The bill, introduced by Chief Minister Sukhvinder Singh Sukhu on January 31, seeks to amend the Himachal Pradesh Legislative Assembly (Allowances and Pension of Members) Act, 1971. It bars pension benefits for MLAs disqualified under the Tenth Schedule of the Constitution and was passed by voice vote.

Leader of Opposition Jai Ram Thakur criticised the amendment as politically motivated, stating, “This is being done with an objective of revenge… You should look into this case. This amendment will not stand in a court of law and will be a disgrace to this House. It should be withdrawn.” He challenged both the retrospective and prospective applicability of the bill.

BJP MLA Trilok Jamwal argued the law “should only be prospective,” citing judicial precedents where courts had rejected similar measures involving Krishna Mohini and Mohinder Nath Sofat. BJP member Randheer Sharma echoed concerns, warning that “this amendment has been brought out of political vendetta.”

Parliamentary Affairs Minister Harshwardhan Chauhan defended the bill as a historic measure to prevent defections, stating, “Such an incident has happened for the first time in the state. This has been brought to curb defections.” He also rebuffed opposition references to “Operation Lotus,” saying there was no evidence to support such claims.

Revenue Minister Jagat Singh Negi criticised the opposition for attempting to justify defection, saying, “The opposition is trying to justify defection. They should clearly state whether they are with the bill or against it.”

Chief Minister Sukhu responded strongly, asserting that the people of the state had “witnessed the sale of democracy” and that the bill was intended to uphold “morality, honesty and transparency in public life.” He added that the provision would apply prospectively, emphasising, “In the future, no one will be allowed to indulge in defection.” He cited recent political developments, including protests and court cases involving independent MLAs, as reasons necessitating the legislation.

In a lighter moment during the debate, Sukhu remarked that Jai Ram Thakur “should take medicine for blood pressure” due to his unusually agitated demeanour.

The Speaker noted that the bill reflected judicial observations and parliamentary practices, taking into account Supreme Court directions and Lok Sabha precedents. The government argued the amendment was essential to address gaps in the existing law, which lacked deterrents against defections, and clarified that it would impose no additional financial burden on the state exchequer.