tl;dr
The Winter Session of Parliament concluded on December 20, 2023, when both Houses of Parliament adjourned sine die a day before schedule. The session saw the introduction of 5 bills of which 4 were passed by the Lok Sabha and 3 by the Rajya Sabha. Several disruptions and protests have marked this session.
Background
The Winter Session of Parliament commenced on November 25, 2024, and concluded on December 20, 2024, after 20 sittings in the Lok Sabha and 19 in the Rajya Sabha over 26 days. Five Bills were introduced, and four Bills were passed by the Lok Sabha, while three were passed by the Rajya Sabha. Among these, ‘The Bharatiya Vayuyaan Vidheyak, 2024’, replacing the Aircraft Act, 1934, was passed by both Houses.
Two notable Bills were introduced during this session. Firstly, the ‘One Nation, One Election’ initiative was introduced aiming for simultaneous elections to the Lok Sabha and the State Assemblies. Secondly, the Constitution (129th Amendment) Bill, 2024, and the Union Territories Laws (Amendment) Bill, 2024, were referred to a Joint Parliamentary Committee for further deliberation. Other Bills introduced include the Merchant Shipping Bill, 2024, which modernises maritime regulations, and the Coastal Shipping Bill, 2024, aimed at regulating trade vessels operating along the coast.
A special discussion marking the 75th anniversary of the adoption of the Constitution took place in both Houses. The Lok Sabha deliberated for over 15 hours, concluding with an address by the Prime Minister, while the Rajya Sabha debated for nearly 18 hours, with the Home Minister delivering closing remarks. These discussions celebrated the achievements and aspirations of India’s democracy.
On December 17, 2024, the First Batch of Supplementary Demands for Grants for 2024-25 and the related Appropriation Bill were passed in the Lok Sabha after a seven-hour debate. The session also witnessed significant disruptions and clashes between the members. A motion for the removal of the Vice President, who serves as the Rajya Sabha Chairman, was submitted on December 10, marking the first such notice in Indian parliamentary history. However, it was rejected on procedural grounds. Additionally, 55 Members of the Rajya Sabha filed a notice for impeachment proceedings against a judge of the Allahabad High Court for ‘hate speech and incitement to communal disharmony’.
The session’s productivity remained low, with the Lok Sabha operating at 54.5% and the Rajya Sabha at 40% of their scheduled time. Only one Bill has been passed in the first six months of the 18th Lok Sabha, marking it as the lowest output in the last six Lok Sabha terms. This highlights the continuing challenge of legislative backlogs with 33 Bills remaining pending before the Parliament.
Digital rights in the parliament
Throughout every Session of the Parliament, we track significant answers to parliamentary questions placed in both Houses by various members. Starred and unstarred questions submitted by MPs are a great tool for holding the incumbent government accountable. Answered by the Union Ministers, the responses become an invaluable source of authentic and legitimate information.
AI in Parliament
AI Tools Used by Government Officials: Rajya Sabha (“RS”) MPs Javed Ali Khan, Neeraj Shekhar, and Ramjilal Suman raised questions to the Ministry of Electronics and Information Technology (“MeitY”) about the use of foreign AI tools by government officials. They cited tools like WhatsApp, Telegram, Google Docs, and ChatGPT being used for official tasks and sharing sensitive data. MeitY acknowledged the use of such tools and emphasized its commitment to the India AI Mission. However, concerns remain about the security of sensitive data processed by these applications, highlighting the urgent need for robust security frameworks and strict usage guidelines to mitigate risks to national security and privacy. Read our thread summarising the response here.
AI Education and Workforce Development: MP Sribharat M. inquired about integrating AI courses into curricula at educational institutions in Andhra Pradesh. The Ministry of Education responded that institutions like Andhra University College of Engineering and others in Visakhapatnam had already introduced AI and Machine Learning programs in undergraduate and postgraduate courses. In a related discussion, MP Anuraag Sharma asked the Ministry of Labour about preparing India’s workforce for automation. The Ministry highlighted initiatives such as “FutureSkills PRIME,” developed with NASSCOM, and “YUVAi,” a program aimed at training school students in classes 8-12 in AI skills, emphasising inclusivity in emerging technologies. Further, MP Vishal Patil questioned the government’s strategy to address the gap between its projection of 97 million AI jobs by 2025 and the limited training under the FutureSkills Prime programme, which has only 3.3 lakh trained candidates. Read our thread summarising the response here and here.
India AI Mission and Budget: MP Sajda Ahmed sought details on the India AI Mission's budget and goals. The Ministry disclosed a five-year outlay of ₹10,371.92 crore for developing AI platforms and tools. This includes enabling startups and researchers access to public-sector datasets with privacy and security controls. Read our thread summarising the response here.
BharatGen and Linguistic Inclusivity: MP Smita Wagh questioned the inclusivity of BharatGen, a generative AI initiative launched to reflect India’s linguistic diversity. The Ministry of Science and Technology highlighted the “Bharat Data Sagar” initiative, focusing on collecting training data for underrepresented languages. Partnerships with research institutions such as IIT Bombay and IIIT Hyderabad aim to ensure these models consider India’s linguistic and cultural diversity.
