Gandhinagar, March 17 Members of the Congress and AAP on Tuesday attempted to raise issues related to election expenditure during a discussion on the budgetary demands of the General Administration Department (GAD) in the state assembly, but the Speaker disallowed a debate.
Gujarat Chief Minister Bhupendra Patel heads the GAD.
AAP MLA Gopal Italia and Congress MLA Shailesh Parmar raised a point of order, questioning the exclusion of matters related to election expenditure from the House's agenda.
Italia said that on March 9, the House was supposed to discuss the GAD's budgetary demand of nearly Rs 200 crore for election-related expenses for the 2026-27 fiscal, and this was indeed part of that day's agenda.
However, due to the death of BJP MLA Govindbhai Parmar on March 6, the House was adjourned on March 9 without taking up this discussion, Italia said, adding that the pending business for that day was to be carried forward on Tuesday.
"When I saw today's agenda, I noticed that the demand related to election expenditure is missing, while other demands from the GAD are present. I was also informed by the assembly secretariat that my motion to remove that demand was also cancelled. I believe that no official has the right to do so," he said.
Congress MLA Parmar also argued that the House has the right to deliberate on such issues and also objected to the changes made in the business schedule.
He argued that while constitutional authorities like the Governor, Chief Minister, and Cabinet are discussed in the House, discussions on election-related matters should also be allowed by the same logic.
Referring to a recent instance on March 8 when election expenditure was discussed during a debate on supplementary demands of the previous year, Parmar insisted that the Speaker should also allow a similar discussion for the budgetary demands of the GAD for expenses related to election work in the next fiscal.
The Congress legislator further questioned the procedural validity of cancelling cut motions moved by opposition members. "Under what capacity and under which rule were the MLAs' cut motions cancelled?" he asked, demanding that the discussion on the GAD be suspended and the demand for election expenditure be reinstated for debate through a revised bulletin.
Echoing similar concerns, MLA Umesh Makwana, who has been suspended from the AAP, said that since election expenditure involves state government machinery and funds, it should be open to scrutiny within the Assembly.
"When teachers act as booth-level officers and district officials conduct election duties, their salaries are paid by the state. If there are any flaws, they must be discussed in the House," he said.
However, the government strongly opposed this demand, with Forest and Environment Minister Arjun Modhwadia asserting that the Election Commission is a constitutional body beyond the scope of legislative debate in such a context.
"The Election Commission is a constitutional body appointed by the President of India. It is not present in this House to defend itself. Therefore, logically, its functioning cannot be discussed here," he said.
Modhwadia cited an earlier ruling by a former Speaker, stating that matters falling under constitutionally autonomous bodies like the Election Commission should not be raised in the assembly.
Moving a cut motion in this regard would effectively amount to criticising such an institution, which is restricted under the established guidelines, he added.
As the debate continued, Parmar clarified that his primary concern was not about discussing the Election Commission per se, but about the procedure followed in altering the assembly's business agenda.
He argued that once the Business Advisory Committee (BAC) finalises the schedule, it cannot be changed without the due process.
Responding to the arguments, Speaker Chaudhary delivered a detailed ruling, rejecting the opposition's demands and upholding the changes made to the agenda.
He noted that in the absence of a formally recognised Leader of Opposition, the list of demands was approved based on the ruling party's whip and published accordingly.
Chaudhary explained that although these were originally scheduled for March 9, the House was adjourned that day due to a condolence reference, and the pending business was later rescheduled as per the BAC's recommendation.
During the supplementary appropriation discussions, Chaudhary said he noticed members inadvertently criticising the Election Commission's decision-making processes while trying to discuss administrative matters.
He said the High Court and the Election Commission are autonomous bodies and even though their expenses are paid from the state budget, they cannot be discussed or criticised in the House because their representatives are not present to defend themselves.
To avoid an "unconstitutional debate", the Chief Whip requested cancellation of the particular demand, the Speaker told the House.
"Under the inherent powers vested in the Speaker, I approved this request because it would have been difficult for the Speaker to maintain that thin line during discussion. To avoid any controversy which would arise afterwards, I found Chief Whip's request proper," he said.