The ruling follows persistent attempts by various Members of Parliament to file notices under Rule 267 to demand discussions on subjects of their choosing, which often led to disruptions.
Photo: ANI
Rajya Sabha Chairman C P Radhakrishnan delivered a significant ruling on Thursday, clarifying and heavily restricting the use of Rule 267 of the House’s Rules of Procedure. The Chairman emphatically stated that the rule is being misused to seek daily discussions on unlisted issues and confirmed its sole purpose is to suspend a rule related to the business already listed for that day.
The ruling follows persistent attempts by various Members of Parliament to file notices under Rule 267 to demand discussions on subjects of their choosing, which often led to disruptions.
Advertisement
Chairman Radhakrishnan lamented the near-daily submission of such notices, stating, “I have observed that notices under Rule 267 are being submitted almost daily to seek suspension of the listed business and to demand discussions on issues as deemed fit by individual Members. Regrettably, this is not the purpose of Rule 267.”
Advertisement
He clarified the crucial distinction between the Rajya Sabha rule and the Lok Sabha’s Adjournment Motion: “Rule 267 in the Rajya Sabha is not equivalent to an Adjournment Motion in the Lok Sabha. The Adjournment Motion is exclusive to the Lok Sabha due to application of Article 75(3) of our Constitution. There is no constitutional or procedural provision authorizing Rajya Sabha Members to give any adjournment notice in any manner.”
The core of the ruling is that, henceforth, Rule 267 notices will only be considered if they strictly meet a five-point criteria, which centers on the day’s official List of Business.
The Chairman cited a key 2000 amendment to Rule 267, adopted following recommendations from a Rules Committee presided over by then Chairman Krishan Kant. This amendment was designed to restrict the rule’s use strictly to subjects related to the List of Business.
“The Committee observed that the Rule was being used to seek discussions on matters not listed or not yet admitted. The Committee therefore recommended restricting Rule 267 strictly to subjects related to the List of Business…”
Eminent members of the 2000 Rules Committee included Dr. Manmohan Singh, Pranab Mukherjee, and Arun Shourie. The Chairman also pointed out that the rule has been invoked only on “rarest of rare occasions” over the past four decades, with no discussions taking place under it since the 2000 amendment.
Chairman Radhakrishnan declared that a notice under Rule 267 is only valid if it enables the suspension of a rule to take up matters already listed for the day, and not to introduce any unrelated subjects.
A valid notice must fulfill all the following conditions:
Specify the rule to be suspended.
Relate to an item in the day’s List of Business.
Provide the grounds for invoking Rule 267.
Not seek suspension of business where a rule already allows suspension.
Contain a motion drawn in proper form.
“Only notices fulfilling all these conditions and receiving prior consent of the Chairman may be taken up in the House,” he concluded, directing members to use other parliamentary devices to raise matters of urgent public importance.
Advertisement
