BJP, Oppn Accuse Each Other Of ‘Running Away’ From Manipur Debate In Parliament, But What Do The Rules Say

While the Modi government and Opposition leaders accuse each other of evading a debate on the Manipur crisis, know what Rules 267 and 176 say about holding discussions in Rajya Sabha.

The Monsoon Session of Parliament has commenced with a tempestuous beginning, as the Opposition presses for a discussion on the Manipur crisis. A shocking video emerged, revealing women being paraded naked on the streets surrounded by a violent mob, shedding light on the extent of atrocities in the violence-torn state. Congress president Mallikarjun Kharge, the Leader of the Opposition in the Upper House, has called on Prime Minister Narendra Modi to address the issue within the Lok Sabha and the Rajya Sabha.

Kharge criticised PM Modi for making a statement outside of Parliament, asserting that it disregarded the privilege of the Parliament and violated established conventions of giving statements inside the House during a session.

In response, the Modi government and BJP leaders accused the Opposition of evading a debate. Union Minister Anurag Thakur lashed out at the Congress-led opposition for obstructing Parliament's functioning. 

"Opposition is making excuses for not allowing the House to function. Some persons are no longer members of the House and it is their desire that the House should not function," said the Union Information and Broadcasting Minister outside Parliament, as quoted by news agency PTI.

The comment was in reference to Congress leader Rahul Gandhi who was disqualified as a Member of Parliament on March 24 after a Gujarat court convicted him and sentenced him to two-year imprisonment on charges of criminal defamation over a remark on the Modi surname.

Thakur clarified that the government is "sensitive and responsible, but the opposition is running away from responsibility as well as discussion." Home Minister Amit Shah has been designated to address the debate in Parliament, PTI reported him as saying.

Meanwhile, Kharge submitted an adjournment notice under Rule 267 to Rajya Sabha Chairperson Jagdeep Dhankhar, seeking to raise the Manipur issue. Despite his efforts to draw attention to the matter and provide prior notice, Kharge said he was denied the opportunity to discuss it under Rule 267. Some of Kharge's statements concerning the Manipur video and the Prime Minister were later expunged from Rajya Sabha records by the Chairperson.

Rule 267 vs Rule 176: What Are They? 

Rule 267 allows members, with the Rajya Sabha Chairman's consent, to move a suspension of any rule pertaining to business listed before the Council. It has been challenging for the Opposition to secure the acceptance of Rule 267 notices in recent times to hold lengthy debates on issues of national interest.

As per the Rajya Sabha Secretariat, “The Rules of Procedure and Conduct of Business in the Council of States clearly mention the conditions of admissibility in respect of resolutions, motions, etc. It may further be stated that in respect of some of the procedural devices, like matters raised with permission and Calling Attention, absolute power vests with the Chairman to admit the notices and allow raising of the matter. In other devices, such as Short Duration Discussions and Motions on matters of public importance, though the Chairman has the power to admit the notice, he is required to consult the Leader of the House for allotment of date for discussion thereon.”

The Rules of Procedure and Conduct of Business in the Council of States (Rajya Sabha), under Rule 267 states, “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: Provided further that this rule shall not apply where specific provision already exists for suspension of a rule under a particular chapter of the Rules.”

According to a report by the Indian Express, Dhankhar said the government was “keen and agreeable” to the discussion under Rule 176 for “Short Duration Discussion”. However, Kharge then demanded that all other businesses be suspended as the Opposition also gave notices under 267.

The Rajya Sabha Secretariat states that upon Chairman’s approval, “Short Duration Discussion” happens as per rule 178 where the discussion takes place without any formal motion and is not subjected to voting. “The Member, who has given notice, may make a short statement and, thereafter, any Member who has previously intimated to the Chairman may be permitted to take part in the discussion. At the end, the Minister gives a short reply. The Member who initiates the discussion has no right of reply,” it informs.

