Rajya Sabha Chairperson M Venkaiah Naidu has been getting almost 10-15 notices from MPs under Rule 267 in Rajya Sabha. The Chairperson has been denying all these signed notices from opposition Members of Parliament.
The Rajya Sabha Chairperson has declined almost hundred notices under Rule 267 since 2016, on subjects covering from the Rafale deal to the implementation of GST and more newly on Pegasus, farmers’ protests and fuel price rise.
Congress MP KC Venugopal had presented a notice under rule 267 in Rajya Sabha to dissolve the business and address the rise in the price of fuel and basic commodities.
CPI(M) MPs Dr V Sivadasan and Elamaram Kareem had also provided a stoppage of business notice under rule 267 to address the farmers’ protest in Rajya Sabha.
DMK Rajya Sabha MP Tiruchi Siva had also furnished a discontinuing of business notice under rule 267 over a request to address the Mekedatu Dam issue in the House.
Trinamul member Sukhendu Sekhar Ray and 12 members had given declarations under Rule 267 to consider Pegasus allegations.
What is Rule 267 in Rajya sabha?
Supporting Rajya Sabha’s Rule 267, any member, can with the approval of the Chairperson, introduce that any rule may be delayed in its attention to a movement compared to the business listed before the Council of that day and if the proposal is supported, the rule in question shall be excluded for the time being. This is what rule 267 speaks about.
What this means is that a notice issued under rule 267 attempts to set aside the upper house’s listed business of the day to address the matter raise by one or more members.
The rule will not connect where special provisions already exist for discontinuing a rule under a particular chapter of the Rules.
Who can issue a notice under Rule 267?
Any member of the Rajya Sabha can declare a notice to the Chairperson for a review on any subject under Rule 267.
Is there a similar provision in the Lok Sabha?
The Lok Sabha has the adjournment motion, through which members may require analysis on unknown objects they consider relevant. The last adjournment motion was provided six years ago in August 2015.