian organisations and Church representatives. A delegation led by DMK lawmaker P Wilson met Amit Shah and submitted a memorandum outlining its objections to the proposed legislation. The delegation argued that the bill, which changes the framework governing charitable, educational, medical and religious property linked to foreign contributions, should not be passed without extensive pre-legislative scrutiny. The memorandum called for the bill to be referred to a JPC.&nbsp;The delegation also argued that a JPC would be more appropriate than a Department-Related Parliamentary Standing Committee because the proposed changes cut across the jurisdiction and concerns of multiple ministries.It said no single departmental committee would be adequately placed to examine the issues in their entirety.<h2>What does the FCRA Amendment Bill seek to change?</h2>The Foreign Contribution (Regulation) Amendment Bill, 2026, proposes several changes to the existing framework governing foreign contributions received by eligible organisations in India. Among its key provisions are changes relating to the receipt and utilisation of foreign contributions, treatment of assets when an organisation's registration is suspended or ceases, cancellation and non-renewal of registration, penalties and investigation procedures.&nbsp;The bill also proposes a designated authority to oversee foreign contributions and assets in specified circumstances.The government has argued that the amendments are intended to address administrative and legal gaps in the existing law, strengthen oversight and prevent misuse of foreign funds. Opponents, however, have questioned whether the proposed powers could create difficulties for NGOs, charitable institutions, healthcare and educational organisations and religious bodies that depend on foreign contributions.<h2>Why is the government considering a JPC?</h2>A JPC could provide the government with a way to move the legislation forward while allowing Opposition parties and affected stakeholders greater opportunity to examine its provisions. For the government, securing consensus on a JPC could also help break the current political deadlock without immediately withdrawing the bill.&nbsp;For the Opposition and stakeholder groups, however, the key demand remains broader scrutiny, and some parties have called for the legislation to be withdrawn altogether. Mizoram has emerged as an important voice in the debate because of concerns among Christian organisations and institutions in the northeastern state. Following his meeting with Amit Shah, Lalduhoma said he had received an assurance that the proposed changes would not have retrospective effect.

FCRA Amendment Bill 2026 faces Opposition resistance as Centre seeks JPC consensus. Know Amit Shah's assurance, Church concerns and what happens next