The total time of two and a half hours is allocated to various political parties, and nominated/independent Members in proportion to their strength/numbers in the Council, the RS Secretariat mentioned, further adding that there have been numerous instances when the discussion has far exceeded the time of two and a half hours allotted for the purpose in view of the importance of the subject.

No Procedure For Adjournment In Rajya Sabha

Rajya Sabha Secretariat notes that the Upper House does not have a procedure for moving an adjournment motion, censure motion, or no-confidence motion against the Government. Apart from a private members’ resolution, moving a motion under rule 167 is the only procedure where the House can record its opinion and Members can move amendments to such a motion which may be put to the vote of the House and even adopted, it states.

Former Lok Sabha secretary general P D T Achari said that the use of Rule 267 is being misunderstood by Opposition MPs as it is only employed in relation to a business that is listed in the agenda.

“Rule 267 is to suspend a particular rule in relation to a business which is listed in the agenda. For instance, if a Bill is to be introduced…it would be listed..but if a rule is coming in the way…267 is aimed at suspending the rule. That is the real purpose of Rule 267,” he said, as per a report by the Indian Express.

This rule is being “used wrongly” as a substitute to the provision of adjournment motion in Lok Sabha, Achari was quoted as saying.

Opposition Members On Invoking Rule 267 For Discussions

However, Opposition leaders cite precedent for invoking Rule 267 to demand suspension of business to hold discussions. TMC MP Derek O’Brien in an article for The Indian Express contended that earlier Rajya Sabha chairmen would accept such notices.

“The book Rajya Sabha at Work states that “The Chairman’s rulings constitute precedents which are of a binding nature”. So, let’s look at the precedents set by the previous Chairmen of Rajya Sabha in relation to Rule 267,” O’Brien wrote.

“Shankar Dayal Sharma, as Chairman of Rajya Sabha, allowed four discussions to take place under this rule between the years 1990-92. Bhairon Singh Shekhawat, during his tenure as Chairman of Rajya Sabha, enforced the rule three times in one year, 2004. From 2013-2016, Hamid Ansari as the chairman, allowed four discussions under Rule 267. These discussions… were held on a variety of subjects: The situation in Jammu & Kashmir, the Gulf War, corruption, attack on the secular fabric of the country, agrarian crisis and farmer suicides, to name a few,” he wrote in his piece.

During the Winter Session in February this year, senior Congress leader P. Chidambaram said every single notice given by the Opposition under Rule 267 of the Rajya Sabha for debate has been rejected, as he emphasised that the only way to discuss a matter of great importance is to give notice under Rule 267.

“It is beyond our comprehension how every notice can be defective,” he said, as quoted by The Hindu. He stressed that the Opposition is not in favour of disrupting the House. “People of India should know, we do not want to disrupt the House. We want an orderly discussion on a matter of grave public importance. And the only way to discuss a matter of great importance is to give notice under Rule 267 and seek permission from the Chairman to start a discussion. Every attempt in this direction has been rejected by the Chair. We are deeply sorry, disappointed,” Chidambaram said, as quoted by The Hindu.

Last Debate Under Rule 267 Happened Over Demonetisation In 2016

NDTV cited parliamentary records as showing that there were 11 instances between 1990 up till 2016 that this rule was invoked for various discussions. The last debate under the rule took place in 2016 when then Chairman Hamid Ansari permitted a debate on the “demonetisation of currency”.

Besides Rule 267, MPs can ask questions related to any issue during the Question Hour wherein the concerned Minister provides oral or written answers. Ministries receive the questions 15 days in advance so that they can prepare ministers to deliver a response. An MP can also raise issues during Zero Hour. This period is usually used to raise matters that are urgent and cannot wait for the notice period required under other procedures. The Speaker decides whether to allow the matter to be raised.

15 MPs are allowed to raise issues of their choice in the Zero Hour. An MP can even raise matters during Special Mention. The chairperson can permit a maximum of seven Special Mentions daily.

Subscribe And Follow ABP Live On Telegram: https://t.me/officialabplive