The chairman of the upper house, C. P. Radhakrishnan, has clarified that any notice under Rule 267 must strictly pertain to items listed in the day’s agenda, and cannot be used to force debates on unrelated issues. His statement comes amid a surge in attempts by opposition MPs to suspend scheduled business and raise matters of their choosing.
Chairman Radhakrishnan noted that the House has seen such notices being submitted “almost daily,” often with the underlying motive of derailing the official agenda. He rejected two fresh notices on Wednesday, calling them invalid for failing to meet the procedural criteria laid out under Rule 267.
Under Rule 267 of the Rules of Procedure and Conduct of Business in the upper house, a member may seek suspension of a rule only if the motion relates to business already scheduled for that day — and even then, only with the consent of the Chairman. The provision does not grant a free-wheeling mechanism to introduce new subjects at will.
Tracing the origins of the rule’s current interpretation, Radhakrishnan recalled that a committee led by then-Chairman Krishan Kant and comprising senior figures such as Manmohan Singh, Pranab Mukherjee and Fali S. Nariman had recommended restricting its use. The House adopted those recommendations on 15 May 2000 to prevent misuse. Since then, Rule 267 has been invoked only on exceptional occasions, and even then only through consensus.
Radhakrishnan emphasised that a valid Rule 267 motion must specify the particular rule being suspended, include a properly drafted motion, relate to a listed item of business, and not duplicate any other mechanism already available in the rules. Notices falling short on any of these conditions will be disallowed.
On the floor, Leader of the Opposition Mallikarjun Kharge disputed the ruling, arguing that the absence of a defined adjournment motion in the upper house leaves MPs with no effective avenue to raise urgent matters. He urged the Chair to exercise discretion rather than issue what he called a “blanket rejection” of all notices.
In response, Leader of the House J. P. Nadda defended the government’s record, asserting that it has consistently provided space for discussion in the House — including through short-duration debates and other parliamentary devices — and dismissed the charge of stifling dialogue.
The clarification by Chairman Radhakrishnan underscores a stricter interpretation of Rule 267’s intended purpose, marking a decisive stand on procedural discipline within the House.
Calcutta High Court clears way for mosque ceremony, places onus on Bengal government 