The recently concluded Budget Session of the Jammu and Kashmir Legislative Assembly offered an encouraging picture of democratic functioning and legislative engagement in the Union Territory. More than a routine constitutional exercise, the session reflected the importance of the Assembly as a forum where public concerns, government policies, and administrative accountability come together in a structured and meaningful manner. In a region where governance is closely watched, and public expectations remain high, the conduct of such a session carries significance well beyond formal procedure.
The Assembly held 22 sittings during the session, spread across February, March, and April, and functioned for a total of 6,636 minutes, or about 110.6 hours. This placed Jammu and Kashmir among the highest in the country in terms of budget sittings, second only to Gujarat, which recorded 23. Such figures indicate that the House was given substantial time for discussion, scrutiny, and participation. The duration of a session, of course, is not the only measure of its worth, but it does provide an important foundation for democratic deliberation. The volume of legislative business transacted during the session also reflected considerable activity. A total of 8 government bills were received, and all were introduced and passed. In addition, 25 papers were laid before the House, and one ordinance was presented. This suggests that the assembly was not limited to ceremonial proceedings but was actively engaged in processing legislative and administrative business. Question Hour, which remains one of the most important tools of legislative oversight, was also used extensively. The House received 1,528 questions in all, including 802 starred and 726 unstarred questions. After scrutiny, 1,379 questions were listed, while 144 were disallowed, 2 were withdrawn, and 3 were not listed. Out of the starred questions, 151 were taken up in the House along with 331 supplementaries. These numbers reflect not only the active participation of members but also the seriousness with which legislators sought to raise departmental issues and demand responses from the executive. Calling attention notices and other procedural instruments were also used meaningfully. A total of 110 calling attention notices were received, of which 47 were admitted and 26 were listed and discussed. Similarly, 128 resolutions were received, 101 were admitted, and 14 were listed, though only 4 were taken up and none adopted. The House also received 2,231 cut motions, out of which 2,059 were admitted. These figures show that the assembly remained a space for wide-ranging intervention, scrutiny, and expression of public concerns. Private members’ business also formed an important part of the session. With 36 bills pending from the previous session and 39 new bills received, a total of 72 were listed, 24 were taken up and 2 were introduced. This highlights that members beyond the government benches also had opportunities to participate in legislative initiative and policy discussions, which is an important sign of a functioning parliamentary culture. At the same time, the value of a session lies not only in statistics but also in the spirit in which the House functions. A session becomes meaningful when members across political parties are given the opportunity to express their views, when the chair conducts proceedings with balance and patience, and when ministers remain responsive to the House. In this regard, the budget session appeared to reflect a constructive environment in which participation and order were both maintained. The regular presence of ministers and the chief minister also added to the seriousness of the proceedings. When the executive engages directly with the legislature, answers questions, and participates in debate, it strengthens institutional accountability. This kind of engagement helps reinforce public confidence in democratic processes and reflects respect for the Assembly as a central institution of governance.
Overall, the session presented a positive and reassuring example of legislative functioning in Jammu and Kashmir. The statistical record shows substantial activity, while the broader conduct of the proceedings suggests a healthy democratic spirit. The real importance of such a session, however, will be seen in how far the issues raised, questions asked, and discussions held lead to tangible administrative action. When legislative effort is followed by responsive governance, democratic institutions become more meaningful in the lives of ordinary citizens. In that sense, this budget session can be seen as a constructive step in strengthening parliamentary culture and public accountability in Jammu and Kashmir. Finally, Speaker Abdul Rahim Rather deserves sincere appreciation for conducting the budget session with balance, patience, and dignity.