Responsible AI Governance: MP Adoor Prakash raised concerns about the data privacy challenges in AI governance and questioned whether the government intends to introduce legislation governing the use of AI. In response, the government expressed that it is open to the idea of building an AI framework based on the consensus of the House. This is in stark opposition to the government’s earlier stance on the self-regulation of AI. Read our thread summarising the response here.
Digiyatra concerns abound
MP Shashi Tharoor raised concerns about the DigiYatra app & use of Facial Recognition Technology, questioning the Ministry of Civil Aviation about safeguards protecting the integrity and privacy of critical personal data collected. Similarly, MP Rajaram Singh questioned protective measures for facial recognition data and potential commercial utilisation. MP Sudama raised issues about airlines mandating DigiYatra despite its voluntary nature. The Ministry’s response was notably inadequate, offering vague assurances about data encryption and regular purging. The Ministry has not clarified how the app meets the privacy standards established in the case of Justice K.S. Puttaswamy (Retd.) and Anr. vs Union of India and Ors. Read our thread summarising the responses here.
Digital Bharat Nidhi and questions of digital inclusion
MP Golla Baburao raised questions about the promotion of digital literacy and the establishment of Common Service Centres (“CSCs”) in SC/ST-dominated areas. MeitY reported that 2.78 lakh CSCs had been set up, with 10% managed by women entrepreneurs, and over 6.39 crore individuals being trained under the Pradhan Mantri Gramin Digital Saksharta Abhiyan (‘‘PMGDISHA”). Further, MP Derek O’Brien questioned the Ministry about the lack of mobile network coverage in villages, including those inhabited by Particularly Vulnerable Tribal Groups (“PVTG”) habitations. MP Kanimozhi Karunanidhi also sought details from the Ministry of Communications about the Universal Service Obligation Fund (renamed Digital Bharat Nidhi) and its utilisation. Read our threads summarising the responses here, here and here.
Wikipedia notice whodunnit
RS MP Derek O’Brien questioned the Ministry of Information and Broadcasting (“MIB”) on whether a notice had been sent to the Wikimedia Foundation in the United States concerning Wikipedia’s status as an intermediary. In response, Union Minister Ashwini Vaishnaw confirmed that a letter was sent seeking information and clarification. However, the Wikimedia Foundation denied receiving any such notice regarding its editorial practices or content accuracy. To clarify this discrepancy, IFF has filed an RTI with MIB requesting a copy of the notice, its legal basis, and the reasons for its issuance, but no response has been received yet. Read our thread summarising the response here.
Draft Broadcasting Bill is withdrawn?
RS MP Mallikarjun Kharge questioned MIB about the consultation process, the nature of consultations, and the timeline for releasing the draft Broadcasting Bill. In response, Union Minister Ashwini Vaishnaw stated that the Broadcasting Bill 2023 was placed in the public domain for consultation from November 10, 2023, to January 15, 2024, with the deadline extended to October 15, 2024, to accommodate stakeholder feedback. However, it is pertinent to note that the 2024 version of the Bill was never officially published. Instead, in July 2024, the MIB shared a covertly revised draft of the Bill with a select group of stakeholders, raising serious concerns about the lack of transparency in the consultation process. This secretive approach appeared to be an attempt to introduce provisions that could directly suppress online speech and expression by extending regulatory control over online content related to “news and current affairs. Read our summaries on the timeline of the Broadcasting Bill here and here along with the thread summarising the response here.
Health data
Parliamentary discussions on health data governance highlighted critical concerns about data privacy and informed consent under the Ayushman Bharat Digital Mission (“ABDM”). MP Khalilur Rahman questioned whether Ayushman Bharat Health Account (“ABHA”) IDs were created automatically for CoWIN registrants, exposing potential gaps in consent practices. The Ministry clarified that ABHA creation is voluntary but acknowledged data migration between platforms with Aadhaar-based consent. In response to the query raised by MP Kani K. Navas, the latest stats reveal a total of 68.97 crore ABHA IDs having been issued as of November 2024. MP Sanjay Seth raised questions about linking CGHS and ABHA IDs, revealing that over 2.46 lakh beneficiaries had linked their IDs, gaining access to integrated health records. Meanwhile, MP Shaktisinh Gohil probed the broader status of ABDM, with the Ministry highlighting the creation of 71.16 crore ABHA IDs and 46 crore linked health records. Such high numbers raise concerns regarding the lack of enforceable data protection laws that raise serious risks, leaving sensitive health data exposed and citizens vulnerable to breaches. Read our threads summarising the responses here, here, here, and here.
