December 15, 2022
Derek O’Brien raised a Point of Order with a view to get a clarification from the Rajya Sabha Chairman regarding submission of topics for discussion under Rule 267
Sir, I have a point of order. Sir, I have a point of order on these Rule 267 notices which seven Members have submitted. The hon. Chairman had requested last time that any Member submitting a notice under Rule 267 should refer to the rule to be suspended. Sir, I have two points to make for your consideration. Number one, I have a list here of the last three Rule 267 notices accepted by the hon. Chairman. The three are, demonetisation on the 16th of November, 2016; –in the last six years, there has been none — the farmers’ suicide in April, 2015, that is the second last one; and the third last one is attack on secular fabric of our country, 18th of December, 2014. The precedence of these last three Rule 267 notices is that none of them needed to link it with a rule, none of them. I have two points only. They were supposed to say why these three are important issues. These three were taken up. My second point is, since the hon. Chairman has been asking, I have also done some study and I want to share it with the House, what the rule is, the common rule for accepting any Rule 267 notice is Rule 29. Sir, kindly look at Rule 29, which is about the List of Business. The Rule clearly states that. What all these Members are asking the Chairman to do is to apply Rule 29, which gives him the prerogative to change this List of Business. In other words, drop the Zero Hour and bring up these subjects. So, what is the issue, Sir? Please clarify and let us know. Thank you.
