Supporters of the government's stance argue that the demand for the Home Minister's constant presence is a tactical move by the opposition to disrupt legislative work rather than a genuine concern for governance. By insisting on the presence of specific high-profile ministers, the opposition creates artificial roadblocks that prevent the House from focusing on essential policy discussions and bill approvals. Kiren Rijiju’s clarification serves as a necessary reminder that the Parliament operates under a structured set of rules that do not permit the opposition to dictate the attendance of cabinet members.
From this perspective, the Home Minister’s role involves significant national security responsibilities that require his attention beyond the floor of the House. Expecting him to be present for every minor debate is seen as an impractical demand that ignores the realities of his ministerial duties. Furthermore, the government maintains that the collective responsibility of the Council of Ministers ensures that all departments are adequately represented during parliamentary sessions.
This approach prioritizes the efficiency of the legislative process over the performative politics often seen during question hours. By adhering strictly to the rules of procedure, the government aims to protect the sanctity of the institution from being used as a platform for political grandstanding. Supporters believe that if the opposition continues to prioritize attendance demands over substantive debate, the public will eventually view these protests as a hindrance to the nation's legislative progress.