Dharmendra PRadhan

New Delhi, July 23: For the second straight day, disruptions occurred in both Houses of Parliament as Opposition parties persisted in calling for discussions regarding the purported NEET paper leak, police actions against demonstrators in Delhi, and the resignation of Union Education Minister Dharmendra Pradhan. In the Rajya Sabha, the Opposition attempted to utilize Rule 267 of the Rules of Procedure and Conduct of Business to halt the scheduled proceedings of the day and focus on these matters.

The repeated references to Rule 267 during the ongoing Monsoon Session have brought renewed attention to one of the Rajya Sabha’s most significant procedural provisions. The rule provides a mechanism for setting aside the House’s scheduled agenda in exceptional circumstances, subject to the approval of the Chairman.

What is Rule 267?

Rule 267 is a special procedural provision available only in the Rajya Sabha. It allows any member, with the consent of the Chairman, to move a motion seeking the suspension of a rule governing the day’s listed business. If the motion is admitted and approved by the House, the scheduled agenda may be set aside temporarily to enable discussion on a matter considered to be of urgent public importance.

The provision is intended for exceptional situations rather than routine parliamentary business. It cannot be invoked where another specific rule already provides a mechanism for suspending proceedings under a particular chapter of the Rules. The Chairman exercises complete discretion in deciding whether a notice submitted under Rule 267 should be admitted.

Why Did the Opposition Seek Rule 267?

The Opposition submitted notices under Rule 267 on July 22, arguing that the alleged NEET paper leak, the reported police action against protesters in Delhi, and the demand for the Education Minister’s resignation required immediate parliamentary discussion before any other business.

Leader of the Opposition in the Rajya Sabha, Mallikarjun Kharge, urged the Chair to allow a debate under Rule 267, stating that the issues were matters of urgent public importance and deserved priority over the scheduled agenda.

The government maintained that it was prepared to discuss the issues but argued that the debate should take place under the normal rules of parliamentary procedure instead of suspending the House’s listed business.

Continued Deadlock in Parliament

The procedural disagreement continued on July 23, with repeated protests by Opposition members disrupting proceedings in the Rajya Sabha. Members insisted that discussions on the NEET paper leak, police action against protesters, and the Education Minister’s resignation be taken up before any legislative business.

As the Rule 267 notices were not admitted, the House witnessed repeated adjournments and was eventually adjourned for the day without transacting substantial business.

Similar scenes unfolded in the Lok Sabha, where Opposition members protested in the Well of the House while demanding immediate discussions on the same issues. The government accused the Opposition of disrupting parliamentary functioning despite its stated willingness to hold discussions through the regular procedural framework.

How Often Has Rule 267 Been Used?

Rule 267 has historically been invoked only in exceptional circumstances. Parliamentary records indicate that the provision was admitted only 11 times between 1990 and 2016, highlighting its limited use.

Among the notable instances was the debate on the Union government’s demonetisation decision in November 2016, when the Rajya Sabha suspended its scheduled business to discuss the issue. Another significant occasion occurred in April 2015, when the House invoked Rule 267 to debate the agrarian crisis and issues affecting farmers.

Although notices under Rule 267 are submitted frequently during contentious parliamentary sessions, they are rarely admitted by the Chair.

Is There a Similar Rule in the Lok Sabha?

The Lok Sabha does not have a direct equivalent to Rule 267. Instead, members may seek discussion on urgent matters through procedural devices such as Adjournment Motions, governed by Rules 56 to 63 of the Rules of Procedure and Conduct of Business in the Lok Sabha.

The recent demand from the opposition regarding the NEET paper leak underscores the significance of Rule 267 in the Rajya Sabha’s procedural context. This rule allows members to call for the suspension of scheduled business to address pressing issues, though its invocation is typically at the Chairman’s discretion. The opposition’s reliance on Rule 267 reflects a strategic approach to elevate urgent matters within parliamentary discussions. Ultimately, while the Lok Sabha employs different mechanisms for addressing urgent issues, Rule 267 distinctly characterizes the Rajya Sabha’s procedural dynamics.