The Centre is making efforts to build political consensus on referring the contentious Foreign Contribution (Regulation) Amendment Bill, 2026 to a Joint Parliamentary Committee (JPC), amid continued opposition to the proposed legislation, people familiar with the matter said on Tuesday. The government has been reaching out to political parties as well as stakeholders, including Church representatives and non-government organisations, to address concerns over provisions of the bill, which was introduced in the Lok Sabha in March. A BJP lawmaker said the government has taken note of concerns raised by several political parties and civil society groups. Union Home Minister Amit Shah has also assured Mizoram Chief Minister Lalduhoma that the amended FCRA provisions will not be applied retrospectively. “…We are in touch with parties and what we have gathered is that some are in favour of sending the bill to a JPC. The Congress and the TMC [Trinamool Congress] are against it…but discussions with other parties are ongoing,” said the BJP lawmaker and added the government is also reaching out to the Dravida Munnetra Kazhagam (DMK) to agree to a JPC. The lawmaker said Parliamentary Affairs Minister Kiren Rijiju is leading the government's outreach to Opposition parties in an attempt to secure agreement on referring the bill to a JPC. “There are several parties that have demanded scrapping the bill entirely. While some have concerns about specific provisions…now these can be examined and discussed in detail. The government has refuted the perception that the bill will adversely impact minorities or social organisations,” the BJP lawmaker said. The government's move comes amid growing political pressure over the proposed changes. Opposition parties and several organisations have raised concerns about the potential impact of the legislation on NGOs, charitable institutions, religious organisations and other entities that receive foreign contributions. The bill seeks to amend the existing Foreign Contribution (Regulation) Act, 2010, including provisions dealing with foreign-funded assets, registration, penalties and investigations. The proposed legislation would create a framework under which foreign contributions and assets could be placed under the control of a designated authority in certain circumstances. Also Read: PM Modi, Amit Shah, and Gandhis: Top leaders attend wedding reception of Supriya Sule’s daughter FCRA Bill unlikely to be taken up this session With the Monsoon Session of Parliament scheduled to conclude on Friday, the chances of the FCRA Amendment Bill being taken up for detailed discussion and passage appear limited. A second BJP leader said the bill is unlikely to be taken up during the remaining days of the session. However, if the government manages to reach a consensus on the JPC proposal, it could make a statement in Parliament announcing the decision to refer the legislation for further scrutiny. The bill's absence from the final days of the Lok Sabha agenda has already fuelled speculation that the government may be considering a more cautious approach to the contentious legislation. A JPC would allow lawmakers from both Houses of Parliament to examine the provisions in greater detail and hear representations from stakeholders before submitting recommendations. BJD open to JPC scrutiny The Biju Janata Dal (BJD) has indicated that it is not opposed to the bill being examined by a JPC. A BJD lawmaker said several provisions require closer examination, particularly those relating to administrative procedures and the functioning of organisations involved in education and healthcare. “There are some issues that need to be addressed, such as administrative procedures and processes that should not create problems for organisations that work in the sectors of education or health care,” said the BJD lawmaker. The party also raised concerns about organisations that may have opaque foreign funding or divert funds from their stated purpose. “There should be scrutiny of international organisations that have opaque funding; those which divert funds meant for one particular purpose to another and those organisations that are involved in proselytisation… But if any organisation gets caught in administrative lapses and loses their licence, there has to be recourse for that.” The BJD's position could be significant as the government seeks support beyond its immediate allies for a JPC referral. Church representatives meet Amit Shah Concerns over the FCRA Bill have also come from Christian organisations and Church representatives. A delegation led by DMK lawmaker P Wilson met Amit Shah and submitted a memorandum outlining its objections to the proposed legislation. The delegation argued that the bill, which changes the framework governing charitable, educational, medical and religious property linked to foreign contributions, should not be passed without extensive pre-legislative scrutiny. The memorandum called for the bill to be referred to a JPC. The delegation also argued that a JPC would be more appropriate than a Department-Related Parliamentary Standing Committee because the proposed changes cut across the jurisdiction and concerns of multiple ministries. It said no single departmental committee would be adequately placed to examine the issues in their entirety. What does the FCRA Amendment Bill seek to change? The Foreign Contribution (Regulation) Amendment Bill, 2026, proposes several changes to the existing framework governing foreign contributions received by eligible organisations in India. Among its key provisions are changes relating to the receipt and utilisation of foreign contributions, treatment of assets when an organisation's registration is suspended or ceases, cancellation and non-renewal of registration, penalties and investigation procedures. The bill also proposes a designated authority to oversee foreign contributions and assets in specified circumstances. The government has argued that the amendments are intended to address administrative and legal gaps in the existing law, strengthen oversight and prevent misuse of foreign funds. Opponents, however, have questioned whether the proposed powers could create difficulties for NGOs, charitable institutions, healthcare and educational organisations and religious bodies that depend on foreign contributions. Why is the government considering a JPC? A JPC could provide the government with a way to move the legislation forward while allowing Opposition parties and affected stakeholders greater opportunity to examine its provisions. For the government, securing consensus on a JPC could also help break the current political deadlock without immediately withdrawing the bill. For the Opposition and stakeholder groups, however, the key demand remains broader scrutiny, and some parties have called for the legislation to be withdrawn altogether. Mizoram has emerged as an important voice in the debate because of concerns among Christian organisations and institutions in the northeastern state. Following his meeting with Amit Shah, Lalduhoma said he had received an assurance that the proposed changes would not have retrospective effect.

Centre seeks consensus to send FCRA Amendment Bill 2026 to JPC as Opposition, Church groups and NGOs raise concerns over its provisions

FCRA Amendment Bill: Centre seeks consensus on JPC as opposition, Church groups raise concerns

