What happened (Congress claim and the constitutional explanation)
A Congress leader criticised a delay in prorogation of the Lok Sabha and described the delay as “abnormal.” The Congress leader’s reasoning relied on constitutional and parliamentary-practice mechanics for session termination, focusing on Article 85(2) and the timing of prorogation relative to the House’s sitting schedule.
Background and earlier position: how session termination works under Article 85(2)
Under Article 85(2), the President terminates a session of either House of Parliament on the advice of the Prime Minister. The parliamentary-practice position highlighted in the Congress leader’s explanation adds these process points relevant for exams: Cabinet consultation (practice): Cabinet may be consulted before the Prime Minister sends the advice to the President.Timing (practice): prorogation can occur even while the House is sitting, though it usually follows sine die adjournment of a sitting.Adjournment–prorogation closeness (practice): there are instances where adjournment and prorogation occurred on the same day.
What changed now (why the delay was argued as ‘abnormal’)
The reported dispute is about whether a specific prorogation delay departed from ordinary timing patterns used in parliamentary practice. The Congress leader’s “abnormal” label compares the criticised delay with practice features such as (i) the possibility of prorogation during a sitting and (ii) the close sequencing of adjournment and prorogation, including on the same day.