[ad_1]
In 1952, the Lok Sabha and Rajya Sabha each were published rules of procedure. These rules set out the details of how the two councils would function. They also identified the various procedural mechanisms through which members of Parliament can participate in the work of the two legislative chambers. These rules have changed over the past seven decades, but the basic principles have not.
To stir things up in the House, the MPs must report to the superiors (Rajya Sabha Speaker W Spokesman for the Lok Sabha) in advance. This requirement ensures that the government can gather information to respond to MPs.
The government also has its own agenda of bills and budgets. Advance information is also required so that MPs can prepare themselves for the debate. The secretariat of each house compiles the notifications from the government and individual MPs into a list of works for a day in Parliament. Deputies can only discuss a matter related to the day’s work.
…and when it isn’t
But scheduled work can be set aside through a procedural mechanism called “Suggestion of adjournment”. This rule in Lok Sabha allows a Member of Parliament to urge the Speaker to adjourn the House’s business “to discuss a specific matter of urgent public importance”.
The Speaker must decide whether to allow the Member of Parliament to move the motion. This results in the House of Representatives dropping the list of scheduled actions to discuss this urgent matter.
Proposing adjournment is a form of censure against the government. Raised in the House of Commons of the United Kingdom, it started its journey in India under the rules of the bicameral pre-independence legislature established by the Government of India Act 1919.
Members of the Central Assembly and the Legislative Assembly can move the adjournment motion in their respective houses.
The chairmen of these councils allowed adjournment requests because the members had no other procedural means to raise urgent matters. As the British administration was not under the control of the legislature, it was one of the few procedures for members to express concerns about a particular serious matter.
“something exceptional”
After the passage of the Indian Constitution, two changes occurred.
First, the Cabinet became collectively responsible to the Lok Sabha. As a result, in 1952, the adjournment movement found a place in the Lok Sabha Rule Book. So I left from Rajya Sabha.
Secondly, was the opinion of the Lok Sabha speakers on the use of adjournment motions by the members.
The first speaker of the Lok Sabha described the motion to postpone as “extremely extraordinary”. He believed that the members should resort to this procedural method when “the occasion is of such a kind that there is something very serious, affecting the whole country, its safety and interests, and everything that happens, and the House of Representatives must pay attention to it immediately.”
He opined that under the new constitution, “circumstances have now completely changed, and therefore, in the new configuration, with its various opportunities and the responsive and responsible character of government, we cannot look upon the motion of adjournment as a normal tool to stir up debate on any important matter.”
general reluctance
Since other procedural means were available in the rulebook for MPs to raise urgent matters, the speakers of the Lok Sabha were reluctant to allow motions of adjournment. Most of the Lok Sabha spent less than 3% of their time on adjournment requests.
The only exception was the 9th Lok Sabha (1989-1991, speaker Rabih Rai) in which he spent about 5% (36 hours) of his time. During his short-lived tenure, the Lok Sabha handled eight deferral requests on topics such as terrorist activities in Punjab, criminalization of politics, and violence stemming from the decision to implement the Mandal Commission report.
Cucumber in the Rajya Sabha
As discussed earlier, the Rajya Sabha rule book does not provide for proposing a deferment. Over the years, Rajya Sabha deputies have used Rule 267 to suspend the question hour in the House of Representatives to raise urgent matters. In 1952, this rule read: “Any member may, with the consent of the President, propose the suspension of any rule in its application to a particular proposal before the House, and if the motion is carried out, the rule in question shall be suspended for the time being.”
Change to Rule 267
However, in the year 2000, the Rules Committee of the Rajya Sabha amended this rule. The committee included Rajya Sabha Chairman Krishna Kant and 15 other Rajya Sabha MPs.
The Committee noted that MPs were using Rule 267 “to seek discussion either on a matter not on the agenda on a given day or on a subject that has not yet been accepted.” The committee recommended an amendment to tighten Rule 267 only to allow the suspension of the Rule for a matter “in connection with the business before the House on that day.”
It also added a provision that if an existing procedure allowed rules to be suspended (such as a question hour suspension), an MP could not use 267. So now 267 could only be used to suspend a rule, only to take up matters already on the to-do list.
(Chakshu Roy is Head of Legislative Research Outreach at PRS)
[ad_2]