New Delhi, India
Congress MPs Priyanka Gandhi Vadra, Manish Tewari, Sukhdev Bhagat, and Randeep Singh Surjewala will be in the Joint Parliamentary Committee (JPC) for deliberations on the 'One Nation One Election' Bill, party sources said on Wednesday.
The bill, introduced in the Lok Sabha on Tuesday, proposes simultaneous elections to the Lok Sabha and state assemblies across India. However, the proposal has faced strong resistance from opposition parties, who voiced concerns about its potential impact on democracy.
The opposition raised concerns that the change could disproportionately benefit the ruling party, giving it undue influence over the electoral process in states, and could undermine the autonomy of regional parties.
Also read | <a href="https://www.wionews.com/india-news/congress-slams-one-nation-one-election-bill-in-lok-sabha-784576">'Assault on basic structure of Constitution': Opposition slams 'One Nation, One Election' bill in Lok Sabha</a>
These Bills, which were approved by the Cabinet last week, seek to pave the way for holding simultaneous elections to the Lok Sabha and state assemblies across India.
Opposition members opposed the bill's introduction. In the division, 269 members voted in favour of the bill's introduction, while 196 voted against it.
The bills will now be sent to a Joint Parliamentary Committee (JPC) for further deliberations.
Also read | <a href="https://www.wionews.com/india-news/one-nation-one-election-bills-introduced-in-lok-sabha-269-mps-vote-in-favour-198-oppose-784662">One Nation, One Election bills introduced in Lok Sabha; 269 MPs vote in favour, 198 oppose</a>
Union Law Minister Arjun Meghwal tabled two crucial bills: the Constitution (One Hundred and Twenty-Ninth Amendment) Bill 2024 and the Union Territories Laws (Amendment Bill) 2024.
The Constitution (One Hundred and Twenty-Ninth Amendment) Bill, 2024' and 'The Union Territories Laws (Amendment) Bill, 2024', which propose simultaneous elections for both Lok Sabha and state assemblies, were introduced in the lower house on Tuesday. The bills were introduced in Lok Sabha by Union Law Minister Arjun Ram Meghwal.
Watch | One Nation One Election Bills for Simultaneous Polls Introduced in Lok Sabha
<div class="ui-state-default" contenteditable="false">
<div class="twitter-block" draggable="false">
<div class="videoWrapper trancodeVideo"><iframe allowfullscreen="" autoplay="1" class="includeVideo" frameborder="0" height="350" src="https://cdn.thepublive.com/wion/static/kaltura_player/wion_video_player_iframe.html?thumbnail=wion/media/post_attachments/files/2024/12/17/1712_MNV_BILL_230PM-1734429318-00000003.jpg&videourl=https://vodakm.zeenews.com/vod/WION/1712_MNV_BILL_230PM.mp4/index.m3u8&duration=190&tags=india,One nation one election,parliament,lok sabha" style="width:100%;max-width:560px;" width="560"></iframe></div>
</div>
<a class="close-mark close-div" href="#" id="jqclosemark">×</a></div>
Union Home Minister Amit Shah said that when One Nation, One Election Bill was taken up in the cabinet for approval, PM Modi had said that it should be sent to the JPC for detailed discussion.
Disclaimer: This story has been published from a news agency feed with minimal edits for grammar and punctuation. The headline may have been changed to better reflect the content of the story or to make it more suitable for WION audience.

These Bills, which were approved by the Cabinet last week, seek to pave the way for holding simultaneous elections to the Lok Sabha and state assemblies across India



New Delhi, India Congress MPs Priyanka Gandhi Vadra, Manish Tewari, Sukhdev Bhagat, and Randeep Singh Surjewala will be in the Joint Parliamentary Committee (JPC) for deliberations on the 'One Nation One Election' Bill, party sources said on Wednesday. The bill, introduced in the Lok Sabha on Tuesday, proposes simultaneous elections to the Lok Sabha and state assemblies across India. However, the proposal has faced strong resistance from opposition parties, who voiced concerns about its potential impact on democracy. The opposition raised concerns that the change could disproportionately benefit the ruling party, giving it undue influence over the electoral process in states, and could undermine the autonomy of regional parties. Also read | 'Assault on basic structure of Constitution': Opposition slams 'One Nation, One Election' bill in Lok Sabha These Bills, which were approved by the Cabinet last week, seek to pave the way for holding simultaneous elections to the Lok Sabha and state assemblies across India. Opposition members opposed the bill's introduction. In the division, 269 members voted in favour of the bill's introduction, while 196 voted against it. The bills will now be sent to a Joint Parliamentary Committee (JPC) for further deliberations. Also read | One Nation, One Election bills introduced in Lok Sabha; 269 MPs vote in favour, 198 oppose Union Law Minister Arjun Meghwal tabled two crucial bills: the Constitution (One Hundred and Twenty-Ninth Amendment) Bill 2024 and the Union Territories Laws (Amendment Bill) 2024. The Constitution (One Hundred and Twenty-Ninth Amendment) Bill, 2024' and 'The Union Territories Laws (Amendment) Bill, 2024', which propose simultaneous elections for both Lok Sabha and state assemblies, were introduced in the lower house on Tuesday. The bills were introduced in Lok Sabha by Union Law Minister Arjun Ram Meghwal. Watch | One Nation One Election Bills for Simultaneous Polls Introduced in Lok Sabha × Union Home Minister Amit Shah said that when One Nation, One Election Bill was taken up in the cabinet for approval, PM Modi had said that it should be sent to the JPC for detailed discussion. Disclaimer: This story has been published from a news agency feed with minimal edits for grammar and punctuation. The headline may have been changed to better reflect the content of the story or to make it more suitable for WION audience.

Priyanka Gandhi Vadra, Manish Tewari in Joint Parliamentary Committee on 'One Nation One Election' bill

Congress MPs Priyanka Gandhi Vadra, Manish Tewari, Sukhdev Bhagat, and Randeep Singh Surjewala will be in the Joint Parliamentary Committee (JPC) for deliberations on the 'One Nation One Election' Bill, party sources said on Wednesday.

