CHAPTER—18

Calling Attention

Absence of adjournment motion in Rajya Sabha

A provision to move an adjournment motion for the purpose of discussing

a definite matter of urgent public importance, which was largely
analogous to the procedure prevailing in the House of Commons, U.K., was
made for the first time in 1920, in the Indian Legislative rules for the
Legislative Assembly to be constituted under the Government of India Act,
1919. The Rules were applicable to both the Houses of the Central Legislature
namely, the Legislative Assembly and the Council of State. Sub-rule (1) of
rule 11 of those rules provided:
Subject to the provisions of sub-rule (2) of rule 22, a motion for an
adjournment of the business of either chamber for the purpose of
discussing a definite matter of urgent public importance may be made
with the consent of the President.

However, in 1952, when House of the People and Council of States

were constituted, the adjournment motion provision was retained in the
House of the People rules only on the ground that the Council of Ministers
was responsible to House of the People alone under article 75(3) of the
Constitution. The omission of the provision of adjournment motion in the
Council of States rules was, however, made good by the inclusion of a
procedure of moving a “motion for papers”, in the Rules of Procedure and
Conduct of Business in the Council of States.1
As early as 1952, the Rules Committee of the Council of States
considered a suggestion that the Council of States Rules should also contain
a provision enabling members to move an adjournment motion. In support
of the suggestion, an opinion was expressed that the Council of States was
not merely a revising body. Except in money matters it had equal powers
with the House of the People. However, a contrary view was that as under
the Constitution, the Council of States had no financial powers and the
Council of Ministers was in express language responsible only to the House
of the People, the function of the Council of States should be merely
supervisory, and that instead of moving an adjournment motion, the Council
should follow the technique perfected by the House of Lords of moving a
motion for papers, on which the Council could discuss any matter of real
public importance and which conferred the right of the reply on the member
moving the motion.2

596
Calling Attention 597

In a note regarding questions and adjournment motions in Second

Chambers prepared by the then Secretary of the Council of States at the
suggestion of the Committee, it was observed:
Such motions (adjournment motions) are by their very nature moved
almost invariably by members belonging to parties in opposition to the
Government. Accordingly, an adjournment motion is ordinarily taken
as a motion for censuring Government. It has, therefore, been
considered inappropriate to include any provision with regard to the
moving of such adjournment motion in the Council of States especially
in view of article 75(3) of our Constitution under which the Council of
Ministers is collectively responsible to the House of the People. The
conditions under which a motion for papers may be permitted have
been made less stringent than the conditions under which an
adjournment motion may be moved in the House of the People.
Accordingly, it has been thought that a motion for papers will be a
better substitute for a motion for adjournment in the Council of States.3

On 16 May 1952, which was the second sitting of the Council of

States, clarifying about the Rules of Procedure, the Chairman observed:
...there are no Adjournment Motions in this Council because generally
Adjournment Motions indicate censure of the Government or
dissatisfaction with the Government. But the same purpose is served
by Motions for Papers. That is also the procedure which prevails in the
House of Lords. So, instead of Adjournment Motions, we have Motions
for Papers.4

Old procedure of Motion for Papers

Before the present rule 180 was incorporated in the Rules of Procedure
and Conduct of Business in the Rajya Sabha, the only device available to
members to draw the attention of the Government to an urgent matter of
public importance was by means of a motion for papers which was then
provided in the old rule 156.5 The procedure for motion for papers was akin
to the procedure prescribed in the House of Lords for motion of papers. In
the House of Lords, it is a common practice to add at the end of a notice
giving a subject for debate the words “and to move for papers”. This is
usually done in order that there may be a motion before the House and
that the mover may have an opportunity of replying to the debate. It is
recognised that such a motion should normally be withdrawn, since it is
treated as a neutral motion and there is neither advantage nor significance
in pressing it.6
The rule (156/175) relating to the “motion for papers” read as follows:
(i) Any Member desirous of raising discussion on a matter of urgent
public importance may give notice of a “motion for papers” and specify
clearly and precisely the matter to be raised.
598 Rajya Sabha at Work

(ii) If the Chairman is satisfied after calling for such information

from the member who has given notice and from the Minister as he
may consider necessary that the matter is urgent and of sufficient
importance to be raised in the Council at an early date he may admit
the motion and fix the date on which such motion may be taken up
and allot such time for its discussion not exceeding three hours as he
may consider appropriate in the circumstances:

Provided that, if an early opportunity is otherwise available for

the discussion of the proposed matter, the Chairman may refuse
to admit the motion.

(iii) If, at the end of such a discussion the motion is not by leave
of the Council withdrawn or the Minister states that there are no
papers to be laid on the Table or if the papers are available they
cannot be laid on the Table on the ground that it will be detrimental
in the public interest to do so, it will be open to any member to move
an amendment, recording the opinion of the Council on the matter, in
such form as may be considered appropriate by the Chairman.

(iv) An amendment, if moved, will be put to the Council without

discussion unless the Chairman in his discretion thinks it to allot further
time for the elucidation of any matters arising out of the amendment.

(v) In other respects rules governing the admission and discussion

of a “motion for papers” shall be the same as for motions on matters
of public interest with such modifications as the Chairman may consider
necessary or convenient.

The practice followed was that since the prime intention of providing
the procedure for “motion for papers” in the rules was only to enable a
member to raise a discussion on an important and urgent issue, the Chairman,
instead of admitting the “motion for papers” as such, would permit a
member just to raise a discussion without any formal motion or admit such
discussion in some other form such as a motion on a matter of public
interest or by way of a ministerial statement, etc. In other words, there
was not a single occasion when a “motion for papers” was formally admitted
and discussed in the House.

Introduction of calling attention procedure

The Committee constituted to recommend Draft Rules of Procedure
under article 118(1) of the Constitution, took note of the feeling among
some members that the procedure relating to “motion for papers” was so
stringent that in practice it was found difficult to get any notice admitted
under this procedure. It, therefore, recommended, inter alia, that a provision
should be made in the Rajya Sabha Rules enabling members to give notices
Calling Attention 599

of calling attention to matters of urgent public importance. The Report

which was presented on 29 November 1963, was adopted by the House on
2 June 1964 and the new procedure of calling attention came into effect
from 1 July 1964.7
The following observations of Shri Bhupesh Gupta, a member of the
Committee made in the note appended to the Report of the above-mentioned
Committee on the introduction of calling attention and short duration
discussion procedures are apt:
Our House does not have provision for adjournment motions although
there are Upper Houses where such adjournment motions are allowed,
e.g., the Upper Houses of Canada, Australia and Eire. Of course, in the
House of Lords in the U.K., no such provision is there, but the Rajya
Sabha is no House of Lords! Therefore, the prevalent notion that the
Upper Houses cannot have any adjournment motion is wrong. It is not
necessary to link up the adjournment motion always with the question
of no-confidence or of the resignation of the Government. Our House
has undoubtedly suffered all these years as a result of absence of
provision for adjournment motion or of some effective substitute
provision for raising discussion on matters of urgent public importance.
Rule 176 would remove to some extent these handicaps, provided
discussions under it are allowed as frequently as possible. It is hoped
that this rule would not turn out to be another dead letter like the
old rule about the “motion for papers”. In this matter, I would like the
Rajya Sabha not to lag in any manner behind the Lok Sabha. On the
contrary, it should be our endeavour to be more alert and assertive in
taking up discussion under this rule and making the rule a really living
one.

It is earnestly hoped that the rules under Chapters XIII and XIV would
go considerably to enhance the role of the House as well as its stature
in the eyes of the people. Practice and conventions will have their
part to play.

Provisions in rule 180

A member may, with the previous permission of the Chairman, call
the attention of a Minister to any matter of urgent public importance and
the Minister may make a brief statement or ask for time to make a statement
at a later hour or date. No member shall give more than two such notices
for any one sitting. There shall be no debate on such statement at the time
it is made. Not more than one such matter shall be raised at the same
sitting. In the event of more than one matter being presented for the same
day, priority shall be given to the matter which is, in the opinion of the
Chairman, more urgent and important. The proposed matter shall be raised
at 2.00 p.m. and at no other time during the sitting of the House.8
600 Rajya Sabha at Work

Procedure for giving notices

A member who desires to call the attention of a Minister to a matter
of urgent public importance has to give notice in writing in the prescribed
form addressed to the Secretary-General. In order to facilitate preliminary
examination of such notices and to avoid delay, a copy of the notice is
required to be endorsed each to the concerned Minister and the Minister
of Parliamentary Affairs.9 The notice and the two copies thereof are required
to be delivered in the Rajya Sabha Notice Office. Copies intended for the
Minister of Parliamentary Affairs and the concerned Minister are collected
by the Ministry of Parliamentary Affairs and transmitted to the concerned
Ministry. This enables the concerned Minister to get an advance intimation
of the notice so that he may, if necessary, apprise the Chairman of the
factual position regarding the matter proposed to be raised in the notice,
which in turn enables the Chairman to decide the admissibility of the
notice. So far as the Minister of Parliamentary Affairs is concerned, the
advance intimation enables his Ministry to coordinate between the concerned
Ministry or Department of the Government and the Rajya Sabha Secretariat
in the matter.
In pursuance of certain decisions taken at the meetings of the
(i) Rules Committee held on 19 June 1978 and 16 May 1979, (ii) General
Purposes Committee held on 21 March 1975 and (iii) leaders of parties and
groups with the Chairman held on 3 August 1970 and 21 August 1970, an
announcement was made by the Chairman in the House on 23 May 1979,
and a Bulletin was issued informing members about the practice and
procedure to be followed regarding calling attention.10 Since then at the
commencement of each session a Bulletin is issued informing members
regarding the procedure to be adopted while giving notice of a calling
attention.
Members can give notices as soon as the summons of the session is
issued.11 The notice is to be given by 10.30 a.m. on the day on which the
matter is proposed to be raised in the House. All calling attention notices
received for a day during a week in which that day falls are kept alive for
the whole week and are placed before the Chairman for his consideration
from day to day.12
The earlier practice was to keep the notices alive till the end of a
session in respect of a particular subject admitted in so far as clubbing
of names was concerned. The Rules Committee considered the matter
and recommended that the calling attention notices should be kept
alive till the end of the week only.13 An announcement was accordingly
made in the House.14
The Committee had also proposed that a sub-rule be added to rule
180, to provide that notices not accepted by the Chairman should
lapse at the end of the sitting.15 The House, however, did not agree
to the recommendation.16
Calling Attention 601

On the last day of the week on which the House sits, the notices
which have not been selected by the Chairman are deemed to have lapsed.
No intimation about this is given to members.17 The Rules Committee
recommended:

At present members whose calling attention notices are not accepted

by the Chairman, are informed accordingly. The Committee feels that
this is unnecessary. It will suffice if the admitted notice is displayed
on the Notice Board for the information of members.18

Not more than two notices of calling attention may be given by a

member for any one sitting.19 This provision was added to rule 180 on the
recommendation of the Rules Committee which observed:

Many a time members give a number of notices on different subjects

for a particular day. The Committee is of the opinion that the number
of notices which a member may give for a particular day, should be
restricted to two only.20

However, notices on the same subject can be given by more than one
member jointly or severally.

Admission of a notice

The power to admit or disallow a notice of a calling attention rests

with the Chairman. The decision concerning the admission of a calling
attention or disallowing it rests with the discretion of the Chairman.21 The
admission of a notice is subject to the rules and the judgement of the
Chairman that the matter sought to be raised calls for an early statement
from the Minister. Urgency and public importance of the subject-matter are
the two basic criteria for admission of notices of calling attention. The
Chairman takes a decision on merit depending on these two criteria and
selects for admission one subject from amongst several ones, notices for
which are given by members for every sitting of the House. The Chair may
not be able to accommodate a subject “merely on the principle that there
must be a calling attention” or “for the sake of filling up the time and have
a calling attention” every day.22

In the process of admitting a notice it may happen that a subject may

not be taken up in the Rajya Sabha even when a similar subject is discussed
in the other House by way of a calling attention.

On 14 August 1968, some members mentioned in the House that a

calling attention regarding police excesses in certain towns of Uttar Pradesh
of which notices had been given had not been admitted and expressed
602 Rajya Sabha at Work

views about the admission of notices. On 19 August 1968, the Chairman,

inter alia, referring to the proceedings of 14 August 1968, gave the following
ruling:
Members have sometimes represented to me that calling attention
notices tabled by them have been disallowed. They should appreciate
that I receive on an average about fifteen to twenty calling attention
notices for every sitting and that under the rules only one of the
notices can be admitted for a day.

