The story so far: Since the start of the Monsoon Session of Parliament last week, proceedings in the Rajya Sabha have been marred by continuous protests and disruptions over differences between the Opposition and the Government on the nature of discussion on the Manipur situation.
At the centre of the disagreement is Rule 267 of the Rajya Sabha rulebook, which the Opposition insists should be invoked to discuss the issue in the Upper House. The rule has emerged as a stumbling block, with Opposition MPs filing a string of notices under the rule in the past few days, only to be rejected by Chairman Jagdeep Dhankhar, who in his maiden session last year termed such motions a “known mechanism of causing disruption.”
Also Read | Opposition to move no-confidence motion in Lok Sabha
What are the rules for raising a matter in Rajya Sabha?
Both Houses of Parliament function by rules that regulate the procedure and conduct of its business and provide for instruments that can be used by elected representatives to highlight issues of public interest. In Rajya Sabha, these are known as the Rules of Procedure and Conduct of Business in the Council of States, in effect since 1964.
If an MP wants to ask questions, initiate or participate in a debate, or raise an issue of public interest, the Rajya Sabha rulebook requires the legislator to first inform the presiding officer— the Chairman of the Rajya Sabha. This prior information, called notice, must be submitted in writing to the Secretary-General for the consideration of the Chairman. For example, an MP should give a 15-day prior notice to ask starred or unstarred questions and a three-day advance notice for half-an-hour discussions.
The Secretariat compiles notices moved by individual MPs along with the legislative business and other government agenda into a “list of business,” which is then circulated to all Rajya Sabha MPs ahead of the day’s proceedings. An MP can usually take up a matter or initiate a discussion only if the issue finds a mention in the day’s list, as per the rules. However, there are instances when an issue of public importance needs urgent attention. In such instances, the MPs invoke Rule 267 in the Upper House.
What are the provisions of Rule 267?
Rule 267 allows for the suspension of rules in the pre-decided business of the day with the approval of the Chairman to debate an issue of importance. Under the section “suspension of business,” the Rules of Procedure and Conduct of Business define Rule 267 as an instance where “any Member, may, with the consent of the Chairman, move that any rule may be suspended in its application to a motion related to the business listed before the council of that day and if the motion is carried, the rule in question shall be suspended for the time being.”
An MP must give a notice to the Secretary-General of the House before 10 a.m. on the day they seek suspension of business to raise an urgent matter. It is up to the Chairman to admit the motion for suspension of rules. In case the Chair allows, the Motion is put to vote. The rule, however, does not apply in cases where specific provisions already exist for the suspension of a rule.
Rule 267
When the rules of procedure were drafted, Rule 267 read, “Any member, may, with the consent of the Chairman, move that any rule may be suspended in its application to a particular motion before the Council and if the motion is carried, the rule in question shall be suspended for the time being.” It meant that the rule could be invoked to suspend a rule or to raise an issue that might not be mentioned in the list of business. It was in 2000 that Rule 267 was amended based on the recommendations of the Committee on Rules to include that a motion on an important matter could be considered only if it was mentioned in the listed business on a particular day.
Notably, Rule 267 is different from the adjournment motion in the Lok Sabha, which allows for an “adjournment of the business of the House to discuss a definite matter of urgent public importance,” subject to the Speaker’s approval.
What is the precedence on Rule 267?
Rule 267 has been invoked a total of 11 times since 1990 to debate issues like the Gulf War and corruption. While Shankar Dayal Sharma accepted four notices under Rule 267 between 1990 and 1992, Bhairon Singh Shekhawat admitted three such notices.
Interestingly, the last instance when the Chairman allowed a discussion under Rule 267 was more than seven years ago in 2016, when then Vice-President Hamid Ansari admitted a motion for a debate on demonetisation. The Rule was invoked three other times under Mr. Ansari’s chairmanship. His successor, Venkaiah Naidu, did not admit a single motion under the Rule when he served as the ex-officio Chairman of the Rajya Sabha from 2017 to 2022.
How is Rule 267 different from Rule 176?
The ongoing face-off between members of the Opposition and the Treasury benches in the Upper House is majorly due to differences over the duration of discussion on the ethnic violence in Manipur. The Opposition insists that a discussion on the serious situation in the northeastern State must be held after the suspension of all business of the day. Members have submitted over 70 notices under Rule 267 in this regard since July 20, but the Chairman has rejected all so far, despite the Opposition citing precedents.
The Government, meanwhile, maintains that it is ready for a short-duration discussion under Rule 176. As the name suggests, debates under Rule 176 are short discussions that do not last for more than two-and-a-half hours. Similar to Rule 267, the Chairman decides if the notice under Rule 176 is admissible. If it is admitted, the Chairman in consultation with the Leader of the Council (or Leader of the House) fixes the date on which the matter may be taken up for discussion.
There is, however, no requirement for a formal motion or voting. “The member who has given notice may make a short statement and the Minister shall reply shortly. Any member who has previously intimated to the Chairman may be permitted to take part in the discussion,” the rulebook says. As per the rules, the Chairman can also prescribe a time limit for speeches “if he thinks fit.”