The bill, introduced in the Lok Sabha on Tuesday, proposes simultaneous elections to the Lok Sabha and state assemblies across India. However, the proposal has faced strong resistance from opposition parties, who voiced concerns about its potential impact on democracy.

The opposition raised concerns that the change could disproportionately benefit the ruling party, giving it undue influence over the electoral process in states, and could undermine the autonomy of regional parties.

Also read |&nbsp;<a href="https://www.wionews.com/india-news/congress-slams-one-nation-one-election-bill-in-lok-sabha-784576">'Assault on basic structure of Constitution': Opposition slams 'One Nation, One Election' bill in Lok Sabha</a>

These Bills, which were approved by the Cabinet last week, seek to pave the way for holding simultaneous elections to the Lok Sabha and state assemblies across India.

Opposition members opposed the bill's introduction. In the division, 269 members voted in favour of the bill's introduction, while 196 voted against it.

The bills will now be sent to a Joint Parliamentary Committee (JPC) for further deliberations.

Also read |&nbsp;<a href="https://www.wionews.com/india-news/one-nation-one-election-bills-introduced-in-lok-sabha-269-mps-vote-in-favour-198-oppose-784662">One Nation, One Election bills introduced in Lok Sabha; 269 MPs vote in favour, 198 oppose</a>

Union Law Minister Arjun Meghwal tabled two crucial bills: the Constitution (One Hundred and Twenty-Ninth Amendment) Bill 2024 and the Union Territories Laws (Amendment Bill) 2024.

The Constitution (One Hundred and Twenty-Ninth Amendment) Bill, 2024' and 'The Union Territories Laws (Amendment) Bill, 2024', which propose simultaneous elections for both Lok Sabha and state assemblies, were introduced in the lower house on Tuesday. The bills were introduced in Lok Sabha by Union Law Minister Arjun Ram Meghwal.

Watch |&nbsp;One Nation One Election Bills for Simultaneous Polls Introduced in Lok Sabha

<div class="ui-state-default" contenteditable="false">
<div class="twitter-block" draggable="false">
<div class="videoWrapper trancodeVideo"><iframe allowfullscreen="" autoplay="1" class="includeVideo" frameborder="0" height="350" src="https://www.wionews.com/videos/one-nation-one-election-bills-for-simultaneous-polls-introduced-in-lok-sabha-784636/embed" style="width:100%;max-width:560px;" width="560"></iframe></div>
</div>
<a class="close-mark close-div" href="#" id="jqclosemark">×</a></div>

Union Home Minister Amit Shah said that when One Nation, One Election Bill was taken up in the cabinet for approval, PM Modi had said that it should be sent to the JPC for detailed discussion.

Disclaimer: This story has been published from a news agency feed with minimal edits for grammar and punctuation. The headline may have been changed to better reflect the content of the story or to make it more suitable for WION audience.

Congress MPs Priyanka Gandhi Vadra, Manish Tewari, Sukhdev Bhagat, and Randeep Singh Surjewala will be in the Joint Parliamentary Committee (JPC) for deliberations on the 'One Nation One Election' Bill, party sources said on Wednesday.

Congress MPs Priyanka Gandhi Vadra, Manish Tewari, Sukhdev Bhagat, and Randeep Singh Surjewala will be in the Joint Parliamentary Committee (JPC) for deliberations on the 'One Nation One Election' Bill, party sources said on Wednesday. The bill, introduced in the Lok Sabha on Tuesday, proposes simultaneous elections to the Lok Sabha and state assemblies across India. However, the proposal has faced strong resistance from opposition parties, who voiced concerns about its potential impact on democracy. The opposition raised concerns that the change could disproportionately benefit the ruling party, giving it undue influence over the electoral process in states, and could undermine the autonomy of regional parties. Also read | 'Assault on basic structure of Constitution': Opposition slams 'One Nation, One Election' bill in Lok Sabha These Bills, which were approved by the Cabinet last week, seek to pave the way for holding simultaneous elections to the Lok Sabha and state assemblies across India. Opposition members opposed the bill's introduction. In the division, 269 members voted in favour of the bill's introduction, while 196 voted against it. The bills will now be sent to a Joint Parliamentary Committee (JPC) for further deliberations. Also read | One Nation, One Election bills introduced in Lok Sabha; 269 MPs vote in favour, 198 oppose Union Law Minister Arjun Meghwal tabled two crucial bills: the Constitution (One Hundred and Twenty-Ninth Amendment) Bill 2024 and the Union Territories Laws (Amendment Bill) 2024. The Constitution (One Hundred and Twenty-Ninth Amendment) Bill, 2024' and 'The Union Territories Laws (Amendment) Bill, 2024', which propose simultaneous elections for both Lok Sabha and state assemblies, were introduced in the lower house on Tuesday. The bills were introduced in Lok Sabha by Union Law Minister Arjun Ram Meghwal. Watch | One Nation One Election Bills for Simultaneous Polls Introduced in Lok Sabha × Union Home Minister Amit Shah said that when One Nation, One Election Bill was taken up in the cabinet for approval, PM Modi had said that it should be sent to the JPC for detailed discussion. Disclaimer: This story has been published from a news agency feed with minimal edits for grammar and punctuation. The headline may have been changed to better reflect the content of the story or to make it more suitable for WION audience.