When I admit one notice and withhold permission for the others,
members should not feel that I have not appreciated the urgency or
importance of the subject-matter of those notices. I consider all the
notices and select one of them for admission and withhold permission
for others. Members will agree that this power of deciding which of
the many notices shall be admitted must rest with me and my judgement
should be accepted by the House.

Sometimes members have complained to me that a calling attention

notice has been disallowed in the Rajya Sabha, though a notice on the
same subject has been admitted in the other House. All that I may say
on this point is that I take an independent decision on merit, depending
upon the urgency and importance of the subject-matter of the notice
and taking into consideration the relative importance and urgency of
the several notices on various subjects received by me and in that
process it may happen that a notice may not be admitted in our
House, though a notice on a similar subject has been admitted in the
other House. The House will agree with me that such a situation is
sometimes inevitable.23

When on an occasion, the Chairman called Special Mentions, on a

point of order, a member complained that there had been only two calling
attention notices admitted in the session and the House was not discussing
important and urgent issues, the Chairman ruled out the point of order and
observed:
It is in the discretion of the Chair to accept and admit calling attention.
He will have to balance the work of the Government and of the
administration. If he finds that there is time after dealing with the
important issues like the Finance Bill and all that, he would certainly
give time. But the Chair cannot and will not give precedence to calling
attention over the Finance Bill and Government Business.24

It is not necessary that a calling attention notice must be admitted

for every sitting of the House.
On 4 December 1971, due to Pakistani aggression, it was decided while
changing the time of sittings, that there would be no “Question Hour”
or “Calling Attention” from that day till the rest of that Session (78th).25
Calling Attention 603

On 21 July 1975, during the 93rd Session which was called mainly to
approve the Proclamation of Emergency and other related matters,
the Minister of State in the Ministry of Home Affairs, Department of
Personnel and Administrative Reforms and Department of Parliamentary
Affairs moved the following motion which was adopted after discussion:

This House resolves that the current session of the Rajya Sabha
being in the nature of an emergent session to transact certain urgent
and important Government business, only Governemnt business be
transacted during the session and no other business whatsoever
including calling attention and any other business to be initiated by
a private member be brought before or transacted by the House
during the session and all relevant rules on the subject in the Rules
of Procedure and Conduct of Business in the Rajya Sabha do hereby
stand suspended to that extent.26

Again on 3 November 1976, the following motion moved by the Minister,

was, after discussion, adopted:
This House resolves that the current session of the Rajya Sabha being
in the nature of a special session to consider the Constitution
(Forty-fourth Amendment) Bill, 1976, and certain unavoidable and
essential Government business, only Government business be transacted
during the session and no other business whatsoever including Questions,
calling attention and any other business to be initiated by a private
member be brought before or transacted in the House during the
session and all relevant rules on the subject in the Rules of Procedure
and Conduct of Business in the Rajya Sabha do hereby stand suspended
to that effect:

Provided that after the disposal of the said Constitution Amendment

Bill, time permitting, the Chairman may in his discretion allow calling
attention and Short Duration Discussion.27

Earlier the motion given notice of by Government did not contain the
proviso.28 Later, the Minister concerned gave notice of the above quoted
motion in supersession of the earlier one.29

On 26 March 1985, when a member complained that the entire session

(133rd) which commenced on 13 March 1985 “there has not been even
one Calling Attention...Rajya Sabha has become a Special Mention
Sabha,” the Chairman stated, “... in view of the pressure of work,
members of the Business Advisory Committee had agreed not to have
any calling attention during these two weeks.”30

Any member whose notice stands disallowed or lapses at the end of

a week can revive his notice for a subsequent week by giving a fresh notice
and the Chairman reconsiders such a notice along with other notices. Such
a procedure enables the Chairman sometimes to admit a notice which he
could not admit on an earlier day or week because of priority having been
given to some other notice, or for any other reason.31
604 Rajya Sabha at Work

Non-admission of a notice
As stated earlier, the Chairman has full discretion to admit or not to
admit a notice of a calling attention. He is also not bound to give any
reasons for his decision in the matter.
A member complained, on a point of order, that he had given notice
of a calling attention which was rejected, but in the Lok Sabha that
matter was discussed. The Chairman observed, “If you give notice of
a calling attention and if it is rejected, there cannot be a point of
order on that”.32

On 15 and 16 March 1989, at the beginning of Question Hour members

raised a matter about non-admission of their calling attention regarding
revelations in a newspaper about the assassination of Shrimati Indira
Gandhi. The Chairman ruled, “After the fullest consideration of all
aspects of the matter I am entirely convinced that the matter of
calling attention should not be admitted”. When a member wanted to
know the reasons, the Chairman observed, “Under the rules I am not
obliged to say all this... But I am doing so to reassure you that I am
satisfied that this calling attention motion is not admissible on very
valid and noteworthy grounds... In taking this decision, I have kept in
mind all aspects...including particularly the human aspect and
unquestionable norms of fair play and justice”.33

Modification of a notice and its transfer to a Minister

Members may give notices on substantially the same subject but word
them differently and sometimes address them to different Ministers according
to the emphasis of a subject. This may entail consolidation of all notices
relating to the same subject or modification or reframing of the notices to
reflect a common or comprehensive view contained therein or make the
notices otherwise admissible. As far as possible, however, the language of
the calling attention as given by a member in his notice is substantially
retained.
The admitted version of the calling attention regarding the IB Report
on use of foreign funds contained, inter alia, a reference to Communist
countries. A member, on a point of order, objected to the reference
and wanted deletion of the reference. The Chairman overruled the
objection observing, “I have admitted it and therefore you cannot say
anything now.”34

A calling attention was admitted on the “reported unilateral revaluation

of rouble by the State Bank of USSR in relation to its rupee value and
its adverse massive impact on repayment of credits to the Soviet
Union.” A member, on a point of order, asked whether it was proper
that when the negotiations were still on, the calling attention was
proceeded on the basis which in its the language, came to the conclusion
Calling Attention 605

that there was already a negative or adverse impact. He felt that the
language of the calling attention was very unhealthy. The Deputy
Chairman made the following observations:

As far as the language...is concerned, it is given by certain members

and I do not think we can change the language of the motion,
except in cases where the language is either imputing motives or
things like that.35

On another occasion, when a member stated that he had signed a

calling attention notice of a different nature, the Chair observed, “it
(i.e., subject notice) is always reframed.”36

A calling attention notice given by some members for discussing the

alleged misuse of State machinery at the Kisan Rally held in New Delhi
on 16 February 1981, was admitted in the form of ‘reported expenditure
of diesel for organising of Kisan Rally at New Delhi on 16 February
1981’. On a point of order about the scope of the calling attention,
the Deputy Chairman observed, “...the Chairman has admitted this
calling attention...on a subject that was given by the hon’ble
members... The essence of the motion must be expressed here. I think
they must have referred to the use of diesel and other things also. So
he has included a wide range— ‘expenditure of diesel’ in connection
with the Rally. So far as the Rally is concerned, we are not going to
discuss the Kisan Rally. That is not Government’s job. The Government
cannot reply for a party.”37

On an occasion, a calling attention regarding serious threat to India’s

security combined the following five, though related, matters to make
the subject comprehensive (a) U.S. moves to establish naval bases in
Sri Lanka; (b) establishment of Chinese naval bases near Karachi;
(c) arms deal between Pakistan and U.S. arms manufacturing companies;
(d) Saudi Arabia’s financial help to Pakistan to purchase U.S. arms; and
(e) Pakistan’s plans to acquire nuclear weapons. A point of order
objecting to such a procedure was ruled out by the Chair.38

The Chairman may also transfer or allocate a notice to a Minister

other than the one to whom the original notice is addressed by the member.
A calling attention regarding reported recovery of Chinese balloons
with transmitters and propaganda materials found in different parts of
the country and the activities of the foreign-trained guerillas and
other lawless elements in Manipur was admitted and addressed to the
Minister of Home Affairs. After the Minister made a statement in
response to the calling attention, points were raised that the original
notice contained 3-4 specific matters and was addressed to the Minister
of External Affairs. The Deputy Chairman agreeing with the member
who called the attention observed:

What we normally do and what seems to have been done in this case
also is that a number of motions on a subject or on related subjects
606 Rajya Sabha at Work

are clubbed together... Since this motion had ramifications which

concerned the External Affairs Ministry also, we had, on our own,
sent a copy to the External Affairs Ministry, so that the Minister of
State for External Affairs, if he wanted, to be here and intervene
if he so chose.39

A calling attention regarding situation arising out of the postponement

of the bye-election to the Lok Sabha in the Garhwal parliamentary
constituency was originally addressed to the Minister of Home Affairs
but at the admission stage it was transferred to the Minister of Law
& Justice, and members concerned were informed accordingly.
Subsequently, the Chairman after having received a communication
from the Minister of Law & Justice directed that the calling attention
should be reframed in a general form, namely, “inadequacies in the
electoral law in not providing a specific period for completion of a
bye-election to Parliament”. Accordingly, the calling attention in the
revised form appeared in the list of business for 25 November 1981.
When the matter was taken up, members raised a spate of points of
order objecting to the substantial revision of the calling attention and
its transference to the Minister of Law & Justice, instead of the Minister
of Home Affairs to whom they had addressed. After the Minister of
Law & Justice explained the position, the Deputy Chairman clarified
the matter thus, “The Chair has got the right to reframe any calling
attention submitted by the members in any phraseology...This has
been the practice in the House in the past also. When several calling
attention notices are given, then the Chairman decides and certain
basic issues are included. The phraseology is always decided by the
Chairman”. After some further points, when the Deputy Chairman
asked the first member in whose name the calling attention stood to
call the attention he started reading his original notice addressed to
the Home Minister. The Deputy Chairman did not permit, observing,
“Only the notice printed on the order paper will go on record”. After
the Deputy Chairman directed that the Home Minister would also be
present in the House throughout the debate, the calling attention
discussion commenced.40

A calling attention regarding collapse of flyover under construction in

connection with Asiad in New Delhi was admitted to be responded by
the Minister of Railways. A member contended that the three Ministers
were involved, namely, Railways, Works & Housing and Shipping &
Transport. The Chairman pointed out that the calling attention was
addressed to the Minister of Shipping & Transport but because the
bridge was being constructed by Railways, the calling attention was
addressed to it. He further said:

There were so many notices received about the collapse of the

bridge. Some members directed it to Minister of Shipping & Transport
and some to others. The overall construction of bridge is under the
charge of Railway Minister so it will go to him... When there are so
Calling Attention 607

many notices received in different phraseology but the main subject

is one, they are clubbed together. If the members insist that their
phraseology should not be changed, then they will suffer. Only one
name will be identified and the names of the rest will not be
mentioned because their phraseology is different, may be the subject
is the same.

