CHAPTER—26

General Rules of Procedure

Notices
General procedure

E very matter proposed to be raised in the House by a member, whether

is in the form of a question, resolution, motion, Bill, amendment, or
otherwise, requires notice. Every notice, required by the rules has to be
given in writing addressed to the Secretary-General and signed by the
member giving notice and has to be delivered at the Notice Office between
10.00 a.m. and 4.00 p.m.1 every day except Saturday, Sunday or a public
holiday.2 Notices left or received after 4.00 p.m. on any open day, or left
on any day when the Notice Office is closed are treated as given on the
next open day3 but subsequently modified for different classes of business
as notified in Bulletin Part-II prior to the commencement of every session.4

Notices may be delivered by members personally or through

messengers and can also be sent by post.

The Rules Committee was of the view that the notices/communications

received through Fax should be treated as authentic notices/
communications provided that they were signed and followed by written
notices.5 At the stage of adoption of the report, the House, however,
did not accept the Committee’s recommendation.6

For the convenience of members, in addition to the box kept outside

the Notice Office, another box is kept at the Rajya Sabha Reception Counter
in the main Reception Hall of the Parliament House, for enabling the
personal staff of members to deposit notices of questions, motions,
resolutions, etc. during the course of the working day. The box is opened
twice a day at 10.00 a.m. and 2.00 p.m. on all working days. The notices
deposited therein between 10.00 a.m. and 2.00 p.m. will be deemed to
have been received in the Notice Office at 2.00 p.m. on that day and the
notices deposited after 2.00 p.m. will be deemed to have been received
in the Notice Office at 10.00 a.m. on the next working day. Members are
also informed that a box is kept outside the Notice Office in the Parliament
House for depositing notices after the office hours, which will be opened
at 10.00 a.m. on the next working day and all notices deposited therein
will be deemed to have been received at 10.00 a.m.

968
General Rules of Procedure 969

Zero Hour Notices can be dropped in the box between 9.30 a.m. and
10.00 a.m. and the Box is opened at 10.00 a.m. Instead of dropping the
notices in the box, members can also send his/her staff to the Notice
Office directly to submit the notice and record the exact time of the
receipt of the notice.

In general, following procedure is applicable for receipt and onward

transmission of notices: (i) in the Notice Office, a tray is kept for the
receipt of the notices. Apart from this, notices can be delivered in the
boxes kept outside Notice Office and Reception Office, after office hours
and on closed holidays; (ii) upon receipt of notices in Notice Office, date,
time and diary number is recorded immediately on each notice and the
type of notice, name of the member and subject are entered in the Notice
Office Diary Software, after which the diary number and time of receipt
is generated by the computer; and (iii) after diarisation of notices in the
computer software, they are sent to the concerned Branches immediately7.

Standard printed forms of notices for various purposes, such as

amendments, motions, questions, calling attention, short duration discussion,
special mention, etc. are kept in the Notice Office for the use of the
members.

The time period of giving notice prescribed under the rules is generally
insisted upon and motions or resolutions falling short of the stipulated
time-frame are ordinarily not allowed to be moved. However, the rules
prescribing the period of notices also allow the Chairman to waive the
period of notices in appropriate cases and admit a particular matter with
a shorter notice or even without notice.

In calculating the period of notice in regard to questions and

resolutions, the day on which the notice has been received and the day on
which the question is to be answered or the resolution is to be moved are
excluded.

The principal notices required by the rules or under the direction of

the Chairman and the period of notices are —

(i) Question—fifteen clear days;8 (ii) half-an-hour discussion—three

days;9 (iii) private members’ resolution—intimation, two days before
the draw of lot and text of the resolution, ten days of the draw of
lot;10(iv) amendments to resolutions/motions—one day;11 (v) motions
for leave to introduce private members’ Bills—one month; 12
(vi) amendments to Bills—one day;13 (vii) special mention—5.00 p.m.
on the preceding day of the proposed mention;14 and (viii) motions
in respect of certain Bills—two days.15
970 Rajya Sabha at Work

