Tripura’s principal opposition party, CPIM, has decided to boycott the entire Budget session of the Legislative Assembly. Party leaders accused Speaker Biswabandhu Sen of misusing his power and failing to follow Assembly rules and procedures. The decision came after CPIM members walked out of the House in protest, alleging that the Speaker acted in a biased manner by not allowing fair discussions on key issues. The opposition claimed that Sen’s actions undermined democratic principles and silenced dissenting voices.
CPIM legislators expressed frustration over what they described as repeated violations of parliamentary norms. They argued that the Speaker had denied them the opportunity to raise critical concerns affecting the state. The party maintained that the ruling government, with the Speaker’s support, was deliberately preventing debates on crucial matters, including governance failures and economic challenges. The opposition insisted that their concerns were not only ignored but actively suppressed, making meaningful participation in the session impossible.
Senior CPIM leader Jitendra Chaudhury said that the Speaker’s actions reflected an attempt to stifle opposition and push through government decisions without scrutiny. He asserted that the boycott was a necessary step to protest the Speaker’s arbitrary use of power. According to CPIM leaders, the Speaker repeatedly interrupted opposition members, refused to acknowledge their points of order, and ignored established legislative procedures. The party argued that such conduct violated the democratic process and left them with no option but to withdraw from the session entirely.
The ruling BJP dismissed CPIM’s claims, stating that the opposition was engaging in theatrics to divert attention from its own failures. BJP leaders accused CPIM of avoiding constructive discussions and resorting to disruption tactics. They argued that the opposition should have continued participating in the session instead of walking out. Government spokespersons insisted that the Speaker was acting within his authority and that CPIM’s allegations were politically motivated.
CPIM leaders maintained that their boycott was not a hasty decision but a response to systematic suppression. They highlighted previous instances where opposition voices were allegedly muted during debates on policy matters. The party pointed out that crucial discussions on education, unemployment, and public welfare had been sidelined. They argued that if the Speaker continued to function in a partisan manner, the very purpose of the Assembly would be defeated.
Political analysts in Tripura believe that the boycott will further deepen the divide between the ruling and opposition parties. Some experts argue that CPIM should have used the Assembly floor to challenge the government rather than withdrawing completely. Others support CPIM’s decision, stating that a one-sided legislative process serves no democratic purpose. The boycott has sparked discussions about the role of the Speaker in maintaining neutrality and ensuring fair proceedings.
Citizens and civil society groups have expressed mixed reactions to the development. Some residents believe that the opposition’s absence from the Budget session could weaken discussions on important financial policies. Others feel that CPIM’s stance highlights deeper issues within the state’s governance. Many social activists have called for a review of Assembly procedures to ensure that all voices are heard and that legislative debates remain fair and transparent.
CPIM leaders have vowed to take their protest beyond the Assembly, promising to raise public awareness about what they describe as the government’s authoritarian approach. The party plans to hold public meetings and demonstrations across the state, highlighting their grievances against the Speaker’s conduct. Leaders said they would also seek legal options if necessary to challenge the Speaker’s decisions.
Despite the ongoing political battle, government business in the Assembly has continued, with BJP legislators proceeding with discussions on the budget. However, the absence of the opposition has raised concerns about whether the session will adequately address critical issues affecting the state. The ruling party has urged CPIM to return and participate in debates, but the opposition remains firm in its decision to stay out.
The controversy surrounding the Speaker’s role and the opposition’s protest is expected to dominate political discussions in Tripura in the coming weeks. With the Budget session moving forward without CPIM, questions remain about how effectively the Assembly will function in the absence of a strong opposition voice. The developments have put the state’s political landscape under close scrutiny, with both sides preparing for the next phase of their confrontation.