The calling attention was accordingly replied by the Minister of Railways

although the Minister of Shipping & Transport who was present also
clarified some points.41

A calling attention on wages of journalists and assault on them was

addressed to the Minister of Information and Broadcasting and admitted
for 5 December 1983. It was subsequently restricted to recent incidents
of harassment of and assault on journalists only and addressed to the
Minister of Home Affairs.42

Priority of notices
The relative priority of the notices on a subject-matter which has
been admitted by the Chairman, is determined according to the time of
their receipt, in the case of separate notices. In the case of a notice jointly
signed by several members, the sponsoring member gets precedence over
all other members who have signed the notice. Names of all members who
have given the notices jointly or severally on the same subject-matter are
then entered in the list of business under the item of calling attention.
There have been innumerable instances when an item of calling attention
has appeared in the names of a large number of members. Some of the
subjects which have been raised by way of calling attention by several
members (numbers given in the brackets) are:
Reported statement of Prince Aga Khan regarding situation in Bangladesh
(60),43 hunger strike by Shri M.N. Govindan Nair, M.P. for judicial inquiry
in police firing at Agra in May, 1978 (102),44 atrocities on Harijans
(74),45 remunerative prices for wheat, etc. (65),46 unemployment (55),47
inadequate prices for paddy (57),48 plight of farmers (51),49 remunerative
prices for agricultural produce (65),50 remunerative prices for farmers
(55),51 remunerative prices for sugarcane growers (75),52 and (61),53
communal situation (61),54 and scrapping of Cryogenic Rocket Engine
deal by Russia (51).55

Nonetheless, the number of signatories to a calling attention notice

is not the determining or decisive criterion for acceptance of a calling
attention by the Chairman. On a number of occasions, notice of a calling
attention subject given by only one member or two or three members has
been admitted. The Rules Committee considered but did not agree to a
suggestion that names of members under a calling attention item should be
restricted to five, to be determined by ballot.56
608 Rajya Sabha at Work

As recommended by the Business Advisory Committee, names of

members giving notices of a subject subsequent to its admission on the
basis of earlier notices from other member/members are not considered
for inclusion in the list of business, as was the previous practice.57
A member whose calling attention notice has not been selected during
a week may renew the same for a subsequent week or weeks. In such a
case, the date and priority of the notice is the date and time at which the
renewal notice is received in the Secretariat from the member concerned
and no consideration is given to his original or previous notice on the same
subject, which has lapsed at the end of a week or otherwise.
A member raised a point of order regarding admission of a calling
attention on prices of sugarcane on 14 December 1981, that on the
very subject he had given notice two weeks ago which was not admitted
but a late-stage notice given by other member(s) was admitted. Another
member suggested that in such a case consideration should be given
to earlier notices also and names of members giving such earlier notice
should come first. The Deputy Chairman informed him about the
procedure that a notice lapsed after a week and it had to be renewed
for the next week and if it was not renewed then the name of the
member was not added.58

Lapse of a notice
As stated earlier, notices of calling attention not admitted till the
last day of a week on which the House sits, lapse. A notice of calling
attention given by a member also lapses if he ceases to be a member of
the House by the expiration of his term in the Rajya Sabha even though he
has been re-elected and had given notice of the calling attention during his
previous membership.
A member complained that his name was excluded from a calling
attention admitted for 3 April 1970. He stated that the ground for
such omission, namely, that he retired on 2 April 1970 was not valid
inasmuch as when the calling attention was admitted in his as well as
other members’ names he was a member of the House. He ceased to
be a member at 12 O’clock midnight. The Chairman did not accept his
contention and ruled that the notice which the member had given
lapsed with the termination of his membership. At the time when the
agenda started there was no notice from him.59

Intimation about an admitted notice

After the Chairman has selected a subject for a calling attention,
members who have given the notices, the concerned Minister/Ministry and
the Ministry of Parliamentary Affairs are informed immediately on telephone
as well as through a letter about admission of calling attention notice and
Calling Attention 609

the schedule date on which it would be taken up in the House. If the

subject-matter of the calling attention or any of its aspects falls within the
jurisdiction of more than one Minister, a copy of the admitted calling
attention is sent to each of them so that all the concerned Ministers may
be present during the discussion and deal with the aspects concerning
them. The admitted calling attention is also published in Parliamentary
Bulletin Part-II for information. An item in that regard thereafter appears
in the list of business for the day for which the notice is admitted.

More than one Calling Attention on a day

(i) Two calling attention matters

Not more than one calling attention matter can be raised at the same
sitting.60 In the event of more than one matter being presented for the
same day, priority is given to the matter which is, in the opinion of the
Chairman, more urgent and important.61 There have been a number of
instances when more than one calling attention matters have been admitted
and raised on the same day and in such cases more urgent and important
matter was taken up first and the second one later during the day of the
sitting of the House.

In early days, the practice followed in the event of two calling

attention matters being admitted for a day was to take them either one
after the other as listed62 or take the first after questions and the second
after the laying of papers on the Table and disposal of some business like
Minister’s statement or a Government Bill.63 In later days, the practice was
to take up the first calling attention after the questions and laying of
papers on the Table and the second one towards the end of the day’s
sitting.64

On some occasions, two calling attention matters relating substantially

to the same subjects were raised by two members separately on the
same day one after the other. For instance, two calling attention
matters regarding (i) inadequate food supplies to West Bengal and
(ii) loss of foodgrains in transit from Bombay to Calcutta were raised
and the concerned Minister gave a combined statement in two parts.65

On another occasion, two calling attention matters which were raised

one after the other by two members related to (i) refusal of
manufacturers to buy wool imported from Australia by the State Trading
Corporation and (ii) increase in prices of wool. In the former case a
statement was laid on the Table and in the latter case the statement
was made by the concerned Minister in response to the calling
attention.66
610 Rajya Sabha at Work

(ii) Three calling attention matters

On two occasions, three calling attention matters were also admitted
for a sitting.
On 17 May 1966, three calling attention matters were raised and they
related to (a) breakdown of power supply in Delhi, (b) attempt on the
life of Shri G.M. Sadiq, Chief Minister of Jammu and Kashmir at
Baramulla on 16 May 1966 and (c) attempt on the life of Shri Mehr
Chand Khanna, Minister of Works, Housing and Urban Development.

On 2 September 1966, the three calling attention matters which were

raised related to (a) massing of troops by Pakistan on our borders,
(b) indiscriminate use of Defence of India Rules in Assam and
(c) reported statement of the Chief Minister of Assam regarding
anti-national and subversive activities in his State. The first two matters
were taken up one after the other. In respect of the third one, the
Minister concerned asked for time of a few days to make the statement.
It was accordingly, made on 5 September 1966.67

Time for taking up Calling Attention

Till 30 June 1972, the procedure was to take up calling attention
immediately after Question Hour and before any other item listed for the
day in the list of business was taken up. The Rules Committee considered
a suggestion that the formal business of laying papers on the Table of the
House should be taken up immediately after the questions, and that only
after the papers were so laid, should the calling attention be taken up. The
suggestion was made on the ground that it would enable Ministers to attend
to their official duties after laying the papers instead of waiting in the
House for an uncertain time till the calling attention was over. The
Committee agreed with the suggestion and recommended an amendment in
rule 180(5) accordingly.68 The amendment was adopted by the House on
1 June 1972.69 The amendment became effective from 1 July 1972.70 The
Rules Committee also considered but did not agree to a suggestion that a
calling attention should be taken up at 5.00 p.m.71 As per the amended
rule, the proposed matter was raised after the questions and the laying of
papers, if any, on the Table and before any other item entered in the list
of business was taken up and at no other time during the sitting of the
House. Accordingly, the item of calling attention was shown in the list of
business immediately after the questions and the papers to be laid on the
Table.
On 3 September 1991, in the course of the discussion on the working
of the Ministry of Information and Broadcasting, the Vice-Chairman
announced that the debate would be concluded that day except the
reply of the Minister which would be made the next day. A member
Calling Attention 611

pointed out that there would be a calling attention on the atrocities

against Harijans and other weaker sections which would take the
whole of the next day. If at all the Minister had to reply, let him do
so first, immediately after Question Hour, before the calling attention
was taken up; otherwise he would not be able to reply on that day.
The Vice-Chairman stated that the debate would go on till 7.00 p.m.
and the Minister would reply the next day.72 Accordingly, the list of
business for 4 September 1991, listed further discussion on the working
of the Ministry of Information and Broadcasting over the item about
the calling attention. A point of order was raised with reference to
rule 180(5). After some discussion, the Deputy Chairman called the
Minister to reply and the calling attention was taken up afterwards.73

The Business Advisory Committee at its meeting held on 11 May 1992,

recommended that the amendment made by the Lok Sabha in the
Constitution (Seventy-second Amendment) Bill, 1992, be taken up for
consideration on 12 May 1992, before the calling attention.74

On 27 July 1993, when the Deputy Chairman called the concerned

Minister to lay on the Table a copy of the statement necessitating
promulgation of an Ordinance followed by the introduction of a related
Bill, a point of order was raised with reference to rule 180(5). The
point of order was upheld and the calling attention was taken up.75

When some members suggested that the short duration discussion on

the affairs of BCCI, which had remained inconclusive on Saturday,
14 September 1991, should be taken up first and the listed calling
attention regarding price situation afterwards, a member expressed
serious objection to this under rule 180. The Vice-Chairman ruled that
the short duration discussion would be taken up after the calling
attention.76

As mentioned earlier, till 26 November 2014, the procedure was to

take up the calling attention after the questions and the laying of papers
on the Table and before any other item in the list of the business and at
no other time during the sitting of the House. Following the adoption of the
13th Report of the Committee on Rules by the House on 26 November 2014,
the calling attention is now taken up at 2.00 p.m. The amendment came
into effect from 27 November 2014.77

Postponement of Calling Attention

As earlier stated, the calling attention is taken up on the day it is
listed. However, it may be necessary that the calling attention may be
postponed to some other time on the same day or subsequent day either
on the request of the concerned Minister78 or for other pressing business of
the House.79 If an item has already appeared in the list of business and is
postponed under the direction of the Chairman, then the same is deleted
in the revised list of business, if issued, and the House is apprised accordingly.
612 Rajya Sabha at Work

However, there are many instances when a calling attention matter

had been taken up at some other time of the sitting of the House after
taking the sense of the House on a Minister’s request or due to exigency
of the more important business in the House, viz., after the disposal of a
Government Bill or a motion under consideration,80 after the lunch recess81
or after the disposal of private members’ business,82 or towards the end of
a sitting.83

On a request from the concerned Ministers that they were busy in the
other House, the Chair announced that the calling attention would be
taken up later in the day.84

On an occasion when the member concerned called the attention of

the Minister of Iron and Steel to the demand for the location of a steel
plant at Visakhapatnam, the Deputy Minister stated that it was an
important statement to be made and that it would be better made by
the Minister himself who was shortly arriving by plane. He, therefore,
requested the Chairman to allot some time in the afternoon that day.
The Chairman fixed 4.30 p.m. as the Minister “could not get a seat in
the earlier plane”.85

The Deputy Chairman announced on 31 August 1981, that the calling

attention regarding the alleged collection of funds by the Chief Minister
of Maharashtra for a trust would be taken up on the next day. On
1 September 1981, however, instead of that calling attention, another
one regarding the power crisis in the country was listed. When the
matter was raised, the Leader of the House explained that because
certain facts had to be ascertained from the State Government, one
day’s extension of time was sought which the Chairman had granted.86

The Chairman informed the House that the calling attention regarding
agitation of farmers for remunerative price for cotton was being
postponed in view of Government motion on the IMF loan that day.87

The Deputy Chairman announced that the Home Minister would very
much like to reply to the calling attention regarding elections to the
Delhi Metropolitan Council and the bye-election in the Garhwal
parliamentary constituency, although the Law Minister to whom it was
addressed was present. Since the Home Minister was busy in the other
House the Deputy Chairman postponed the calling attention to
3.00 p.m. that day.88

The Deputy Chairman informed that the calling attention regarding

inadequate supply of foodgrains to the States by the Centre had been
postponed to some other day. Points were raised by members objecting
to the eleventh hour postponement. The Leader of the House explained
the position of non-availability of the concerned Minister who was out
of station.89
Calling Attention 613

The Deputy Chairman informed that the calling attention regarding

occurrence of epidemic dropsy in certain parts of Delhi would be
taken up at 4.00 p.m. No reasons were given.90

A calling attention was listed originally for 4 March 1986, in the list
of business issued on 28 February 1986. It was deleted from the revised
list of business. The Chairman explained that it was postponed so that
members could have more time to participate in the discussion on the
Motion of Thanks.91

A calling attention was taken up at 5.00 p.m. as ‘some members were

anxious to go to receive a distinguished visitor and would not be able
to participate in the discussion of the calling attention’.92

Mode of Calling the Attention

On being called by the Chair, the member whose name appears first
in the list of business under the item Calling Attention to a Matter of
Urgent Public Importance, rises in his seat and calls the attention of the
Minister mentioned in the item by reading out the text as given in the list
of business. Only the text printed on the order paper goes on record and
nothing extraneous that a member may introduce while reading the notice
is permitted.
A calling attention was admitted on the reported refusal by Government
to refer the following demands of the Central Government employees
to arbitration, namely, (a) merger of DA with pay; (b) grant of need-
based minimum wage to Central Government employees; and (c) the
reported decision of the Confederation of the Central Government
Employees to embark on a strike. The member, in whose name the
calling attention stood, asked for permission not to read the third part
of the item because it was not submitted by him in his notice. The
member’s objection was that the particular organisation was only a
paper organisation and had no representation on the Joint Consultative
Committee. The member also stated that he had read upto (b) and the
Chairman could allow anybody else to read out the rest. When the
Chairman called the second member in the list to read out, another
member contended that it was a new precedent, the first portion to
be read out by one and the rest by some one else. The Chairman
suggested that the member in whose name the calling attention stood
should read out the next portion also as he did not want two or three
members to read it. Thereafter, the member read part (c) also.93

A member while calling the attention stated: “May I call the attention
of the Minister of Home Affairs to the question which I have raised
about the agitation in support of the ‘Sati’ system in Rajasthan and
Delhi”. A member rising on a point of order stated that “the calling
attention was not properly presented to the House. Calling Attentions
have to be introduced in the same words in which they appear in the
614 Rajya Sabha at Work

Order Paper”. The Deputy Chairman asked the member concerned to

read the item again.94

A member while calling the attention of the Minister started reading

from his original notice instead of the text as given in the list of
business. The Chair did not permit him to do so.95

When a calling attention regarding the difficulties of the people due

to inadequate supply of essential commodities was called, members
raised extraneous issues. The Deputy Chairman did not permit.96

If the member, on being called, is absent or does not wish to call the
attention, the member listed next below, if any, is called. At this stage he
does not ask for any clarification.

