Cockroach Janta Party (CJP) co-convenor Saurav Das raised concerns over parliamentary accountability after three sets of questions regarding student protests and the NEET-UG 2026 examination were disallowed during the recently concluded Lok Sabha session on the Union government’s recommendation.
In a post on X, Das emphasised that Question Hour serves as a fundamental pillar of democratic governance, questioning why Home Minister Amit Shah did not address Parliament directly regarding police actions during the weeks of protest.
“ALARMING. During the recently concluded Lok Sabha session, three sets of questions concerning the Cockroach Janta Party-led youth protests were DISALLOWED on the Union government’s behest. 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),” he said.
“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 added.
The disallowed questions aimed to address critical issues including refunds for NEET-UG 2026 candidates, paper leak concerns, denial of basic amenities like water to protesters in Delhi, and the government’s handling of peaceful youth demonstrations.
Parliamentary authorities rejected the questions citing multiple clauses under Rule 41(2)–a move Das characterised as relying on “bizarre justifications” to shield the executive from public scrutiny.
“Look at what Parliament was being asked to seek answers on: 1. Refund of application fees for NEET-UG 2026 2. Growing public distrust in the government 3. Denial of drinking water and sanitation facilities to CJP protesters in Delhi 4. The government’s engagement with protesting students and youth 5. Student welfare, paper leaks and education reforms 6. The treatment of citizens exercising their fundamental right to peaceful protest Yet, these questions were disallowed citing Rule 41(2), including clauses (i), (iv), (v), (xviii) and (xxii). Very bizarre justifications for perfectly legitimate questions,” said the CJP leader.
Das further argued that when democratic institutions refuse to address public grievances on the floor of the House, citizens are left with no choice but to take their protests to the streets. Blocking MPs from asking questions undermines Parliament’s role as a mediator between the state and the public, reducing it to a passive “rubber stamp” for executive decision-making.
“The right of an MP to question the Executive is not some procedural nuisance but is actually the heart of parliamentary democracy. Question Hour exists precisely because ministers who exercise enormous public power must answer to the elected representatives of the people. Otherwise, of course, people will be forced to come out on the roads. 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!” he added.
The allegations come against the backdrop of months of protests led by the CJP over alleged irregularities in competitive examinations, paper leaks and broader education-related concerns. The organisation had launched a nationwide agitation in June, with protests centred in Delhi and later extending to other parts of the country.
The agitation gained significant attention after the CJP demanded accountability over alleged examination irregularities and called for the resignation of then Union Education Minister Dharmendra Pradhan. The protests continued for several weeks at Delhi’s Jantar Mantar before the organisation announced the withdrawal of its nationwide agitation on July 25 following negotiations and developments involving the government.
The movement subsequently raised concerns over FIRs registered against protesters. The CJP objected to the continuation of investigations into cases against demonstrators and maintained that the government should withdraw the FIRs rather than merely stop pursuing them.
The CJP’s allegations, however, represent Das’s account of the matter, and the reasons for disallowing the specific questions would need to be assessed against the parliamentary record and the relevant provisions of the Rules of Procedure and Conduct of Business in the Lok Sabha.
The controversy comes at a time when the CJP continues to position itself as a youth-focused movement challenging the government’s handling of education, examinations and the treatment of protesters. Das has previously rejected government invitations for talks at a minister’s residence, arguing that discussions should take place at a neutral public venue.
