On Monday, as the Winter Session progressed, Chowdhury said she spotted a small puppy wandering on a road where a scooter and a car had collided.
Congress MP Renuka Chowdhury has stirred a fresh storm in Parliament after she brought a stray puppy into the precincts, triggering outrage and talk of a privilege motion against her. Rather than apologise, she defiantly told the media she was ready “for any action” and promised to respond strongly if the motion goes ahead. Her blunt stand has turned the spotlight on Parliament’s decorum rules and the emotions tied to pet animals.
On Monday, as the Winter Session progressed, Chowdhury said she spotted a small puppy wandering on a road where a scooter and a car had collided. Fearing for its safety, she said she rescued the puppy, placed it in her car, and later drove to Parliament, eventually sending the dog home. She denied any security breach or violation, saying, “I was on my way. … I thought it would get hit, so I picked it up, put it in the car … came to Parliament, and sent it back.”
Soon, a video surfaced in which she mimicked a dog’s bark (“Wooh, wooh”) while speaking to reporters. That act enraged leaders from the ruling party, who said it showed disrespect for parliamentary norms and threatened to take formal action.
The ruling party reacted sharply. A senior spokesperson labelled the stunt “shameful” and accused the opposition time and again of resorting to theatrics to gain attention. They demanded that Chowdhury be penalised for bringing an animal inside Parliament and for “demeaning the dignity” of the house.
As pressure mounted, talk of a privilege motion — a serious action against a member for misconduct — began floating in parliamentary circles.
Chowdhury, however, rejected any censure. She argued that bringing the stray animal was a humane act, far from a crime. She said the uproar showed misplaced priorities. “We take care of a mute animal, and this has become a big issue,” she said. She added that she’ll respond to any motion against her and insisted that the real “biters” were those sitting in Parliament and running the government.
Her bold response has ignited debate — not just about the incident itself, but about how Parliament should handle ethics, optics, and empathy.
The incident raises a larger debate. Should parliamentarians be allowed to carry pets or rescued animals inside the precincts? Does such a step amount to a breach of security or conduct rules? Or is it a humane gesture deserving sympathy?
Some observers back Chowdhury’s act, calling it a humane, compassionate response. Others say rules must be followed carefully — especially in high-security areas. The controversy highlights a gap between public sentiment and institutional norms.
As for what happens next, much depends on whether the House accepts any privilege motion. If it does, it could trigger formal proceedings. If not, the episode may just pass as another political uproar.