The <a href="https://www.wionews.com/india-news/new-data-protection-bill-calls-for-consent-privacy-penalties-to-bring-more-accountability-in-digital-economy-155209/amp">Personal Data Protection Bill</a> was referred to a Joint Committee on Wednesday with the Lok Sabha adopting a motion moved by Electronics and Information Technology Minister <a href="https://www.wionews.com/india-news/ravi-shankar-prasad-to-hold-roundtable-discussion-with-ceos-from-electronics-industry-249501">Ravi Shankar Prasad</a>.

Prasad said the "joint committee of the House" will have 20 members from the Lok Sabha and 10 members from the Rajya Sabha and would give its report on the first day of the last week of the next budget session.

Prasad, who had introduced the Personal Data Protection Bill, 2019 earlier in the day, had proposed that it should be referred to the select committee of the two Houses amid demands from the opposition members that it should be sent to the Standing Committee on Information Technology headed by Congress member Shashi Tharoor.

As Prasad took the names of Lok Sabha members in the joint committee, Trinamool Congress leader Sudip Bandyopadhyay said that they wanted to replace Sugata Roy with Mahua Moitra.

Bandyopadhyay said that Sugata Roy was handling a lot of works and the party cannot spare him.

As Speaker <a href="https://www.wionews.com/india-news/hyderabad-veterinary-doctors-rape-murder-rocks-parliament-265692">Om Birla </a>asked the Parliamentary Affairs Minister about his views on the suggestion, Prasad proposed that the name of the Trinamool Congress member may be added later.

He urged Bandyopadhyay to let Roy remain in the committee as he had a vast experience but Bandyopadhyay said it was the party's decision.

"If you ask me, he (Roy) is the best person in parliament. You can't change my party's decision," he said, adding that the name will be given by the party.

Prasad said the joint committee to examine the bill will have 20 members from the Lok Sabha - Meenakshi Lekhi, PP Chaudhary, SS Ahluwalia, Tejasvi Surya, Ajay Bhatt,

Col Rajyavardhan Singh Rathore, Sanjay Jaiswal, Uday Pratap Singh, Kirit Premjibhai Solanki, Arvind Dharampuri, Heena Gavit, Rajeev Ranjan Singh, Gaurav Gogoi,

Jothimani, Saugata Roy, Kanimozhi, PV Midhun Reddy, Shrikant Eknath Shinde, Bhartruhari Mahtab and Ritesh Pandey.

Congress member Adhir Ranjan Chowdhury said that only two members of the party were on the panel and said the party should have more representation.

The Bill seeks to provide for the protection of the individual in relation to personal data and to establish a Data Protection Authority of India.

The Personal Data Protection Bill was referred to a Joint Committee on Wednesday with the Lok Sabha adopting a motion moved by Electronics and Information Technology Minister Ravi Shankar Prasad.

The Personal Data Protection Bill was referred to a Joint Committee on Wednesday with the Lok Sabha adopting a motion moved by Electronics and Information Technology Minister Ravi Shankar Prasad. Prasad said the "joint committee of the House" will have 20 members from the Lok Sabha and 10 members from the Rajya Sabha and would give its report on the first day of the last week of the next budget session. Prasad, who had introduced the Personal Data Protection Bill, 2019 earlier in the day, had proposed that it should be referred to the select committee of the two Houses amid demands from the opposition members that it should be sent to the Standing Committee on Information Technology headed by Congress member Shashi Tharoor. As Prasad took the names of Lok Sabha members in the joint committee, Trinamool Congress leader Sudip Bandyopadhyay said that they wanted to replace Sugata Roy with Mahua Moitra. Bandyopadhyay said that Sugata Roy was handling a lot of works and the party cannot spare him. As Speaker Om Birla asked the Parliamentary Affairs Minister about his views on the suggestion, Prasad proposed that the name of the Trinamool Congress member may be added later. He urged Bandyopadhyay to let Roy remain in the committee as he had a vast experience but Bandyopadhyay said it was the party's decision. "If you ask me, he (Roy) is the best person in parliament. You can't change my party's decision," he said, adding that the name will be given by the party. Prasad said the joint committee to examine the bill will have 20 members from the Lok Sabha - Meenakshi Lekhi, PP Chaudhary, SS Ahluwalia, Tejasvi Surya, Ajay Bhatt, Col Rajyavardhan Singh Rathore, Sanjay Jaiswal, Uday Pratap Singh, Kirit Premjibhai Solanki, Arvind Dharampuri, Heena Gavit, Rajeev Ranjan Singh, Gaurav Gogoi, Jothimani, Saugata Roy, Kanimozhi, PV Midhun Reddy, Shrikant Eknath Shinde, Bhartruhari Mahtab and Ritesh Pandey. Congress member Adhir Ranjan Chowdhury said that only two members of the party were on the panel and said the party should have more representation. The Bill seeks to provide for the protection of the individual in relation to personal data and to establish a Data Protection Authority of India.

