New Delhi: A detailed discussion on the use and scope of Rule 267 unfolded in the Rajya Sabha after Chairman C.P. Radhakrishnan informed the House that he had received two notices under the rule on separate issues.
He recalled that, following demands from several members, he had assured the House that he would review the practice of submitting Rule 267 notices and deliver a considered ruling.
Explaining his position, the Chairman noted that notices under Rule 267 were being submitted “almost daily” with the intention of suspending listed business and initiating discussions on issues chosen by individual members.
“Regrettably, this is not the purpose of Rule 267,” he said, stressing the need to clarify its mandate. He underlined that Rule 267 in the Rajya Sabha cannot be equated with an adjournment motion in the Lok Sabha, which is permitted under Article 75(3) of the Constitution.
“There is no constitutional or procedural provision authorising Rajya Sabha members to give any adjournment notice in any manner,” he stated.
The Chairman emphasised that Rule 267 allows suspension of a rule only for matters already listed for the day’s business. Any notice concerning an issue outside the listed business, he said, is invalid. He also recalled that the current form of Rule 267 emerged from amendments adopted in 2000 by a committee chaired by then Rajya Sabha Chairman Krishan Kant, with members including Dr Manmohan Singh, Pranab Mukherjee, Arun Jaitley, M. Venkaiah Naidu, and Fali S. Nariman.
The committee had observed misuse of the rule to raise matters not listed or not yet admitted, and therefore recommended restricting its application strictly to subjects related to the day’s business. The House approved these recommendations on May 15, 2000.
Chairman Radhakrishnan pointed out that between 1988 and 2000, Rule 267 was invoked only three times, and only twice in full compliance with the rule. Since the 2000 amendment, no discussion has taken place under Rule 267 without prior consensus, and only eight consensual discussions have occurred in nearly four decades.
“This device has been invoked on the rarest of occasions,” he said.
Leader of the Opposition Mallikarjun Kharge countered that, since the Rajya Sabha lacks an adjournment motion provision, Rule 267 remains the only mechanism for raising urgent matters.
He urged the Chair not to “brush aside everything in one stroke”, adding that the rule had been framed and adopted by the House itself.
Responding, Leader of House J.P. Nadda rejected the suggestion that the government avoid discussions. “Whatever you have asked, we have always given time,” he said, noting that the previous session included full-fledged debates sought by the Opposition. He added that discussions on Vande Mataram and electoral reforms, agreed upon in the all-party meeting, were scheduled for the following week.
(IANS)