Circulation of copies of the Statement in the Chamber

As per the established practice, copies of the statement of the Minister

which he proposes to make in response to the calling attention are made
available to the members just before the Minister starts reading it. Both
the versions—English and Hindi—are required to be made available.97

During early days, it was not the practice to circulate copies of the
proposed statement of the Minister beforehand. On an occasion, after
the Minister made a statement in response to a calling attention, a
member suggested that when an important issue was raised and the
Minister made a long statement, “care should have been taken to
circulate it beforehand so that members could follow the points;
otherwise there was no use of discussing because it was a long
statement”. When the Chairman explained the practice, another
member suggested that as the Minister started speaking, it could be
circulated at least to those who had tabled the calling attention.98
When such a suggestion was repeated in 1982, the Deputy Chairman
observed that there was no such practice, however, it could be
considered for the future.99

Statement by the Minister in response to Calling Attention

(a) Statement to be made

After a member has called the attention of the Minister, the Minister
concerned may make a brief statement or ask for time to make a statement
at a later hour or date. Ordinarily, as per the practice, the Minister reads
a prepared statement in response to the calling attention.

On an occasion, when the Minister, instead of reading the prepared

statement, wanted to respond extempore, the Chair ruled that it was
not the procedure and the Minister had to read the statement.100
Calling Attention 615

The statement may be read by a Minister of State even though the

Cabinet Minister in-charge of the Ministry concerned with the subject-matter
of the calling attention is present in the House.
A point of order was raised that the initial statement in response to
a calling attention regarding communal riots in the country should be
made by the Prime Minister, who was also the Home Minister and was
present, instead of the Minister of State. The Chairman ruled, “According
to rules, joint and several responsibility is there. The Minister, who is
here, can do the same. If he finds some difficulty, automatically the
Prime Minister will reply at the appropriate time...There is no point
of order because either of them, the Minister of State or the Cabinet
Minister, can reply”.101

Even if the subject of a calling attention may apparently fall within

the purview of a Minister other than the one mentioned in the list of
business, it is for the Government to decide who will deal with a particular
calling attention.

When a calling attention regarding nuclear threat faced by India in the

context of Pakistan’s move to acquire and develop nuclear weapons
was about to be responded by the Minister of State in the Ministry of
External Affairs, a member suggested that it should have been dealt
with by the Defence Minister. The Chairman observed, “It is for the
Government to decide who will deal with it”.102

If the subject-matter of a calling attention or any of its aspects falls

within the jurisdiction of more than one Minister, a copy of the admitted
calling attention is sent to each of them so that all the concerned Ministers
may be present during the discussion and deal with the subject in so far
as any of its aspects concerns them.

A calling attention regarding the strike of LIC employees was replied

by the Minister of Finance. However, when some members contended
that the Minister had not dealt with the demands of employees and
when the Minister of Finance stated that he had received the notice
only the last night and the Minister of Labour and Rehabilitation who
was also present stated that he had not received the notice at all, the
calling attention was postponed to give proper notice to both the
Ministers. Accordingly, on the postponed day both the Ministers clarified
the points falling in their respective jurisdictions.103

A calling attention notice regarding the reported recovery of Chinese

balloons with propaganda materials in many parts of the country was
addressed to the Minister of Home Affairs and a copy thereof was also
endorsed to the Minister of External Affairs “so that the Minister of
State for External Affairs, if he wanted to be here and intervene if he
so chose”.104
616 Rajya Sabha at Work

A calling attention notice which was initially intended to deal with the
postponement of the Garhwal bye-election and addressed to the Minister
of Home Affairs, was rephrased in a generally-worded subject and
addressed to the Minister of Law. Upon some members objecting to
this, the Deputy Chairman directed that the Home Minister should also
be present in the House throughout the debate. The discussion on the
calling attention commenced thereafter.105

(b) Statement may be laid

While responding to a calling attention generally the Minister concerned

has to make a statement, on occasions he may be permitted to lay a copy
of the statement on the Table in response thereto, and members may seek
clarifications thereon later. In some cases, the Minister may make a brief
statement or clarify the salient points contained in the statement and lay
the detailed statement on the Table, with the permission of the Chair.

A calling attention regarding strike in Government of India Press came

up at the fag-end of the sitting. The Minister laid on the Table the
statement in response thereto and members sought clarifications thereon
the next day.106

A member called the attention of the Minister of Law to the Supreme

Court judgement regarding the validity of the Punjab Appropriation
Acts. When the Minister was about to read the statement, the Deputy
Chairman pointed out that the statement was about eight pages and
sought the views of members whether it should be read or laid on the
Table. The House agreed that the matter was technical and legal and
the statement could be laid and clarifications thereon could be sought
later on.107

At the request of the Minister, the calling attention regarding attempt

of USA, UK and USSR to establish naval bases in the Indian Ocean came
up at 4.00 p.m. But due to members raising another matter, the
Minister could not make the statement. It was permitted to be laid.108

The statement in response to the calling attention regarding the strike

and lockout in HMT in Bangalore consisted of eight pages. The Minister
wanted to know whether he should read only the concluding paragraphs
since the strike had ended. The statement was permitted to be laid
and the Minister gave broad facts of the matter.109

The Minister of Finance made a brief statement in response to the

calling attention regarding the large scale disinvestment in public sector
undertakings and with the permission of the Deputy Chairman laid a
more detailed statement on the Table. The statement ran into thirteen
cyclostyled pages which had an annexure also.110 Clarifications on the
statement were taken up after a few days.111
Calling Attention 617

A member called the attention of the Minister of Health and Family

Welfare to the situation arising out of casulties during clinical trials in
the country and the issues related thereto. Due to repeated
interruptions in the House, the Minister of State in the Ministry of
Health and Family Welfare laid the statement on the Table of the
House with the permission of the Deputy Chairman. After statement
was laid, the House was adjourned for the day.112 Similarly, Minister of
External Affairs was allowed to lay a statement in response to the
calling attention regarding the repeated attacks on Tamil Nadu fishermen
by Sri Lankan Navy due to continuous interruptions in the House. After
statement was laid, the House was adjourned for the day. 113

(c) No separate Statement in response to Calling Attention

On occasions when Ministers made statements suo motu on matters
of public importance and the Chairman admitted calling attention on the
same subject-matters subsequently, Ministers did not make statements again
in response to the calling attention. The statements already made formed
the basis of discussion on the calling attention.
On 18 March 1980, when the Chairman indicated that the Home Minister
was going to make a statement on the burning of the Harijan huts in
Moradabad, a member raised a point of order that since he had already
given notice of a calling attention on that subject, the Minister had
no right to make a statement before taking up the calling attention
which was likely to be admitted for the next day. When the Chairman
suggested that the Minister might postpone his statement till then, the
Leader of the House relying on rule 251 stated that the Minister had
a right to make a statement on the floor of the House on a matter of
public importance irrespective of the fact whether a calling attention
notice was pending or not. The Chairman agreed and stated that he
would permit full debate on the subject the following day. This,
however, did not satisfy the members. The House was adjourned earlier
than the scheduled lunch-recess for consultation in the Chairman’s
Chamber. After the House reassembled, as directed by the Chairman,
the Minister was permitted to make the statement. The calling attention
was taken up on the next day. The Minister, however, did not make a
fresh statement in response thereto, except adding some factual
information to his earlier statement.114

The Minister made a suo motu statement on killings of Harijans in

Mainpuri (U.P.). A calling attention on the same subject was admitted
on the next day. The Minister did not make any statement again in
response thereto saying that he had nothing more to add to what he
had already stated in the statement on the previous day. Thereafter,
members sought clarifications.115

The Minister made a statement on the situation in Punjab. Members

demanded that there should be a discussion thereon. The House agreed
that the statement would be taken up as in response to a calling
618 Rajya Sabha at Work

attention and members would seek clarifications thereon. No separate

statement was made in response to the calling attention, nor was the
calling attention formally called, though the list of business listed the
item in the names of members from whom notices for calling attention
and the order in which requests for clarifications on the previous day’s
statement of the Minister were received.116

The Minister made a statement regarding increase in the prices of

petroleum products. A calling attention on the same subject was
admitted on the next day. No separate statement was made in response
to the calling attention. However, for technical purposes, the calling
attention item was listed in the list of business. The member was
asked to formally call the attention of the Minister and thereafter
members sought clarifications thereon.117

However, on occasions, a Minister has made a suo motu statement on

a subject, the Chairman admitted a calling attention also on that subject
for a subsequent sitting and the Minister has again made a new statement
in response to the calling attention.

The Minister of State in the Ministry of Home Affairs made a statement

on 13 March 1968 regarding stabbing of Justice A.N. Grover of the
Supreme Court. A calling attention on the same subject was admitted
for 14 March 1968 and the Home Minister made a statement in response
to the calling attention.118

On 10 May 1968, the Minister of State in the Ministry of Home Affairs

made two statements—one regarding the judgement of the Punjab and
Haryana High Court in respect of the Punjab Appropriation Acts of
1968 and the other regarding refusal of the High Court to issue a stay
order in the matter. A calling attention on the constitutional crisis in
Punjab arising out of the High Court’s judgement holding the
Appropriation Acts ultra vires was admitted for 11 May 1968 and the
Minister of Home Affairs made a statement in response to the calling
attention.119

The Minister of State in the Ministry of Home Affairs made a statement

on 7 March 1969 regarding the Address delivered by the Governor of
West Bengal to the members of both Houses of West Bengal Legislature
on 6 March 1969. A calling attention on the constitutional implications
of the Centre’s attitude in regard to the demand for the recall of the
Governor of West Bengal was admitted for 7 March 1969. The Minister
of Home Affairs made a statement in response to the calling attention.120

The Minister of State in the Ministry of Home Affairs made a suo motu
statement regarding premature retirement of the Director of
Lal Bahadur Shastri National Academy of Administration, Mussoorie on
5 March 1982.
Calling Attention 619

The Deputy Chairman informed that a calling attention on the subject

would be taken up on 8 March 1982. Accordingly, when it was taken
up another Minister of State in the Ministry of Home Affairs made a
fresh statement in response to the calling attention121 which was more
or less similar to the earlier one.

(d) Postponement of time to make a Statement

As earlier stated, the Minister may ask for time to make a statement
at a later hour or date.

