New Delhi: The Lok Sabha will begin a detailed discussion on the Union Budget for 2026–27 from February 9, following its presentation by Finance Minister Nirmala Sitharaman on February 1. The debate is scheduled to continue over three days, with February 10 and 11 also earmarked for deliberations.
According to the schedule finalised by the Business Advisory Committee of the Lok Sabha, a total of 18 hours has been allotted for the Budget discussion in the lower House. The allocation reflects the government’s plan to provide extensive time for members to examine fiscal proposals, expenditure priorities and revenue measures for the coming financial year.
Before the Budget debate begins, the Lok Sabha will take up the Motion of Thanks on the President’s address. The discussion on the Motion is slated for February 2, 3 and 4, with 18 hours set aside for members to respond to the address delivered by President Droupadi Murmu at the start of the Budget session. The President had addressed both Houses of Parliament on the opening day of the session.
The schedule was finalised against the backdrop of sharp exchanges between the government and the Opposition during an all-party meeting held on January 27, a day before the session commenced. During the meeting, the Opposition pressed for a discussion on the special intensive revision of electoral rolls and demanded the rollback of the G RAM G law. The government rejected both demands, stating that the law had been passed by Parliament and could not be withdrawn.
On the issue of electoral roll revision, the Centre informed Opposition leaders that electoral reforms had already been discussed during the winter session and that the revision exercise was currently underway in several states.
Tensions over these issues spilled into the House during the President’s address on January 28, when Opposition members raised slogans, including during references to the electoral roll revision and the G RAM G law. The ruling Bharatiya Janata Party criticised the protests, accusing the Opposition of undermining the dignity of the President’s address to Parliament.