Aadhar linkages, coercion and breaches
RS MP Mamta Mohanta questioned whether linking Aadhaar with the POSHAN Tracker App is mandatory for women beneficiaries. The Ministry of Women and Child Development responded by stating that benefits are not denied to those without Aadhaar but contradicted with the statement that individuals desirous of availing benefits under the scheme, who do not possess the Aadhaar number, need to enroll for Aadhaar, raising concerns about the mandatory nature of Aadhaar linkage. MP P. Wilson sought clarification on the alleged leak of the Aadhaar and passport data of 81.5 crore Indians from the Indian Council of Medical Research. The government denied any breach of Aadhaar data from the UIDAI repository, despite a report from cybersecurity firm 'Resecurity' suggesting otherwise, prompting concerns over the security of personal data. (Read here to stay updated on news regarding the latest data breaches). RS MP Neeraj Dangi also inquired about the percentage of ration cards linked to Aadhaar and the number of cards cancelled due to digitisation. The Ministry of Food informed that 99.8% of ration cards under PMGKAY are linked to Aadhaar, and over 5.87 crore ration cards were removed due to de-duplication, identification of duplicates, deaths, and migration between 2013 and 2024. Read our threads summarising the responses here, here and here.
Unsolicited spam calls
MP Kirti Azaad raised concerns in the Lok Sabha about the growing issue of unsolicited telemarketing calls and the alleged sale of sensitive personal data by telecom service providers. He accused distributors of selling users’ personal information, such as names, addresses, and phone numbers, to third-party businesses like life insurance companies and property dealers. Read our thread summarising the discussion here.
On Cyber attacks and data leaks
RS MP Renuka Chowdhury raised concerns regarding the number of cyber-attacks faced by government entities, including defence units, and sought details on the measures taken by the government to mitigate such risks. In response, Minister of State for MeitY, Jitin Prasada, highlighted that the CERT-In has been designated as the national agency for responding to cybersecurity incidents, as mandated by Section 70B of the Information Technology Act, 2000. Read our thread summarising the response here.
On Fact-Checking Units (FCU)
Minister of State for MIB, Dr. L. Murugan, responded to a question raised by MP Dr. Ashok Kumar Mittal about fake news and the possibility of appointing a Lokpal or Ombudsman to address this issue. Dr. Murugan highlighted the creation of the FCU for verification of news and posts on social media under the MIB. This claim goes against the September 2024 Bombay High Court ruling that held the establishment of FCUs under the IT (Amendment) Rules, 2023, as unconstitutional. This raises questions about the government’s disregard for judicial rulings. Read our thread summarising the discussion here.
On Internet Shutdowns
MP Dr. D. Ravi Kumar questioned the steps taken by the government to ensure transparency by maintaining and publishing records of all internet shutdown orders and releasing quarterly compliance reports. The government denied any plans to release quarterly reports or amend Section 20 of the Telecommunications Act, 2023 Act. Read the entire thread here. RS MP Golla Baburao raised concerns about the government’s approach to internet shutdowns, asking whether any studies had been conducted on their impact and effectiveness in ensuring public safety and emergency responses. In response, the Ministry of Communications acknowledged that no study has been conducted on the effectiveness of shutdowns, despite the Supreme Court’s recognition of their constitutional implications on rights like free speech and online professions. The recently notified Telecommunications (Temporary Suspension of Services) Rules, 2024, mandate that shutdown orders include specific reasons, geographical areas, and durations while maintaining provisions for the publication of these orders. However, the rules do not specify the exact method or mechanism of publication. The Review Committee’s power to set aside suspension orders under the draft rules has also been retained in the notified rules. (Read more about the recently notified Suspension Rules, 2024, here). Read the entire thread here.
Threats of Online radicalisation
MP Rajeev Shukla has raised concerns with the Ministry of Home Affairs (“MHA”) regarding measures to curb online radicalisation and the associated challenges. In response, Minister of State for MHA, Nityanand Rai, highlighted India’s cooperation with INTERPOL in tackling online radicalization, including the use of Metaverse tools. However, tangible outcomes for India remain unclear. The MHA acknowledged the challenges posed by encrypted platforms such as Signal, Telegram, and the Dark Web, where radicalization activities thrive due to end-to-end encryption. While the Ministry recognized these challenges, it did not clarify how these platforms would be addressed or whether new surveillance technologies or policies would be implemented. The Ministry also reported that the National Investigating Agency is investigating 67 online radicalisation cases, with 325 arrests, 336 charge sheets, and 63 convictions. Read our thread summarising the response here.
Blockchain regulation
MP Dr. Fauzia Khan inquired about the use cases of the Vishvasya Blockchain Technology Stack and National-Blockchain Framework (NBF) Lite, the level of collaboration between academia, startups, and the government, and the future roadmap for scaling blockchain-based applications. In response, Jitendra Prasad highlighted that Vishvasya is a permissioned blockchain platform designed for government services requiring secure and verifiable records. However, the ministry’s broad statements on its potential in sectors like healthcare, education, and agriculture raise questions about its current real-world applications. Read the thread summarising the response here.
Conclusion
The Session ended with heated protests and discussions. On the digital rights front, while this session saw increased engagement on the issues of digitalisation of health data and AI governance, the government’s responses often revealed gaps between ambitious digital policies and their implementation. The handling of critical matters like the Broadcasting Bill revision and Wikipedia notices suggests a concerning trend toward reduced transparency in digital governance. Perhaps most telling is the government’s acknowledgement that no studies have been conducted on the effectiveness of internet shutdowns, despite their frequent use and significant impact on digital rights.
This post was drafted with the help of our intern Ahsnat Mokarim