V-P Jagdeep Dhankhar refuses Rule 267 notice in Rajya Sabha again: The ‘Brahmastra’ now allowed sparingly

Rule 267, included in the Rules of Procedure and Conduct of Business in the Council of States, and invoked by the Opposition to raise “urgent matters” says: “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.”

Over the last couple of years, the rule has emerged as a constant point of friction between the Opposition and the Rajya Sabha presiding officers under the Narendra Modi government.

Dhankhar and Opposition

The opening day of the 2023 Monsoon Session in the Rajya Sabha was disrupted after the government and Opposition differed on the format of the discussion on the Manipur situation. While the government agreed to a short-duration discussion, the Opposition insisted that PM Modi make a suo motu statement followed by a discussion, with suspension of all business under Rule 267.

The matter also saw a war of words between Trinamool Congress MP Derek O’Brien and Dhankhar.

O’Brien raised a point of order to urge that a debate on Manipur be allowed under Rule 267, despite Dhankhar warning him before he took the floor, saying: “If you rise to make a point of order — and I am saying (this) because your past is a proof of it — then raise a point of order, do not make a speech on it.”

As the TMC leader proceeded to demand a discussion on Manipur under Rule 267, the Chair called for his suspension. Then Leader of the House, Union minister Piyush Goyal, moved a motion for O’Brien’s suspension for the rest of the Monsoon Session. However, since the motion was not put to vote, O’Brien got to attend House proceedings.

Earlier, in that year’s Winter Session, Dhankhar rejected eight such notices for discussion under Rule 267, on matters such as the border issue with China and rising prices of essential commodities, within two days.

“You can trust me, if there is an occasion to invoke (Rule) 267 every day, I would not hesitate to invoke it. And if there is no occasion to invoke it even once during my entire tenure, I would not. It (notice) will be examined on its own merits,” he said.

In an article for The Indian Express in December 2022, O’Brien wrote that after 2016, when the House discussed demonetisation, no notice under Rule 267 had been allowed, whereas earlier, the Rajya Sabha Chairmen would accept such notices.

“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.

Criticism against Opposition

There is also criticism that the Opposition has been trying to use Rule 267 as equivalent to the adjournment motion in Lok Sabha. Through an adjournment motion, scheduled business can be set aside by allowing 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.

When Rule 267 was framed, it 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.”

However, in 2000, under the A B Vajpayee-led NDA government, the Rules Committee of the Rajya Sabha had amended this Rule, noting 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 had 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 had 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, and only to take up matters that are already in the list of business.

Speaking to The Indian Express earlier, former Lok Sabha secretary general P D T Achari said: “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.”

This rule is being “used wrongly” as a substitute to the provision of adjournment motion in Lok Sabha,” he said.

In 2021, then Vice-President and Rajya Sabha Chairman M Venkaiah Naidu, speaking at the inauguration of a two-day orientation programme for new members of the Upper House, said that Rule 267, often cited by Opposition members, should be used on rare occasions as a “Brahmastra” for emergent or extraordinary situations.

In the light of disruptions in the House the previous week by the Opposition seeking a debate on issues like farmers’ problems and high fuel prices, Naidu said: “If you start seeking recourse to (Rule) 267, you cannot run the House. It is very rarely used. It is like ‘Brahmastra’, (which is used) when other ‘astras’ (weapons) do not succeed.