Lok Sabha refers Personal Data Protection Bill to Joint Parliamentary Committee

Ruling out referring the Rafale deal to a parliamentary panel, Finance Minister Arun Jaitley Sunday launched a blistering attack on the Congress, calling it "bad losers" and said the CAG's view of the deal is not relevant after the Supreme Court's clean chit.&nbsp;

With the first four days of the winter session of Parliament washed out over various protests, Jaitley said the opposition Congress will prefer disruptions over discussion on Rafale during the remainder of the session.

The Congress, which was not a petitioner before the apex court, wants the Rafale deal to be referred to a Joint Parliamentary Committee (JPC) to go into the price arrived at by the BJP government versus the one negotiated by the previous UPA regime, as also how billionaire Anil Ambani's group with virtually no experience in manufacture of fighter jets was selected as an offset partner for the deal.

"After the Supreme Court has spoken the last word, it gets legitimacy. A political body can never come to a finding contrary to what the Court has said," Jaitley wrote in a Facebook blog, titled 'Rafale - Lies, Shortlived lies and now further lies?'.

On the Congress claiming 'ambiguity' in the Supreme Court judgment that said the deal has been examined by the CAG and is now before Parliament's Public Accounts Committee (PAC), Jaitley said defence transactions go to the CAG for an audit review, which then are referred to the PAC.

"This was factually and accurately stated by the Government before the Court. The audit review of Rafale is pending before the CAG. All facts are shared with it. When its report is out, it will go to the PAC. Notwithstanding this factually correct statement made, if an ambiguity has emerged in the Court Order, the correct course is for anyone to apply / mention before the Court and have it corrected," he said.

The correct picture has been presented to the court and it must now be left to the wisdom of the court to state at which stage the CAG review is pending.

"The CAG review is not relevant to the final findings on procedure, pricing and offset suppliers. But bad losers never accept the truth. Having failed in multiple lies they have now started an innuendo about the Judgement," he said.

Jaitley said Congress, having failed in their initial falsehood, is now "manufacturing further lies about the Judgement."

"On facts it lied. The judgement of the Supreme Court conclusively establishes the Congress party's vulnerabilities in a discussion on defence transactions.

"It will be a great opportunity to remind the nation of the legacy of the Congress Party and its defence acquisitions - a great opportunity indeed for some of us to speak," he wrote.

The finance minister, who had alongside the defence minister led a spirited counter-attack against the Congress on Friday post the Supreme Court ruling, said the opponents of the Rafale deal had a choice of forum to present their side, and they chose the Supreme Court.

"The Court conducts a judicial review, it is a non-partisan, independent and a fair Constitutional authority. The Court's verdict is final. It can't be reviewed by anyone except by the Court itself," he said.&nbsp;

Ruling out setting up a JPC to go into the deal, Jaitley said, "How can a Parliamentary Committee go into the correctness or otherwise to what the Court has said. Is a Committee of Politicians both legally and in terms of human resources capable of reviewing issues already decided by the Supreme Court?"

"On areas such as procedure, offset suppliers and pricing, can a Parliamentary Committee take a different view of what the Court has said?," he said, asking if a contract be breached, nation's security be compromised and the pricing data be made available to Parliament or its panel.

He asked what was the experience of JPC when it took up the Bofors deal -- the only occasion when it investigated a defence transaction.

"The B. Shankaranand Committee in 1987-88 went into the Bofors transaction. Since Parliamentarians are always split on party lines, it came out with a finding that no kickbacks were paid and the monies paid to the middlemen were 'winding up' charges.

"At that time only Win Chaddha appeared to be a middlemen. But then others including Ottavio Quattrocchi, whose bank accounts got detected subsequently, were not entitled to any winding up charges," he wrote.&nbsp; 
Rafale, he said, is a combat aircraft with its weaponry required to improve the strike ability of the Indian Air Force.

"As a political opponent Rahul Gandhi's opposition to the deal was a desperate attempt. It was the UPA Government which had shortlisted the Rafale as it was technically the best and the cheapest," he said.

