Expert Explains | Adjournment Motion, Rule 267: Ways to seek urgent discussion in Parliament

The government also has its agenda of Bills and budgets. It too is required to give advance information so MPs can prepare themselves for the debate. The secretariat of each House compiles the notices from the government and individual MPs into a list of business for a day in Parliament. And MPs can only discuss a matter that is on the day’s business.

…And when it is not

But scheduled business can be set aside by a procedural mechanism called the “adjournment motion”. This Rule in Lok Sabha allows an MP to urge the Speaker to adjourn the House’s business “to discuss a definite matter of urgent public importance”.

The Speaker has to decide whether to allow the MP to move the motion. It results in the House dropping its scheduled list of business to discuss this urgent matter.

The adjournment motion is a form of censure of the government. It originated in the House of Commons in the United Kingdom, and started its journey in India under the rules of the pre-independent bicameral legislature established under the Government of India Act of 1919.

The central assembly and legislative council members could move the adjournment motion in their Houses.

Presiding officers of these Houses allowed adjournment motions because members did not have other procedural devices for raising urgent matters. And since the British administration was not under the legislature’s control, it was one of the few procedural measures for members to express their concerns over a particular serious matter.

‘A very exceptional thing’

After the passage of the Indian Constitution, two changes came about.

First, the Council of Ministers became collectively responsible to Lok Sabha. As a result, in 1952, the adjournment motion found a place in the Lok Sabha Rule Book. Therefore, it was left out of Rajya Sabha.

Second, was the view of Lok Sabha Speakers on the use of adjournment motions by members.

The first Speaker of Lok Sabha called the adjournment motion a “very exceptional thing”. He believed that members should resort to this procedural device when the “occasion is of such a character that something very grave, something which affects the whole country, its safety, its interests and all that is happening, and the House must pay its attention immediately”.

He thought that under the new Constitution, “The conditions now have entirely changed and, therefore, in the new set-up, with the various opportunities and the responsive and responsible character of the Government, we cannot look upon an adjournment motion as a normal device for raising discussion on any important matter.”

General reluctance

Given the availability of other procedural devices in the Rule Book for MPs to raise urgent matters, Lok Sabha Speakers have been reluctant to allow adjournment motions. Most Lok Sabha have spent less than 3% of their time on adjournment motions.

Adjournment motions in Lok Sabha through the years.

The only exception was the 9th Lok Sabha (1989-91, Speaker Rabi Ray) which spent almost 5% (36 hours) of its time on it. During its short-lived tenure, this Lok Sabha took up eight adjournment motions on subjects like terrorist activities in Punjab, criminalization of politics, and violence triggered by the decision to implement the Mandal Commission report.

Option in Rajya Sabha

As discussed earlier, the Rajya Sabha Rule Book does not provide for an adjournment motion. Over the years, Rajya Sabha MPs have used Rule 267 to suspend Question Hour in the House to raise urgent matters. In 1952, this rule stated, “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.”

Change in Rule 267

But in 2000, the Rules Committee of Rajya Sabha amended this Rule. The committee comprised then Chairman of Rajya Sabha Krishna Kant and 15 other Rajya Sabha MPs like Dr Manmohan Singh, Pranab Mukherjee, Arun Shourie, M Venkaiah Naidu, Swaraj Kaushal, and Fali Nariman.

The committee observed that MPs were using Rule 267 to “seek discussion either on a matter not listed in the agenda for the particular day or on a subject that has not yet been admitted”. The committee recommended an amendment to tighten Rule 267 only to allow the suspension of a Rule for a matter “related to the business listed before the Council of that day”.

It also added a proviso that if an existing procedure allowed suspending Rules (like suspension of Question Hour), an MP could not use 267. So now 267 can be used only to suspend a Rule, only to take up matters that are already on the list of business.

(Chakshu Roy is Head of Outreach at PRS Legislative Research)