Explained: How Rule 267 has become a bone of contention in Rajya Sabha

Upset over repeated House disruptions, Rajya Sabha Chairperson Jagdeep Dhankhar on Friday said the Rule 267 under which members seek adjournments to discuss various matters was being "weaponised as a mechanism of disruption” by the Opposition.    

“We are dishonouring the people of this country. We are not coming up to the expectations. Our actions are not people-centric. They are to absolute public distaste, we are getting into irrelevance, people are ridiculing us, we have virtually become a laughing stock,” the Vice-President told the Opposition MPs.  

The issue

The two Houses of Parliament have been facing repeated disruptions over various issues, including the allegations of bribery against industrialist Gautam Adani and violence in Sambhal (Uttar Pradesh) and Manipur. To corner the government in the Rajya Sabha, Opposition MPs are seeking discussion under Rule 267.

What is Rule 267?

This is not the first time Rule 267 has been evoked or has been a point of contention between the Opposition and presiding officers of the House under various governments, albeit more so under the current regime.

The two Houses of the Parliament—the Lok Sabha and the Rajya Sabha—have respective Rules of Procedure with details of how the two Houses should function.

The Rules regulate the conduct of businesses and also allow MPs to raise matters of importance for discussion and debate.

To raise their issue, they must first inform the presiding officer—the Chairman in the case of the Rajya Sabha and the Speaker in the case of the Lok Sabha.

According to the Rules of Procedure and Conduct of Business in the Council of States (Rajya Sabha), under Rule 267, members can give a written notice to suspend all listed businesses to discuss an issue of importance the country is facing. 

Technicalities apart, the rule basically allows for the suspension of the day’s listed agenda/business. 

The point of contention/disagreement

The Opposition’ complaint is that none of its notices under Rule 267 of the Rules of Procedure of the House are being taken up. 

Dhankhar, who has been rejecting such motions, terms them as “known mechanisms of causing disruption.”

Government’s floor managers say there are many other ways to take up critical matters, for example, Rule 176, which also allows for short-duration discussions and does not require suspension of the entire business of the day. 

“The rule is evoked in rare cases. This is nothing but inappropriate use of Parliamentary procedures to disturb proceedings of the House. The aim should be to address important matters and also the business of the House,” they say, accusing the Opposition of wasting time and public money.

According to reports, Rule 267 has been invoked only 11 times since 1990. The last instance was in 2016 when then Chairman Hamid Ansari allowed for a debate on demonetisation.

Dhankar, who has been raising concern over liberal application of the Rule, also reminded members in an earlier session that the rule was last invoked in 2016. He also said the Rule had been allowed only on six occasions in the past 36 years.

On Friday, he said, “These issues have been raised repeatedly during the week with the result that we have already lost three working days. The days that should have been committed by us for public cause. There should have been vindication of our oath that we perform our duties as expected.

“The loss of time, the loss of opportunity, the loss of opportunity by not having question hour has given enormous setback to the people at large.

“I call upon you for deep reflection, Rule 267 is being weaponised as a mechanism of disruption and disruption from our normal working. There are very senior members. This cannot be appreciated”.