When a member was about to call the attention of the Minister of

Home Affairs to the observations of the Supreme Court regarding use
of DIR, the Minister of State in the Ministry of Home Affairs stated that
he would be available to make the statement only at 5.00 p.m. that
day. When the concerned member objected to this, the Chairman
stated, “The Government are entitled to ask for time and I have
allowed them to make the statement at 5 O’clock’’.122

The calling attention regarding explosion of hydrogen bomb by China

was admitted for 20 June 1967. The Minister of Defence requested
that he be permitted to make the statement next day ‘before the
House rises’ because he was making the statement in the other House
also that day. The Chairman announced that the statement would be
made at 2.30 p.m. that day. A member raised a point regarding
postponement of the calling attention on the ground mentioned by the
Minister. After some objections, the Chair assured that it would be
made at 12.00 Noon the next day. It was accordingly made.123

The Deputy Chairman announced that the calling attention regarding

shortage of wagons for lifting oranges at Nagpur would be taken up at
2.00 p.m. as requested by the Deputy Minister of Railways on the
ground that information sought in the calling attention was neither
available in the Railway Board nor with the Headquarter of Central
Railway at Bombay and the same had to be collected from the Divisional
Manager, Nagpur. By the time the House was deciding, the concerned
Minister came to the House and reiterated the position. The Deputy
Chairman quoting rule 180 conceded the right of the Minister to ask
for time but observed, “Ministers should be ready with the information
when they are informed and they should not usually and unnecessarily
ask for any postponement’’.124

As agreed at a meeting of leaders with the Deputy Chairman, the

calling attention regarding alleged collection of funds by the Chief
Minister of Maharashtra was formally taken up on 1 September 1981.
The Minister of Finance stated that he would make a statement on the
next day since he was getting all the facts. The statement was
accordingly made on 2 September 1981.125
620 Rajya Sabha at Work

Calling Attention of an absent member

If the member or members in whose name(s) the calling attention

stands is or are absent or he or they decline to call the attention as per
the text in the list of business, the practice followed in the matter of
making or laying on the Table the statement by the Minister has not firmly
settled. Sometimes the statements have been laid;126 at other times this
has not been done.127

The concerned member, when asked to call the attention (regarding

exodus of architects), sought to make submissions instead of calling
the attention. The Deputy Chairman did not permit but the member
continued to speak which was ordered not to be recorded. The member
next listed when asked, also did not do so. The Deputy Chairman
declared, “There is no business now. The Minister can go’’ and proceeded
to the next item in the list of business.128

The only member in whose name a calling attention regarding sugarcane

prices stood, was not present. When another member pleaded that the
Chair should use the discretion and permit other members to seek
clarifications, the Deputy Chairman declined pointing out that only the
member in whose name the calling attention stood had the right to
raise it; thereafter, only others could ask questions. Since the member
was not present, the calling attention could not be taken up.129

When members in whose names a calling attention regarding inadequate

supply of essential commodities stood, started raising extraneous issues
instead of calling the attention, the Deputy Chairman did not permit
them. The calling attention could not be taken up that day or on any
other subsequent day.130

Procedure for seeking clarifications

There can be no debate on such statement at the time it is made.131

However, members are permitted to seek clarifications on the statement.
A member who initiates a calling attention first seeks the clarification. He
is not to take more than seven minutes and other members who are called
by the Chairman are not to take more than five minutes each and should
restrict themselves strictly to seeking clarifications on the statement and
avoid making long speeches.

In July 1979, it was decided that the time allotted to the initiator of
a calling attention should not be more than five minutes.132 The
procedure was reviewed at a meeting of the leaders held on 19 June
1980 and it was decided that a member who initiated a calling attention
should not take more than seven minutes. The Chairman announced in
the House accordingly.133
Calling Attention 621

Order of calling members for seeking clarifications

Where a calling attention stands in the names of a number of members,
in choosing members who desire to seek clarifications, the first principle
is party/group. After exhausting the parties/groups, whose members have
given the notices by calling one member from each party/group, the
Chairman may call members belonging to parties/groups not in the list.134
In other words, names of members are not called in the order in which they
appear in the list of business nor is it obligatory for the Chairman to call
all those whose names appear in the list of business. So far as small groups
are concerned, the Business Advisory Committee recommended, inter alia,
that one member from each party or group consisting of at least five
members should be permitted to seek clarifications. A group of less than
five and Independents and others should be represented by one member by
rotation.135 However, when this recommendation was announced, some
members expressed their reservations to the adoption of this practice.136
The Business Advisory Committee at its meeting held on 16 July 1991,
considered the procedure to be adopted for seeking clarifications on
a calling attention and recommended that the earlier practice of
permitting one member from each party/group to seek clarification on
a calling attention be adhered to.137

On an occasion, the Chair observed that after six speakers from the
list had spoken he would give opportunity to each of the other parties
also.138 On another occasion, the Chairman observed, “I am trying to
see that every political party represented here gets a chance. I cannot
allow three or four people from the same party to get up and speak.’’139
On an occasion, the Deputy Chairman observed, “Following an earlier
convention, I have called one from every party. There are five members
from the Congress Party, I have called one.’’140

The following illustration will explain the practice being followed in

calling members to seek clarifications.
Illustration
Suppose on a calling attention, there are fifteen members whose names
appear in the list of business in the following order—

The first three belong to a party ‘A’, the next two belong to a party
‘B’, the next four belong to a party ‘C’, the next two again belong
to the party ‘A’, the next one belongs to a party ‘D’, the next two
belong to a party ‘E’ and the last one again belongs to the party ‘B’.

The first member belonging to the party ‘A’ will first call the attention
and after the Minister’s statement in response, ask for clarifications.
Other members of the same party in the list will not be called and the
next member to be called will be from the party ‘B’ and so on.
622 Rajya Sabha at Work

Only after exhausting a member each from each of the parties reflected
in the listed calling attention item, other members’ requests for being
called may be entertained by the Chair. If any party’s Leader/Whip
desires to substitute a member whose name does not appear in the list
for a member whose name appears, the new member takes his turn
after exhausting all the names already in the list and not at the place
of the member of his party who figures in the list.

In this context, the Rules Committee considered a suggestion that

names of members under the calling attention item should be restricted to
five to be determined by ballot and only those members whose names
appear in the list of business should be called to seek clarification and none
else merely on the basis of party list. As directed by the Committee, the
suggestion was circulated to leaders of various parties and groups in the
Rajya Sabha for eliciting their views. The leaders did not agree to the
suggestion. The Rules Committee, therefore, recommended that the existing
practice of clubbing of names and calling members to seek clarifications on
a calling attention might continue.141

Postponement of clarifications
Sometimes in view of the importance of the subject or with a view
to enabling members to study a statement made by the Minister in response
to a calling attention, the House may decide to defer seeking of clarifications
thereon.142

Time-limit for seeking clarifications

At a meeting of leaders of parties/groups held with the Chairman in
August 1970, it was decided that a member who initiated the calling attention
should not take more than five minutes and the time to be given to the
other members for seeking clarifications would be within the discretion of
the Chair.143 Subsequently, at a meeting of the leaders held on 19 June
1980, with a view to streamlining the procedure, the broad consensus
arrived in regard to the time-limit for seeking clarifications was that a
member who initiated a calling attention should not take more than seven
minutes and other members who would be called by the Chair should not
take more than five minutes each and should restrict themselves strictly to
seeking clarifications and avoid making long speeches.144

Reply to clarifications
Till early eighties, generally the practice was that the Minister had to
give reply separately to each clarification asked by a member.145 Sometimes,
however, the House used to agree to the Minister giving one reply at the
end of all clarifications.
Calling Attention 623

On an occasion, it was suggested that in view of the importance of the

subject-matter of the calling attention, namely, communal riots in the
country with particular reference to incidents in Aligarh, the Prime
Minister should reply to all the clarifications at the end. This was
agreed.146

On another occasion, the Chairman announced that the calling attention

should be finished in one hour as agreed by leaders and nobody should
take more than five minutes to speak. Shri B.N. Banerjee, former
Secretary-General who then was a member stated, “In the Calling
Attention the usual practice is that members speak and the Minister
replies. Since you are limiting time to enable members to express
their views, it will be better that the members may speak and as a
special case the Minister replies at the end.’’ The Chairman directed
the Minister to make a note of points and give one consolidated
reply.147

At a meeting of the leaders held on 15 September 1981, it was agreed

that as a special case, the Minister would reply at the end of all the
clarifications.148 On 20 October 1982, the Deputy Chairman announced at
the beginning of a calling attention on strike in Delhi University:

It has been agreed that members will make their observations, put
their questions and clarifications and reply at the end once only... that
has been agreed by all the parties ...the leaders have agreed.149

But again in 1983, the previous practice of giving individual reply to

each clarification was revived.150 On one occasion, a suggestion for a
consolidated reply was not even agreed to.151 On 15 March 1983, for sometime
separate replies were given and at the suggestion of the Vice-Chairman,
towards the end, a consolidated reply was given to clarifications “due to
need to conserve time”.152 On 21 December 1983, after the first reply to
the clarifications sought by the member who had raised the calling attention,
at the suggestion of the Deputy Chairman, a consolidated reply was given
to the other members’ clarifications.153 On an occasion, members sought
clarifications on one day and the Minister replied on a subsequent day.154
On another occasion, which was perhaps the solitary one, after the House
discussed the calling attention for nearly three and a half hours the discussion
was stopped as the concerned Minister had to go to the Lok Sabha for
voting on the no-confidence motion there. The discussion remained
inconclusive.155

The current practice which has been settled since 1984 is that after
members seek clarifications on the statement of the Minister, he gives a
reply to all of them together at the end.156
624 Rajya Sabha at Work

Correcting the statements or further clarifying points

On occasions, Ministers have also made further statements correcting
their earlier statements made in response to or during the course of a
calling attention or for further clarifying points. Such statements have been
either made or laid on the Table of the House, after the conclusion of a
listed calling attention, if any, or immediately after questions.
On 3 April 1967, the Deputy Prime Minister and Minister of Finance
made a statement regarding certain matters raised in relation to the
statement made by him on 29 March 1967, in response to a calling
attention about the renewal of contract of a Publicity Consultant to
the Indian Embassy, Washington.157

On 18 August 1967, the Minister of State in the Ministry of Petroleum

and Chemicals made a statement regarding assurance given by him in
the course of replies to certain points arising out of a calling attention
matter raised on 31 July 1967.158

On 28 August 1970, the Minister of State in the Ministry of Home

Affairs made a statement correcting his earlier statement made in
response to a calling attention on 3 August 1970.159

On 3 September 1970, the Deputy Minister of Finance made a statement

correcting his earlier statement in response to a calling attention on
19 May 1970.160

On 4 September 1970, the Minister of Education and Youth Services

laid on the Table a statement correcting his earlier statement made
in response to a calling attention on 10 August 1970.161

On 11 November 1970, the Minister of State in the Ministry of Petroleum

and Chemicals and Mines and Metals made a statement correcting
replies given by him to certain questions arising out of the statement
made in response to a calling attention on 17 March 1970.162

On 30 July 1971, after the disposal of the listed calling attention a

member was permitted to seek clarifications on the discrepancies
between replies given during the calling attention statement by the
Minister of Steel and Mines in the Rajya Sabha on 10 June 1971, and
answer given to the unstarred question no. 472 in the Lok Sabha on
27 May 1971, on the issue of industrial licences for the setting up of
mini steel plants in the private sector. The Minister concerned replied
to the points raised.163

Time for conclusion of Calling Attention

At a meeting of leaders of parties/groups in the Rajya Sabha in 1970
it was decided, inter alia, that normally no calling attention should exceed
thirty minutes and in any case it should be disposed of before the House
Calling Attention 625

adjourned for the lunch-recess. The General Purposes Committee

recommended that not more than one hour should be taken for the purpose.
After that period was over, it should be left completely to the discretion
of the Chair whether or not to allow any other member who desired to
participate in the discussion. In any case, a calling attention should be so
arranged that all the miscellaneous business on the list of business, other
than the legislative or other regular business, should be disposed of before
the House adjourned for the lunch-recess.164
Notwithstanding these recommendations, there have been many
occasions when calling attention matters have continued beyond the lunch-
recess of the House, or for the whole day or spilled over to the next or
subsequent day165 depending on the importance of the subject or the
consensus in the House. Some of the important calling attention matters
which have occupied four hours or more were:
Strike of Development Officers of LIC (4.04 hrs.);166 disturbances in
Jamshedpur (two days - 9.38 hrs.);167 arms aid to Pakistan by USA (4.34
hrs.);168 communal incidents in and around Bihar Sharif (4.32 hrs.);169
irregularities in grant of income tax exemptions to certain Trusts in
Maharashtra (two days - 5.32 hrs.);170 mass conversion of Harijans to
Islam in Tamil Nadu (4.46 hrs.);171 inadequacies in electoral law (4.00
hrs.);172 violence and vulgarity in films (4.30 hrs.);173 floods and drought
(4.00 hrs.);174 developments in J&K (6.08 hrs.);175 non-implementation
of the Punjab Accord (4.11 hrs.);176 agitation of GNLF (4.43 hrs.);177
engagement of Fair-fax agency (5.16 hrs.);178 functioning of media
(4.16 hrs.);179 communal incidents (5.00 hrs.);180 inadequate supply of
essential commodities (5.24 hrs.);181 communal situation (three days -
9.14 hrs.);182 plight of handloom weavers (4.17 hrs.);183 price situation
(4.53 hrs.);184 drought situation (4.37 hrs.);185 bomb explosions in Bombay
on 12.3.1993 (6.20 hrs.);186 situation in J&K (5.22 hrs.);187 flood situation
(4.03 hrs.);188 disinvestment in PSUs (three days - 4.00 hrs.);189 funds
for PSUs (4.51 hrs.);190 system of counter guarantees and other
assurances given by the Government in the context of foreign investment
in Power Sector (4.52 hrs.);191 situation arising out of the air-dropping
of lethal weapons in Purulia posing a threat to National Security (4.05
hrs.);192 increasing insurgency in the North-Eastern States (5 hrs.);193
diversion of funds to the tune of Rs. 45000 crores to the Personal
Ledger Account by the West Bengal Government (4.30 hrs.);194 poor
performance and mismanagement of Air India (4.14 hrs.);195 internal
security problem with reference to the State of Jammu & Kashmir
(4.13 hrs);196 the sale of BALCO at an abnormally low price (6.47
hrs.)197; extreme volatility in the stock markets (4.35 hrs.)198; policy
of disinvestment in PSUs (4.51 hrs.)199; circulars of UGC and the NCERT
curriculum framework in the context of national policy on education
(5.23 hrs.)200; storming of the disputed site at Ayodhya by VHP thereby
flouting the Supreme Court directives (3.26 hrs.) 201; situation arising
626 Rajya Sabha at Work

out of growing labour unrest (3.28 hrs.)202; situation arising out of

disputes over the sharing of inter-State river waters of Cauvery and
Krishna Rivers (2.59 hrs.)203; implementation of Conditional Access
System and criteria for uplinking for foreign channels (4.00 hrs.)204;
exorbitant rise in the prices of petroleum products (3.29 hrs.)205; loss
of human lives, properties and business in Mumbai and other parts of
Maharashtra due to the unprecedented rains (4.09 hrs.)206; and progress
of relief to the victims of 1984 riots (4.27 hrs.)207.

