Rajya Sabha Chairman CP Radhakrishnan has today expressed concern over the increasing use and misuse of Rule 267 in the House. He has also explained its scope and objective in detail. CP Radhakrishnan said that two notices have been received under this rule and after the demands raised in the House, he has reviewed the entire provision.
The Chairman said that under Rule 267, notices are being given almost daily. In these, discussion on various topics is demanded by stopping the listed work. This is contrary to the basic spirit of the rule. This is not the purpose of Rule 267. Therefore it is important to know its correct use.
Rule 267 as Lok Sabha adjournment motion
The Chairman said that it is wrong to compare Rule 267 in the Rajya Sabha with the ‘Adjournment Motion’ of the Lok Sabha. The Chairman clarified that the provision for adjournment motion is only in the Lok Sabha. There is no such constitutional or procedural right in Rajya Sabha. Rule 267 applies only to the proceedings listed on that day.
The Chairman said that Rule 267 can be used only in that case, which is already included in the List of Business of that day. He clarified that the demand to impose Rule 267 on any unlisted subject would be considered illegal. It is mandatory in the notice to mention which rule is to be suspended and to include a proposal in the correct format.
Rules were tightened in 2000, there were many veterans in the committee
The Chairman said that Rule 267 was amended in the year 2000. At that time, the Rules Committee headed by Vice President Krishna Kant included Dr. Manmohan Singh, Pranab Mukherjee, Arun Shourie, M. Venkaiah Naidu and Fali S. Senior members like Nariman were included. The committee had found that Rule 267 was being used to raise non-listed issues, after which it was limited to only listed work.
Only three times in four decades, not even once after 2000
According to the Chairman, between 1988 and 2000, there were only three discussions under Rule 267, and out of those, only twice was the rule used properly.
After the amendment of 2000, not a single discussion has taken place under Rule 267. However, discussions were held unanimously on eight occasions. He said, “In almost four decades, this provision has been used only in very rare circumstances.”
5 conditions fixed for valid notice
The Chairman said that from now on only those notices will be valid which tell which rule is to be suspended. Be related to the proceedings listed on the same day. The grounds should be clearly recorded, where there is already a provision for suspension, Section 267 should not be used, the proposal should be written in the appropriate format.
He said that the notice will be considered only after fulfilling the conditions and getting the prior consent of the Chairman.
Other options exist to raise issues of public importance
In the end, the Chairman said that there are many parliamentary options available to the members to raise issues of urgent public interest and Rule 267 should not be considered the only means for this.