Odisha Assembly Session 2026 / When The House Does Not Debate, The People Lose

Bhubaneswar, Sep 30: A legislature earns its democratic legitimacy not merely by assembling, but by debating. By that measure, the Odisha Assembly’s Monsoon Session has left behind an uncomfortable question: when elected representatives spend more time protesting than discussing, who speaks for the people?

The session, scheduled from September 22 to October 3, had nine working days. The House functioned for only five, with repeated disruptions preventing Question Hour throughout. For ordinary citizens, this was not merely a procedural loss. Every hour lost inside the legislature is an hour in which a public grievance, a government decision or a policy question may remain unexamined.

The Opposition—particularly the Biju Janata Dal and Congress—had raised serious objections to the amendments to the Mines and Minerals (Development and Regulation) Act. Their concerns relate to Odisha’s mineral resources, revenue interests and the State’s rights. Those concerns deserved to be heard. In a parliamentary democracy, the Opposition is expected to question the government and expose what it believes are flaws in public policy.

But the effectiveness of an Opposition is measured not simply by the intensity of its protest. It is also measured by the quality of the scrutiny it brings to the House.

The MMDR controversy offered an opportunity for precisely that kind of scrutiny. Mines Minister Bibhuti Bhusan Jena challenged the Opposition to debate the issue on the floor of the Assembly. Instead of slogans, the House could have examined the amendment clause by clause, compared the existing and proposed provisions and sought clarity on their financial and administrative implications.

Would Odisha’s mineral revenue be affected? Would the State’s existing interests be diluted or protected? What precisely changes under the amended framework? These are questions for legislators, experts and documents—not merely competing political claims.

The same applies to the controversy over errors in school textbooks.

The discovery of 1,741 errors, as stated by School and Mass Education Minister Nityananda Gond in the Assembly, is a matter serious enough to warrant accountability. The Opposition demanded the minister’s resignation, while the government said corrective action had been taken.

But a resignation demand, by itself, does not answer the larger institutional questions. How did the errors pass through the system? Who approved the books? What was the quality-control mechanism? What corrective process is now in place?

A functioning Assembly could have extracted those answers.

This is why the responsibility for keeping the House functional cannot rest exclusively on either side of the aisle. The government must be prepared to face uncomfortable questions. The Opposition must allow those questions to be answered. The Speaker must protect the rules and functioning of the House. And every MLA must recognise that the Assembly is not a political stage alone; it is a constitutional institution.

Political parties will inevitably compete. Governments will defend their record and Opposition parties will attack it. Protests, demonstrations and public campaigns are legitimate features of democracy.

But the legislature should remain the place where confrontation is converted into deliberation.

The distinction is crucial. A noisy democracy is not necessarily a healthy democracy; a debating democracy is.

The people of Odisha do not send MLAs to the Assembly merely to witness political theatre. They send them to ask questions, demand answers, examine legislation and influence decisions affecting their lives.

The next session need not be free of confrontation. It needs to be full of substantive confrontation—arguments backed by evidence, questions followed by answers and disagreements resolved through debate.

The House can be turbulent. It can be adversarial. It can be fiercely political.

But it must remain open for business.
Also Read: Odisha Assembly Monsoon Session Adjourned Sine Die

For democracy does not end with an election. It is tested every day inside institutions where power is questioned, decisions are scrutinised and dissent is given a voice.

That is the real responsibility of every ‘Honourable Member’—not merely to represent a party in the House, but to ensure that the House continues to represent the people.