Conversion of Calling Attention into discussion

On many occasions, in view of the importance of the subject and
consensus or demand in the House, a calling attention has been converted
into full-fledged discussion in the form of motion208 or short duration
discussion,209 after the concerned Minister responded to the calling attention.
Such discussion has taken place the same day on which the calling attention
was raised or on the next or subsequent day.
The Minister of Home Affairs stated in response to a calling attention
regarding IB Report on use of foreign funds in elections that the Report
had been received recently and was being examined carefully and that
Government would take time to formulate the conclusions thereon.
The Chairman did not permit anything more on that statement and
informed the House that there would be a discussion on that at
4.00 p.m. that day itself. The discussion was initiated by the same
member who had raised the calling attention.210

A member called the attention to the disclosures made by a former

CIA man about the activities of the CIA in this country and the Minister
made a statement in regard thereto. During the course of clarifications,
a member suggested that the matter should be fully discussed in the
House. The Chairman agreed and the calling attention was not
proceeded with further.211 The matter was accordingly discussed on a
motion moved by a member.212

In the midst of a calling attention regarding forcible entry of policemen

into West Bengal Legislative Assembly, some members suggested that
the matter called for a full debate. This was agreed to and the calling
attention was not proceeded further. A short duration discussion was
held the next day.213

The Minister made a statement in response to a calling attention

regarding allegations of use of money power in the biennial elections
to the Rajya Sabha and its implications on the working and preservation
of parliamentary democracy. On a suggestion made by some members,
the Chairman agreed to allow a discussion on the subject. Before the
House adjourned sine die, on 4 April 1970, the Vice-Chairman announced
that the discussion would be held in next session (72nd). A short duration
discussion was however held on 28 July 1970, during the 73rd Session.214
Calling Attention 627

A calling attention regarding the influx of refugees was admitted for

27 July 1970 and the concerned Minister made a statement in response
thereto. There was a demand that the matter should be discussed
fully. The Chairman agreed to allow a discussion on the subject
immediately after laying of the papers on the same day. The member
who had earlier called the attention moved a motion to take into
consideration the influx of refugees. The motion, after discussion, was
adopted by the House in an amended form.215

Before the concerned member was called to raise the calling attention
regarding heavy loss of life and property in Tamil Nadu and Pondicherry
due to floods, the Chairman informed that on a suggestion of a number
of members he agreed to expand the scope of the calling attention to
include the drought situation in certain parts of the country so that
the calling attention would deal with not only floods in Tamil Nadu but
also cover both the drought and the flood situations. The member
concerned, therefore, called the attention accordingly. Thereafter,
the Chairman also announced that since the scope was widened, it
should be taken up not as a calling attention but as a short duration
discussion. After the Minister read out the statement, the Deputy
Chairman stated that since it was a short duration discussion, names
would be called party-wise with the exception of the member who
called the attention would initiate the discussion as well. The calling
attention thereafter proceeded as a short duration discussion.216

On an occasion, a calling attention notice on price situation was

admitted and listed in the list of business. However, in the revised list
of business the subject was listed under short duration discussion. The
calling attention was in the names of some members; the short duration
discussion was in the names of some other members.217

The Minister of Home Affairs made a statement on 27 April 1970, in

response to a calling attention regarding lathi-charge and tear-gas by
police on SSP demonstrators in New Delhi on 6 April 1970. On 28 April
1970, a member moved a motion to take the statement of the Home
Minister into consideration. The motion was adopted in the following
form:

That the statement made by the Home Minister in the Rajya Sabha
on 27 April 1970, be taken into consideration, and having considered
the same, this House views with grave concern the happenings of
6 April 1970, in connection with the SSP demonstration in and around
Patel Chowk in New Delhi.218

Sometimes without formally converting a calling attention into a short

duration discussion the Chair may, sensing the desire of members, permit
more members to speak.219
628 Rajya Sabha at Work

Calling Attention on a sub judice matter

A point of order was raised regarding a calling attention on
Government’s decision to hold mid-term poll in Kerala, on the ground that
the subject was pending before the High Court. The Chairman ruled:
A calling attention is not a motion. It does not involve discussion.
Those who are calling the attention of the Government want to know
from Government what are the facts and what is the position of the
Government...No discussion is involved. In a calling attention only
questions are put for clarification from Government.220

On another occasion, in regard to the admission of a calling attention

regarding decision of the Medical Council of India to hold an All-India
Entrance Examination, the Minister pointed out at the time of making
the statement in response to the calling attention that the matter was
sub judice, she had already informed the Secretariat accordingly and
did not know why it was admitted. However, since the calling attention
was admitted the Minister had to make the statement. But in reply to
clarifications, which went on for an hour or so, the Minister merely
stated, “I am not going to say anything beyond my statement...because
the matter is sub judice. I will request the honourable members not
to insist on it.221

Important subjects raised through Calling Attention

Since last more than five decades, the calling attention procedure has
been in the Rajya Sabha Rules. A number of subjects have been raised in
the House through this device. Some of the constitutional, election, judicial
matters and other miscellaneous subjects so raised in the House are listed
below:
(a) Constitutional matters

Detention of a number of persons elected to Kerala Legislative Assembly

in the mid-term elections and its effect on the normal constitutional
process taking its course in the formation of a Government in that
State;222 constitutional implications of the action of the Governor of
Rajasthan ordering removal of certain members of Rajasthan Assembly
at the time of his Address to the Assembly on 26 February 1966;223
refusal of Governor of Rajasthan to invite non-Congress parties to form
a Government in that State and imposition of President’s Rule in
Rajasthan;224 constitutional crisis in Madhya Pradesh due to sudden
prorogation of the State Vidhan Sabha by the Governor on 20 July
1967;225 constitutional crisis in West Bengal;226 constitutional crisis in
Punjab due to adjournment of the State Assembly by the Speaker for
two months with the budget still pending there;227 constitutional
implications of the Centre’s attitude in regard to the demand for the
recall of the Governor of West Bengal;228 refusal to administer the
Calling Attention 629

oath/affirmation to some members of UP Legislative Assembly in Urdu

language;229 constitutional crisis in Madhya Pradesh;230 forcible entry
of policemen in West Bengal Legislative Assembly while it was in
session on 31 July 1969;231 constitutional crisis in Tamil Nadu;232
constitutional crisis due to adjournment of the Nagaland Legislative
Assembly sine die without passing the Budget;233 dissolution of J&K
Assembly on the advice of the Chief Minister of that State; 234
constitutional crisis in Assam due to prorogation of the Assam Legislative
Assembly and promulgation of an Ordinance by the Governor for
appropriation of money from the Consolidated Fund of the State;235
promulgation and repromulgation of Ordinances in States;236 resolution
passed by the Andhra Pradesh Legislative Assembly for abolition of the
Legislative Council of that State;237 delay in assenting to Bills passed
by State Legislatures and reserved by Governors for the consideration
of the President;238 continued suspended animation of J&K Legislative
Assembly;239 and permission given by the Government of India to the
Government of Andhra Pradesh for introduction of Andhra Pradesh
Special Powers (Press) Bill.240

(b) Election matters

Postponement of a bye-election in Nohar Assembly Constituency of

Rajasthan;241 revision of the elctoral rolls of Basti Julahan Ward in the
Sadar Parliamentary Constituency of Delhi for a bye-election to the
Delhi Municipal Corporation;242 decision to hold mid-term poll in
Kerala;243 result of the enquiry conducted by the Deputy Chief Election
Commissioner on the surplus ballot papers found in Chandigarh;244
incidents of violence and preventing voters from casting their votes
during elections in some States;245 inadequacies in the electoral law in
not providing a specific period for completion of a bye-election to
Parliament;246 and delay in holding election to Delhi Metropolitan Council
and bye-election in Garhwal Parliamentary Constitutency.247

(c) Judicial matters

Supreme Court observations in its judgement in the case of
G. Sadanandan v. State of Kerala and Others (Writ Petition No. 136 of
1965) regarding continuous use of DIR;248 reported resignation of a
Judge of the Calcutta High Court on grounds of status, prestige,
emoluments and various service conditions undermining the dignity of
the judiciary249 Supreme Court judgement in the matter of the validity
of the Punjab Appropriation Acts with particular reference to the
implications thereof on the powers of the Legislature and the presiding
officer;250 stabbing of Mr. Justice A.N. Grover of the Supreme Court in
Chief Justice’s room on 13 March 1968, while the Court was in session;251
Supreme Court decision on the Writ Petitions challenging the Presidential
Order derecognising the Rulers;252 Supreme Court judgement on the
Mulki Rules;253 arbitrary transfer of Chief Justice of the Allahabad High
Court to the Karnataka High Court;254 proposed mass casual leave by
Additional and District Sessions Judges and their protest march to the
630 Rajya Sabha at Work

Parliament House;255 prosecution of a BHEL manager on the alleged

charge of giving information to Members of Parliament regarding BHEL-
SIEMENS Agreement;256 resignation of Justice Srivastava of the Allahabad
High Court due to alleged harassment by Government agencies;257 and
Supreme Court decision setting aside the election of a candidate on
the ground of use of electronic machine for voting in some booths in
Parur Assembly Constituency in Kerala, as having no legal sanction.258
(d) Miscellaneous matters
Tapping of telephone of Chief Minister of Punjab;259 statement made
by a former editor of a newspaper at Poona regarding Nathuram Godse’s
plan to assassinate Mahatma Gandhi;260 progress of investigation into
Sardar Pratap Singh Kairon’s assassination;261 purchase of the original
manuscript. of Gitanjali by an American citizen;262 Z.A. Bhutto’s
statement before the Custodian-General of Evacuee Property in India
that he was an Indian national;263 assurance of the Leader of the
House in the Rajya Sabha on 19 May 1966, regarding observations
contained in the 50th Report of the PAC and Government’s decision to
post the concerned officer as India’s Ambassador at Brussels;264 missing
of important documents relating to the Kutch dispute;265 unwillingness
of the Union Home Ministry to furnish to Government of Orissa an
official copy of the CBI Report and Cabinet sub-committee’s findings
on certain allegations against former Chief Minister;266 report in New
York Times about CBI’s conclusion that USA had spent vast sums of
money to influence last general election;267 Prime Minister’s message
of congratulations to the President of Pakistan on the completion of
the Mangla Dam;268 burning of the national flag and the Constitution
by anti-Hindi demonstrators in certain parts of Tamil Nadu;269 refusal
of US Embassy, New Delhi to receive the summons of a Delhi
Magistrate;270 insulting behaviour of the Secretary, Ministry of Law
(Department of Legal Affairs) towards the Deputy Minister of Law,
Shri Mohd. Yunus Saleem;271 formation of a Communist Party of India
on Mao’s ideas;272 statement of Chief Minister of Kerala regarding
undermining the Constitution from within;273 decision to shift location
of Gandhiji’s statue from India Gate;274 suggestion of Gen. K.M. Cariappa
for scrapping the Constitution, imposition of President’s Rule in the
country and administration by the army;275 request of the Tamil Nadu
Government for a separate State Flag;276 Pakistani spy-ring operating
in West Bengal and alleged involvement of some ex-Ministers of
Government of West Bengal and a Member of Parliament from that
State therein;277 increase in postal rates on the eve of Parliament
session;278 reported removal of a letter written by the President of the
BLD from the files of the Election Commission about party’s election
symbol;279 exchange of correspondence between the Prime Minister
and former Home Minister;280 violent incident in Calcutta in which
Shri Jayaprakash Narayan’s car was attacked and a Member of Parliament
and his colleague sustained injuries;281 detention in prisons of a large
number of political prisoners under MISA, DIR, etc.;282 victimisation of
journalists by newspaper managements;283 installation of a puppet Black
Government in Zimbabwe;284 hunger strike by an MP in support of
Calling Attention 631