Jaitley also said Prime Minister Narendra Modi, in an inter-governmental agreement, struck a deal with the French government to further improve the terms and conditions, including the prices on which the UPA had agreed.

He claimed Gandhi's opposition was because Modi has run the cleanest ever government in recent Indian history.&nbsp;

"Secondly, Rahul Gandhi has the burden of a stigmatised legacy which was tainted by Bofors. He was desperately trying to bring an 'immoral equivalence' between Rafale and Bofors. But Rafale did not have middlemen, no kickbacks and obviously no Ottavio Quattrocchi," he said.&nbsp;

"Thirdly, with international cooperation and Governmental cooperation, scamsters of the UPA Government are now being extradited into India. There is obviously a scare of who will talk how much," he said. PTI ANZ ABM 12161654

Ruling out referring the Rafale deal to a parliamentary panel, Finance Minister Arun Jaitley Sunday launched a blistering attack on the Congress, calling it "bad losers" and said the CAG's view of the deal is not relevant after the Supreme Court's clean chit.

Ruling out referring the Rafale deal to a parliamentary panel, Finance Minister Arun Jaitley Sunday launched a blistering attack on the Congress, calling it "bad losers" and said the CAG's view of the deal is not relevant after the Supreme Court's clean chit. With the first four days of the winter session of Parliament washed out over various protests, Jaitley said the opposition Congress will prefer disruptions over discussion on Rafale during the remainder of the session. The Congress, which was not a petitioner before the apex court, wants the Rafale deal to be referred to a Joint Parliamentary Committee (JPC) to go into the price arrived at by the BJP government versus the one negotiated by the previous UPA regime, as also how billionaire Anil Ambani's group with virtually no experience in manufacture of fighter jets was selected as an offset partner for the deal. "After the Supreme Court has spoken the last word, it gets legitimacy. A political body can never come to a finding contrary to what the Court has said," Jaitley wrote in a Facebook blog, titled 'Rafale - Lies, Shortlived lies and now further lies?'. On the Congress claiming 'ambiguity' in the Supreme Court judgment that said the deal has been examined by the CAG and is now before Parliament's Public Accounts Committee (PAC), Jaitley said defence transactions go to the CAG for an audit review, which then are referred to the PAC. "This was factually and accurately stated by the Government before the Court. The audit review of Rafale is pending before the CAG. All facts are shared with it. When its report is out, it will go to the PAC. Notwithstanding this factually correct statement made, if an ambiguity has emerged in the Court Order, the correct course is for anyone to apply / mention before the Court and have it corrected," he said. The correct picture has been presented to the court and it must now be left to the wisdom of the court to state at which stage the CAG review is pending. "The CAG review is not relevant to the final findings on procedure, pricing and offset suppliers. But bad losers never accept the truth. Having failed in multiple lies they have now started an innuendo about the Judgement," he said. Jaitley said Congress, having failed in their initial falsehood, is now "manufacturing further lies about the Judgement." "On facts it lied. The judgement of the Supreme Court conclusively establishes the Congress party's vulnerabilities in a discussion on defence transactions. "It will be a great opportunity to remind the nation of the legacy of the Congress Party and its defence acquisitions - a great opportunity indeed for some of us to speak," he wrote. The finance minister, who had alongside the defence minister led a spirited counter-attack against the Congress on Friday post the Supreme Court ruling, said the opponents of the Rafale deal had a choice of forum to present their side, and they chose the Supreme Court. "The Court conducts a judicial review, it is a non-partisan, independent and a fair Constitutional authority. The Court's verdict is final. It can't be reviewed by anyone except by the Court itself," he said. Ruling out setting up a JPC to go into the deal, Jaitley said, "How can a Parliamentary Committee go into the correctness or otherwise to what the Court has said. Is a Committee of Politicians both legally and in terms of human resources capable of reviewing issues already decided by the Supreme Court?" "On areas such as procedure, offset suppliers and pricing, can a Parliamentary Committee take a different view of what the Court has said?," he said, asking if a contract be breached, nation's security be compromised and the pricing data be made available to Parliament or its panel. He asked what was the experience of JPC when it took up the Bofors deal -- the only occasion when it investigated a defence transaction. "The B. Shankaranand Committee in 1987-88 went into the Bofors transaction. Since Parliamentarians are always split on party lines, it came out with a finding that no kickbacks were paid and the monies paid to the middlemen were 'winding up' charges. "At that time only Win Chaddha appeared to be a middlemen. But then others including Ottavio Quattrocchi, whose bank accounts got detected subsequently, were not entitled to any winding up charges," he wrote. Rafale, he said, is a combat aircraft with its weaponry required to improve the strike ability of the Indian Air Force. "As a political opponent Rahul Gandhi's opposition to the deal was a desperate attempt. It was the UPA Government which had shortlisted the Rafale as it was technically the best and the cheapest," he said. Jaitley also said Prime Minister Narendra Modi, in an inter-governmental agreement, struck a deal with the French government to further improve the terms and conditions, including the prices on which the UPA had agreed. He claimed Gandhi's opposition was because Modi has run the cleanest ever government in recent Indian history. "Secondly, Rahul Gandhi has the burden of a stigmatised legacy which was tainted by Bofors. He was desperately trying to bring an 'immoral equivalence' between Rafale and Bofors. But Rafale did not have middlemen, no kickbacks and obviously no Ottavio Quattrocchi," he said. "Thirdly, with international cooperation and Governmental cooperation, scamsters of the UPA Government are now being extradited into India. There is obviously a scare of who will talk how much," he said. PTI ANZ ABM 12161654

