New Delhi: Three sets of questions concerning the Cockroach Janta Party-led youth protests were “disallowed” during the recent monsoon session of parliament, citing admissibility conditions, Cockroach Janta Party (CJP) chief spokesperson Saurav Das pointed out on Sunday (August 17), criticising it. 

In a post on X, Das noted that Dravida Munnetra Kazhgham’s (DMK's) Lok Sabha MP Matheswaran V.S. had sought answers in the parliament from the Union home ministry and the education ministry through three sets of questions, bearing notice reference numbers.

The questions raised had sought information on the refund of application fees for NEET-UG 2026, which faced criticism over paper leaks; growing public distrust in the government; denial of drinking water and sanitation facilities to CJP protesters in Delhi; the government's engagement with protesting students and youth; student welfare; paper leaks and education reforms at large; and the treatment of citizens exercising their fundamental right to peaceful protest.

However, Das alleged that "very bizarre justifications" were given for rejecting "perfectly legitimate questions".

“Lok Sabha MP Matheswaran V.S. had sought answers from the Union Home Ministry and the Union Education Ministry through three sets of questions (Notice Reference Nos. 101799 and 101801)...Very bizarre justifications for perfectly legitimate questions,” he said in the post.

Das noted that the questions were disallowed citing Rule 41(2), including clauses (i), (iv), (v), (xviii) and (xxii).

The Hindu reported that Matheswaran has confirmed that the questions had been disallowed, and said he received the information through the Lok Sabha members' portal.

Rule 41(2) of the Lok Sabha Rules of Procedure and Conduct of Business requires questions to meet certain admissibility conditions, while Clause (i) states that a question should be expressed clearly and precisely, and not too general that it is incapable of a specific answer.

Clause (iv) states that questions must not contain arguments, inferences, ironical expressions, imputations, epithets, or defamatory statements; and Clause (v) says it shall not seek an expression of opinion or the solution of an abstract legal question or a hypothetical proposition.

Clause (xviii) of the Rules points to the sub-judice rule, which bars parliamentary questions from seeking information on a matter under adjudication before a court, while Clause (xxii) states that the questions shall not ordinarily ask for information on matters which are under consideration of a parliamentary committee.

In his post, Das asked: “If these questions cannot be asked in Parliament, where exactly is the Government supposed to be held accountable? Through protests? Why did Home Minister Amit Shah not come before Parliament during those crucial weeks and answer questions concerning the police action against protesters?”

He said that the right of an MP to question the executive is not a “procedural nuisance” but “actually the heart of parliamentary democracy”, further noting that Question Hour exists so that ministers who exercise enormous public power answer to the elected representatives of the people. 

“You can’t gag the Parliament and make it a rubber-stamp for your half-baked policies. You cannot ignore the youth. This is not our idea of India,” Das said.

During the youth protest in Delhi’s Jantar Mantar, the CJP had repeatedly demanded accountability for the use of force against protesters and sought an explanation from Amit Shah, whose ministry oversees the Delhi Police. Opposition parties, including the Congress and DMK, have since raised the issue in parliament, demanding Shah’s presence in the House and a statement explaining who authorised the alleged use of pellet guns, and force against the protesters.

For both Prime Minister Narendra Modi and home minister Shah, August 13 was the first and only appearance they made throughout the monsoon session July 20. 

The Wire has reported how the July protests resulted in the first time the Modi government was forced to oust one of its ministers under youth-led public protests, while the opposition managed to keep it on the backfoot with pressure demanding answers for the police action on protesters.

The Wire is now on WhatsApp. Follow our channel for sharp analysis and opinions on the latest developments.