demand to curb oppression of Harijans;285 reported disclosures of certain

confidential correspondence between the former President, Shri N.
Sanjiva Reddy and the former Prime Minister, Shri Morarji Desai;286
follow-up action on the JPC Report on securities scam;287 need of
having a national consensus for India’s Nuclear Policy with reference
to Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty;288 the situation arising out of the
air-dropping of lethal weapons in Purulia posing a threat to the National
Security;289 situation arising out of the disinvestment of profit-making
Central Public Sector Units due to lack of financial support and timely
decisions;290 Securities Scam in Co-operative Banks and failure of the
Central Government Regulations and remedial measures taken by
Government with regard thereto;291 issues arising out of the decision
of the VSNL Board to invest Rs. 1200 crores in TATA Tele Services
Ltd.;292 suicides committed by cotton growers in Maharashtra and other
parts of the country; 293 problems of sugarcane growers; 294 crisis in
the plantation sector, namely, tea, coffee, rubber, etc. and the steps
taken by the Government in this regard;295 closing down of fertilizer
plants of the Hindustan Fertilizer Corporation and the Fertilizer
Corporation of India particularly in the eastern region of the country;296
poisonous effect on wheat, rice, sugar and other food items on being
packaged in plastic bags;297 situation arising out of growing labour
unrest caused by loss of jobs, violation of labour laws, closure of units,
privatisation of PSUs, etc.;298 faulty public distribution system;299 Foreign
Direct Investment in Electronic Media;300 situation arising out of disputes
over the sharing of inter-state river waters of Cauvery and Krishna
rivers and action taken by Government with regard thereto; 301
implementation of Conditional Access System and criteria for uplinking
for foreign channels;302 plight of tea garden workers due to sickness
and closure of a large number of tea gardens leading to starvation
deaths;303 death of children recently due to malnutrition and starvation
in Maharashtra;304 incidents of suicide by farmers in various parts of
the country and remedial measures taken by Government with regard
thereto;305 irregularities in disinvestment of Centaur Hotel, Mumbai
and violation of shareholders agreement in post disinvestment period;306
climate change;307 relief to victims of 1984 riots;308 role of print and
electronic media including the paid news;309 irregularities in the
functioning of the Medical Council of India (MCI);310 rotting of food
grains due to lack of storage facilities;311 utilisation of agricultural
land for non-agricultural purpose;312 frequent accidents in railways and
rail safety;313 discrimination and racial profiling faced by students
from north-eastern States;314 removal of uterus of females of BPL in
Bihar and various parts of the country under NRHM programmes;315 all
India strike by workers of organised and unorganised sector;316 situation
arising out of repeated attacks on Indian fishermen by Sri Lankan
Navy;317 pollution on sea beaches in Goa caused by tar balls formed
due to discharge from sea vessels;318 plight of stranded workers from
India in Iraq;319 move by the Government to introduce changes in the
Mahatma Gandhi National Rural Employment Guarantee Scheme
(MGNREGS) by reducing the wage component of the fund allocation
and restricting the areas of work;320 etc.
632 Rajya Sabha at Work

NOTES AND REFERENCES

1. Old Rule 156.

2. Summary of the Proceedings of the meeting of the Committee on Rules, 3.6.1952 and
9.7.1952; F. No. CS/3/52-L.
3. Brochure entitled Questions and Adjournment Motions in Second Chambers, June 1952.
4. C.S. Deb., 16.5.1952, c. 44-45.
5. Later renumbered as Rule 175.
6. May, p. 475.
7. Bn. (II), 1.7.1964.
8. R. 180; see also R.S. Deb., 26.11.2014, pp. 319-36; Bn. (II), 26.11.2014.
9. Bn. (II), 11.8.1964; see also R.S. Deb., 12.8.1968, c. 28-74; and 14.8.1968, c. 3401-02.
10. R.S. Deb., 23.5.1979, c. 1-3; Bn. (II), 23.5.1979 and 6.7.1979.
11. See for instance, Bn. (II), 3.2.1994.
12. R.S. Deb., 19.8.1968, c. 3477-79.
13. 2 Rpt., COR, p. 12, 21, 27.
14. R.S. Deb., 23.5.1979, c. 1-3; and Bn. (II), 23.5.1979.
15. 2 Rpt., COR, p. 3.
16. R.S. Deb., 24.12.1981, c. 502.
17. Ibid., 15.12.1981, c. 162-68.
18. 2 Rpt., COR.
19. R. 180(1), Proviso.
20. 2 Rpt., COR. p. 21.
21. R.S. Deb., 6.5.1986, c. 184.
22. Ibid., 13.12.1985, c. 200-02.
23. Ibid., 14.8.1968, c. 3387-3402; 19.8.1968, c. 3470-79; See also R.S. Deb., 3.5.1978,
c. 131-38.
24. Ibid., 6.5.1986, c. 183-85.
25. Bn. (II), 4.12.1971.
26. R.S. Deb., 21.7.1975, c. 33-44.
27. Ibid., 3.11.1976, c. 38-49.
28. Bn. (II), 20.9.1976.
29. Ibid., 27.10.1976.
30. R.S Deb., 26.3.1985, c. 184-86.
31. Ibid., 19.8.1968, c. 3477-79.
32. Ibid., 4.8.1978, c. 106.
33. Ibid., 15.3.1989, c. 1-4; and 16.3.1989, c. 1-8.
34. Ibid., 19.6.1967, c. 4659-62.
35. Ibid., 21.3.1975, c. 116-18.
36. Ibid., 5.8.1982, c. 264.
37. Ibid., 27.3.1981, c. 153-54; see also 25.11.1981, c. 208-56.
38. Ibid.,11.3.1981, c. 294-96; For instance when two or more related subjects were combined
in a Calling Attention, see Bn. (I), 1.12.1964, 5.5.1966, 3.8.1966, 11.8.1966, 7.4.1967,
11.4.1967, 22.6.1967, 26.7.1967 and 19.8.1968.
39. Ibid., 28.7.1978, c. 149-54.
40. Ibid., 25.11.1981, c. 208-56.
41. Ibid., 11.12.1981, c. 203-11.
42. LoB, 2.12.1983; R.S. Deb., 5.12.1983, c. 256-301.
43. Ibid., 21.6.1971.
44. Ibid., 20.7.1978.
45. Ibid., 11.8.1978.
46. Ibid., 6.3.1981.
47. Ibid., 17.3.1981.
Calling Attention 633

48. LoB, 20.8.1981.

49. Ibid., 27.4.1984.
50. Ibid., 4.8.1986.
51. Ibid., 27.8.1987.
52. Ibid., 13.11.1987.
53. Ibid., 2.12.1988.
54. Ibid., 2.1.1991.
55. Ibid., 18.8.1993.
56. 2 Rpt., COR, p. 17, 22 and 26.
57. BAC mts., 13.10.1982; and Bn. (II), 14.10.1982.
58. R.S. Deb., 15.12.1981, c. 162-68.
59. Ibid., 3.4.1970, c. 4-15.
60. R. 180(3).
61. R. 180(4).
62. Bn. (I), 25.9.1964, 1.12.1964, 31.3.1965, 4.5.1965, 14.5.1965, 10.12.1965, 11.12.1965,
25.2.1966, 21.3.1966, 22.3.1966, 23.3.1966, 25.3.1966, 16.5.1966, 17.5.1966, 18.5.1966,
7.9.1966, 29.11.1966, 11.4.1967, 26.7.1967, 7.8.1967, 30.11.1967 and 13.5.1968.
63. Ibid., 10.3.1965, 11.11.1965, 18.11.1965, 23.3.1966 and 26.8.1966.
64. Ibid., 13.5.1965, 17.8.1966, 23.8.1966, 24.8.1966, 5.4.1967, 6.4.1967, 23.11.1967,
19.3.1968, 8.5.1968, 1.9.1981, 13.8.1982, 5.11.1982 and 12.5.1989.
65. Ibid., 7.8.1967.
66. Ibid., 30.11.1967.
67. Ibid., 2.9.1966 and 5.9.1966.
68. 1 Rpt., COR presented to the House on 10.4.1972.
69. R.S. Deb., 1.6.1972.
70. Bn. (II), 1.7.1972.
71. 1 Rpt., COR, p. 7.
72. R.S. Deb., 3.9.1991, c. 351-52.
73. Ibid., 4.9.1991, c. 185-202.
74. BAC mts., 11.5.1992.
75. R.S. Deb., 27.7.1993.
76. Ibid., 16.9.1991, c. 14-15.
77. R. 180(5); see also R.S. Deb., 26.11.2014, pp. 319-36; Bn. (II), 26.11.2014.
78. R.S. Deb., 22.4.1981, c. 199-201.
79. Ibid., 3.12.1981, c. 192-94.
80. Ibid., 15.12.1964, 23.12.1964 and 9.3.1970.
81. Bn. (I), 9.8.1971, 6.3.1973, 21.3.1973, 15.11.1974, 20.2.1975, 13.6.1977, 15.6.1977,
21.6.1977, 20.7.1977, 29.7.1977, 5.12.1977, 6.12.1977, 22.3.1978, 22.4.1978, 26.4.1978,
19.7.1978, 21.2.1979, 13.3.1979 and 2.9.1981.
82. Ibid., 12.8.1966.
83. Ibid., 17.8.1966, 23.8.1966, 27.4.1970, 29.7.1971, 19.11.1973, 25.4.1978 and 24.8.1978.
84. R.S. Deb., 19.11.1970, c. 131; 22.4.1981, c. 191-201; 15.3.1982, c. 189; 25.3.1982,
c. 175-77; 9.7.1982, c. 186-99; and 25.2.1983, c. 161.
85. Ibid., 8.11.1966, c. 315-16 and 410-34.
86. Ibid., 31.8.1981, c. 185; and 1.9.1981, c. 11-12, 175.
87. Ibid., 3.12.1981, c. 192.
88. Ibid., 5.3.1982, c. 148-49.
89. Ibid., 28.2.1983, c. 262-74.
90. Ibid., 17.8.1983, c. 170.
91. Ibid., 4.3.1986, c. 527.
92. Ibid., 25.11.1986, c. 185.
93. Ibid., 25.7.1968, c. 687-88.
94. Ibid., 15.12.1980, c. 218-19.
95. Ibid., 25.11.1981, c. 247.
634 Rajya Sabha at Work

