John Brittas Moves Privilege Notice Against BJP’s Sushmita Dev In Rajya Sabha

A political row erupted in the Rajya Sabha on Wednesday after CPI(M) MP John Brittas alleged that BJP MP Sushmita Dev repeatedly referred to him as “lungi-wala” during his address in the House on Monday. The remarks triggered a heated exchange between members and eventually led to the adjournment of the Rajya Sabha. Brittas objected to what he described as a disparaging reference to his attire and said parliamentary disagreements should not involve stereotypes associated with a person’s regional identity or clothing.

Raising the issue in the House, Brittas said he was proud of being an Indian, a South Indian and a Malayali. He said his language, culture, cuisine and traditional attire were an important part of his identity. Referring to the incident during his earlier address, he alleged that a member of the ruling side had repeatedly interrupted him and used the phrase “lungi-wala” while he was performing his role as the mover of a statutory resolution.

Brittas said political disagreements and verbal exchanges were part of parliamentary proceedings but argued that personal references to attire crossed a line. He said members could challenge one another’s arguments but should avoid remarks that could be interpreted as insulting a particular regional culture. Although he did not initially name the member, his comments were understood to be directed at BJP MP Sushmita Dev, leading to further commotion in the House.

Also Read: Rajya Sabha Chairman Expunges Sitharaman’s Remarks On Communists, Brittas From Records

Dev rejected the allegation and said neither she nor any other member had made disparaging remarks about the attire associated with any state. She maintained that no member should interpret her comments as an insult to a state’s culture or traditional clothing. Dev also said she was willing to meet Brittas personally to address the matter, signalling an attempt to resolve the disagreement outside the immediate confrontation in the House.

The dispute has since escalated beyond the verbal exchange, with both sides moving privilege notices. Brittas moved a privilege notice against Dev, objecting to the alleged remarks and raising concerns about the use of stereotypes in parliamentary discourse. Dev, in turn, moved a privilege notice against Brittas. The competing notices have added a procedural dimension to the political dispute and could bring the allegations before the appropriate parliamentary authorities.

Brittas has argued that references to regional attire should not be used as a means of belittling lawmakers during parliamentary debates. His comments highlighted the sensitivity surrounding regional identity in a House that includes members representing different states, languages and cultural traditions. The CPI(M) leader also criticised what he described as the use of stereotypes in parliamentary exchanges, stressing that political disagreements should remain focused on issues and arguments.

The row comes amid continuing political clashes in the Rajya Sabha, where Opposition and ruling-party members have frequently sparred over issues raised during the ongoing session. The incident involving Brittas and Dev has added another contentious episode, with the House being adjourned following the uproar. The competing privilege notices will now determine whether the matter is taken up through Parliament’s established procedures for dealing with alleged breaches of privilege and conduct.

The controversy has also brought attention to the balance between robust political debate and personal or cultural references in Parliament. While Dev has denied making disparaging comments about any state’s attire and offered to speak with Brittas personally, the CPI(M) leader has maintained that the alleged remark was inappropriate. With both MPs having initiated privilege proceedings, the “lungi-wala” dispute is likely to remain a point of contention as Parliament continues its deliberations.

Also Read: Rajya Sabha Passes Bill Recognising Digital Bank Records As Evidence