Arun Jaitley rules out setting up JPC on Rafale deal

The Supreme Court order on the Rafale jet deal issue Friday rocked the Rajya Sabha which witnessed intense sloganeering by the ruling BJP and opposition Congress members leading to adjournment of House proceedings.

Amid noisy protests, Leader of the House and Finance Minister Arun Jaitley was heard saying that the Opposition has been demanding a debate on the jet deal and so the question hour should be suspended to take up the issue.

Besides the two major parties, members of the AIADMK and the Samajwadi Party too raised slogans in support of their respective demands.

No sooner the House assembled for the Zero hour, members of the Samajwadi Party raised slogans relating to the recent violence in UP's Bulandshahar district while AIADMK members trooped into the well over the Cauvery river water issue.

Buoyed by the clean chit given by the Supreme Court on the Rafale jet deal, members of treasury benches were heard raising slogans demanding an apology from Congress President Rahul Gandhi for his alleged lies on the issue.

Congress members too entered the Well of the House to demand a probe by a Joint Parliamentary Committee (JPC) into the purchase of jets from the French company Dassault.

Amidst uproar, the members were heard raising slogans -"We want JPC" and "Chowikdar Chor Hai".

BJP members were heard shouting slogans like 'Rahul Gandhi Jhootha Hai' (Rahul Gandhi is a liar).

The uproar started as soon as the proceedings began following which Deputy Chairman Harivansh first adjourned the House till 1130 hours.

However, as the protests intensified, he adjourned the Rajya Sabha till Monday after his repeated attempts to bring order in the House failed.

Before adjourning the House for the day, Harivansh tried to run the Zero Hour proceedings smoothly and some of the members even read out mentions amid uproar.

Unlike other days, there was ruckus in the House even when ministers were laying listed paper on the table of the House.&nbsp;

The Supreme Court order on the Rafale jet deal issue Friday rocked the Rajya Sabha which witnessed intense sloganeering by the ruling BJP and opposition Congress members leading to adjournment of House proceedings.

The Supreme Court order on the Rafale jet deal issue Friday rocked the Rajya Sabha which witnessed intense sloganeering by the ruling BJP and opposition Congress members leading to adjournment of House proceedings. Amid noisy protests, Leader of the House and Finance Minister Arun Jaitley was heard saying that the Opposition has been demanding a debate on the jet deal and so the question hour should be suspended to take up the issue. Besides the two major parties, members of the AIADMK and the Samajwadi Party too raised slogans in support of their respective demands. No sooner the House assembled for the Zero hour, members of the Samajwadi Party raised slogans relating to the recent violence in UP's Bulandshahar district while AIADMK members trooped into the well over the Cauvery river water issue. Buoyed by the clean chit given by the Supreme Court on the Rafale jet deal, members of treasury benches were heard raising slogans demanding an apology from Congress President Rahul Gandhi for his alleged lies on the issue. Congress members too entered the Well of the House to demand a probe by a Joint Parliamentary Committee (JPC) into the purchase of jets from the French company Dassault. Amidst uproar, the members were heard raising slogans -"We want JPC" and "Chowikdar Chor Hai". BJP members were heard shouting slogans like 'Rahul Gandhi Jhootha Hai' (Rahul Gandhi is a liar). The uproar started as soon as the proceedings began following which Deputy Chairman Harivansh first adjourned the House till 1130 hours. However, as the protests intensified, he adjourned the Rajya Sabha till Monday after his repeated attempts to bring order in the House failed. Before adjourning the House for the day, Harivansh tried to run the Zero Hour proceedings smoothly and some of the members even read out mentions amid uproar. Unlike other days, there was ruckus in the House even when ministers were laying listed paper on the table of the House.

Rafale deal issue rocks Rajya Sabha; House adjourned till Monday