96. R.S. Deb., 19.7.1989, c. 275-90.

97. Ibid., 24.4.1986, c. 171.
98. Ibid., 18.5.1973, c. 13.
99. Ibid., 8.3.1982, c. 209.
100. Ibid., 5.12.1985, c. 176.
101. Ibid., 21.11.1978, c. 167-73.
102. Ibid., 7.8.1985, c. 147.
103. Ibid., 3.12.1968, c. 2407-16; and 5.12.1968, c. 2843-59.
104. Ibid., 28.7.1978, c. 149-54.
105. Ibid., 25.11.1981, c. 208-56; see also R.S. Deb., 11.12.1981, c. 203-11.
106. Ibid., 23.11.1967, c. 944; and 24.11.1967, c. 1177-86.
107. Ibid., 7.8.1968, c. 2427-29; and 13.8.1968, c. 3060-98.
108. Ibid., 19.11.1970, c. 131, 192 and 210.
109. Ibid., 30.11.1970, c. 85-100.
110. Ibid., 6.8.1993, c. 271.
111. Ibid., 10.8.1993, c. 559-76; and 12.8.1993, c. 198 and 238.
112. Bn. (I), 30.8.2012.
113. Ibid., 6.9.2012.
114. R.S. Deb., 18.3.1980, c. 150-60; 19.3.1980, c. 162-206; and LoB, 19.3.1980.
115. Ibid., 23.11.1981, c. 300-08; 24.11.1981, c. 185; and LoB, 24.11.1981.
116. Ibid., 4.11.1982, c. 413-20; 5.11.1982, c. 303-06; and LoB, 5.11.1982.
117. Ibid., 21.2.1983, c. 291-93; 22.2.1983, c. 202; and LoB, 22.2.1983.
118. Ibid., 13.3.1968 and 14.3.1968.
119. Ibid., 10.5.1968 and 11.5.1968.
120. Ibid., 6.3.1969 and 7.3.1969.
121. Ibid., 5.3.1982, c. 172-74; and 8.3.1982, c. 202.
122. Ibid., 25.2.1966, c. 1395-96.
123. Ibid., 20.6.1967, c. 4889-91, 4897-4900; and 21.6.1967, c. 5127, etc.
124. Ibid., 10.3.1981, c. 184-94.
125. Ibid., 1.9.1981, c. 11-12, 175, 269-72; and 2.9.1981, c. 25, 248-396.
126. Ibid., 30.11.1967, c. 1941; and Bn. (I), 3.12.1973 (f.n.).
127. Ibid., 9.3.1978, c. 184.
128. Ibid., 6.12.1974, c. 177-79.
129. ibid., 14.12.1981, c. 176-81.
130. Ibid., 19.7.1989, c. 275-90.
131. R. 180(2).
132. Bn. (II), 20.4.1979 and 6.7.1979.
133. R.S. Deb., 3.7.1980, c. 4-5; and Bn. (II), 3.7.1980.
134. Bn. (II), 3.7.1980; see also R.S. Deb., 14.8.1971, c. 10-12.
135. BAC mts., 13.10.1982 and Bn. (II), 14.10.1982.
136. R.S. Deb., 15.10.1982, c. 177-88; 16.10.1982, c. 67-69; and 20.10.1982, c. 168-70.
137. BAC mts.,17.7.1991; See also BAC mts., 12.8.1993.
138. R.S. Deb., 14.6.1967, c. 3855.
139. Ibid., 26.7.1967, c. 587.
140. Ibid., 17.8.1967, c. 4553.
141. 2 Rpt., COR, p. 17, 22 and 26.
142. R.S. Deb., 7.4.1967, c. 2803-10; 8.4.1967, c. 2904-24; 24.11.1967, c. 1078; 7.8.1968,
c. 2427-29; 13.8.1968, c. 3060; 3.12.1968, c. 2407-16; 5.12.1968, c. 2843 etc.; 6.5.1969,
c. 1184-96; Bn. (I), 1.3.1979 (f.n.) and 2.3.1979; R.S. Deb., 4.11.1982, c. 335-67;
5.11.1982, c. 430; 18.11.1983, c. 242-69, 337-38; and 21.11.1983, c. 306-66.
143. Bn. (II), 20.4.1979.
144. Ibid., 3.7.1980.
145. R.S. Deb., 20.2.1979, c. 183-86.
146. Ibid., 21.11.1978, c. 167-69.
Calling Attention 635

147. R.S. Deb., 24.12.1980, c. 17-18.

148. Ibid., 15.9.1981, c. 256-57.
149. Ibid., 20.10.1982, c. 167.
150. Ibid., 22.2.1983; 1.3.1983; 3.3.1983; 23.3.1983; 3.5.1983; 5.5.1983; 10.5.1983; 26.7.1983;
28.7.1983; 29.7.1983; 2.8.1983; 5.8.1983; 8.8.1983; 9.8.1983; 12.8.1983 and 7.8.1983.
151. Ibid., 21.3.1983, c. 251.
152. Ibid., 15.3.1983, c. 242-92; and 18.3.1983, c. 242-71.
153. Ibid., 21.12.1983, c. 201-24.
154. Ibid., 25.11.1986, c. 268-334; and 26.11.1986, c. 164-81.
155. Ibid., 15.7.1991, c. 233.
156. Ibid., 6.3.1984, c. 190-216; and 26.4.1984, c. 132-66.
157. Ibid., 3.4.1967, c. 1927-29.
158. Ibid., 18.8.1967, c. 4838.
159. Ibid., 28.8.1970, c. 171.
160. Ibid., 3.9.1970, c. 16-18.
161. Ibid., 4.9.1970, c. 29-30.
162. Ibid., 11.11.1970, c. 110.
163. Ibid., 30.7.1971, c. 178-84 and 204-55.
164. Bn. (II), 20.4.1979.
165. Bn. (I), 1.5.1969 and 6.5.1969; 1.3.1979 and 2.3.1979; 24.4.1979 and 25.4.1979; 1.9.1981
and 2.9.1981; 4.11.1982 and 5.11.1982; 18.11.1983 and 21.11.1983; 4.11.1986 and
5.11.1986; 20.11.1987 and 24.11.1987; 27.8.1990 and 28.8.1990; 2.1.1991, 3.1.1991 and
4.1.1991; 6.8.1993, 10.8.1993 and 12.8.1993.
166. Ibid., 23.3.1978.
167. Ibid., 24.4.1979 and 25.4.1979.
168. Ibid., 24.1.1980.
169. Ibid., 6.5.1981.
170. Ibid., 1.9.1981 and 2.9.1981.
171. Ibid., 15.9.1981.
172. Ibid., 25.11.1981.
173. Ibid., 11.10.1982.
174. Ibid., 12.10.1982.
175. Ibid., 26.7.1984.
176. Ibid., 22.7.1986.
177. Ibid., 13.11.1986.
178. Ibid., 15.4.1987.
179. Ibid., 28.4.1987.
180. Ibid., 25.8.1987.
181. Ibid., 2.8.1989.
182. Ibid., 2.1.1991, 3.1.1991 and 4.1.1991.
183. Ibid., 4.12.1991.
184. Ibid., 18.12.1991.
185. Ibid., 12.5.1992.
186. Ibid., 15.3.1993.
187. Ibid., 12.5.1993.
188. Ibid., 26.7.1993.
189. Ibid., 6.8.1993,10.8.1993 and 12.8.1993.
190. Ibid., 25.8.1994.
191. Ibid., 23.8.1994.
192. Ibid., 18.3.1996.
193. Ibid., 14.5.1997.
194. Ibid., 6.8.1997.
195. Ibid., 2.5.2000.
196. Ibid., 10.5.2000.
636 Rajya Sabha at Work

197. Bn. (I), 27.2.2001.

198. Ibid., 13.3.2001.
199. Ibid., 24.8.2001.
200. Ibid., 29.8.2001.
201. Ibid., 21.11.2001.
202. Ibid., 26.2.2003.
203. Ibid., 30.7.2003.
204. Ibid., 6.8.2003.
205. Ibid., 8.12.2004.
206. Ibid., 2.8.2005 and 3.8.2005.
207. Ibid., 14.12.2009.
208. R.S. Deb., 22.7.1968, c. 101-04; and 23.7.1968, c. 310-412.
209. Ibid., 24.7.1967, c. 119, 148; 29.2.1968, c. 2539-45, 2592, etc.; 4.8.1969, c. 2226-57;
5.8.1969, 2469-549; 1.12.1969, c. 2166-68; and 27.7.1977, c. 127-30.
210. Ibid., 19.6.1967, c. 4659-63, 4740, etc.
211. Ibid., 24.11.1967, c. 1078-97.
212. Ibid., 12.12.1967, c. 3591-3718; and 13.12.1967, c. 3827-3909.
213. Ibid., 4.8.1969, c. 2226-57; 5.8.1969, c. 2469-2549 and 2553-58.
214. Ibid., 4.4.1970, c. 3-28, 202; 19.5.1970, c. 248-64; and 28.7.1970, c. 170-250.
215. Ibid., 27.7.1970, c. 131-41, 152, etc.
216. Ibid., 18.11.1985, c. 359-474.
217. LoB and revised LoB for 7.8.1990 and 8.8.1990.
218. R.S. Deb., 27.4.1970, c. 118-80; and 28.4.1970, c. 119-38.
219. Ibid., 27.7.1983, c. 214-59; and 2.1.1991, c. 761-62.
220. Ibid., 31.7.1970, c. 126.
221. Ibid., 12.8.1985, c. 242-75.
222. Bn. (I), 10.3.1965.
223. Ibid., 28.3.1966.
224. Ibid., 20.3.1967.
225. Ibid., 24.7.1967.
226. Ibid., 16.2.1968.
227. Ibid., 11.3.1968.
228. Ibid., 7.3.1969.
229. Ibid., 18.3.1969.
230. Ibid., 21.3.1969.
231. Ibid., 4.8.1969.
232. Ibid., 5.12.1972.
233. Ibid., 22.3.1975.
234. Ibid., 30.3.1977.
235. Ibid., 27.4.1981.
236. Ibid., 22.8.1983.
237. Ibid., 14.3.1984.
238. Ibid., 25.11.1985.
239. Ibid., 12.5.1986.
240. Ibid., 22.8.1968.
241. Ibid., 14.5.1965.
242. Ibid., 9.5.1969.
243. Ibid., 31.7.1970.
244. Ibid., 31.3.1971.
245. Ibid., 21.6.1977.
246. Ibid., 25.11.1981.
247. Ibid., 5.3.1982.
248. Ibid., 25.2.1966.
249. Ibid., 10.5.1968.
Calling Attention 637

250. Bn. (I), 7.8.1968.

251. Ibid., 14.3.1968.
252. Ibid., 16.12.1970.
253. Ibid., 23.11.1972.
254. Ibid., 13.3.1978.
255. Ibid., 13.3.1979.
256. Ibid., 26.3.1980.
257. Ibid., 30.7.1980.
258. Ibid., 9.3.1984.
259. Ibid., 28.9.1964.
260. Ibid., 24.11.1964.
261. Ibid., 11.3.1965.
262. Ibid., 12.3.1965.
263. Ibid., 19.11.1965.
264. Ibid., 19.5.1966.
265. Ibid., 24.8.1966.
266. Ibid., 8.6.1967.
267. Ibid., 19.6.1967.
268. Ibid., 23.11.1967.
269. Ibid., 27.2.1968.
270. Ibid., 31.3.1969.
271. Ibid., 1.5.1969 and 6.5.1969.
272. Ibid., 7.5.1969.
273. Ibid., 22.7.1969.
274. Ibid., 3.12.1969.
275. Ibid., 12.3.1970.
276. Ibid., 25.8.1970.
277. Ibid., 31.5.1971.
278. Ibid., 9.3.1976.
279. Ibid., 24.6.1977.
280. Ibid., 19.7.1978.
281. Ibid., 28.4.1975.
282. Ibid., 6.4.1977.
283. Ibid., 17.6.1977.
284. Ibid., 20.3.1978.
285. Ibid., 20.7.1978.
286. Ibid., 25.8.1983.
287. Ibid., 10.5.1994.
288. Ibid., 17.5.1995.
289. Ibid., 8.3.1996.
290. Ibid., 19.12.1996.
291. Ibid., 16.5.2002.
292. Ibid., 1.8.2002.
293. Ibid., 27.11.2002.
294. Ibid., 2.12.2002.
295. Ibid., 9.12.2002.
296. Ibid., 12.12.2002.
297. Ibid., 13.12.2002.
298. Ibid., 26.2.2003.
299. Ibid., 30.4.2003.
300. Ibid., 9.5.2003.
301. Ibid., 30.7.2003.
302. Ibid., 6.8.2003.
303. Ibid., 19.12.2003.
638 Rajya Sabha at Work

304. Bn. (I), 9.7.2004.

305. Ibid., 14.7.2004.
306. Ibid., 18.8.2004.
307. Ibid., 24.11.2009.
308. Ibid., 14.12.2009.
309. Ibid., 5.3.2010.
310. Ibid., 4.5.2010.
311. Ibid., 10.8.2010.
312. Ibid., 15.3.2010.
313. Ibid., 4.8.2010.
314. Ibid., 4.5.2012.
315. Ibid., 28.8.2012.
316. Ibid., 15.3.2013.
317. Ibid., 20.2.2014.
318. Ibid., 8.7.2014.
319. Ibid., 4.8.2014.
320. Ibid., 27.11.2014.