Notices of amendments to a Bill or a resolution may be given by a

member in advance of the inclusion of the relevant item in the list of
business.16 Such amendments are circulated to members on the day
preceding the day on which the relevant item is included in the list of
business.
A member can give notices before making and subscribing an oath
or affirmation and taking seat in the House. However, he cannot perform
any other function as a member in the House like asking of a question or
moving a resolution or introducing a Bill unless he has made and subscribed
the oath or affirmation and taken his seat in the House.
Notices given earlier by a member who is suspended from the service
of the House are not included in the list of business or lists of questions,
amendments, etc. during the period of his suspension. Any notice given by
him during that period is also not accepted.
The practice of raising matters of recent and urgent public importance
by way of Zero Hour submissions has been regulated in the Rajya Sabha.
The Chairman may permit such matters to be raised which are indicated
in Bulletin Part-I as “Matters raised with permission”. After laying of papers
and other business of formal nature which is the first item of business to
be taken up at 11.00 a.m., Zero Hour submissions are made by members
subject to a maximum of fifteen (15) such matters. If the time permits,
special mentions are taken up to 12.00 noon.17 The special mention
procedure for raising matters of public importance has been strengthened
with incorporation of rules18 to that effect.
Circulation of notices
The Secretary-General makes every effort to circulate to each member
a copy of every notice or other paper which under the rules is required to
be made available to the members.19 The rules require the following papers/
notices to be circulated to members by the Secretary-General;
(i) summons of the session;20 notice of election of the Deputy Chairman;21
(iii) list of business;22 and (iv) list of amendments to Bills/resolutions.23
A notice or other paper is deemed to have been made available for the use
of every member if a copy thereof is deposited in such manner and in such
place as the Chairman may, from time to time, direct.24
Chairman’s power to amend a notice
If in the opinion of the Chairman, any notice contains words, phrases
or expressions which are argumentative, unparliamentary, ironical,
irrelevant, verbose or otherwise inappropriate, he may, in his discretion,
amend such notice before it is circulated.25
General Rules of Procedure 971

Notices of amendments which are not intelligible or which make a

clause of the Bill to which they relate or the resolution or the motion
unintelligible or with grammatical errors, are suitably edited in consultation
with the members concerned, if necessary, before circulation to members.
Lapsing of notices
On the prorogation of the House, all pending notices, other than
notices of intention to move for leave to introduce Bills, lapse and a fresh
notice must be given if a member desires to raise the matter in the next
session. However, the fresh notice is required of intention to move for
leave to introduce a Bill in respect of which sanction or recommendation
under the Constitution has been granted, if the sanction or recommendation
has ceased to be operative.26
A member had given notice of a breach of privilege against a newspaper
on 18 March 1963. The Rajya Sabha was prorogued on 20 March 1963.
The member gave a fresh notice “if no action had already been taken
on his previous notice.” Thereafter, the matter was referred to the
Committee of Privileges.27

Any business pending before a committee does not lapse by reason

only of the prorogation of the House and the committee continues to
function notwithstanding such prorogation.28

Recommendation of the President

Recommendation of the President is required for introduction in the
Rajya Sabha of the Bills which relate to the formation of new States and
alteration of areas, boundaries or names of the existing States29 and Bills
affecting taxation in which States are interested.30 Recommendation of the
President is also necessary for the consideration and passing of a Bill
involving expenditure from the Consolidated Fund of India.31
Every recommendation of the President is communicated to the
Secretary-General by the Minister concerned in writing, in the following
terms:
The President having been informed of the subject-matter of the
proposed Bill, motion, resolution or amendment accords his previous
sanction to the introduction of the Bill or the moving of the amendment
or recommends the introduction of the Bill or the moving of the
motion, resolution or amendment in the Council or recommends to
the Council the consideration of the Bill.32

Where a Bill having been passed by the Lok Sabha is transmitted to

the Rajya Sabha, the Minister concerned forwards to the Secretariat also
the necessary recommendation for consideration of the Bill as passed by
972 Rajya Sabha at Work

the Lok Sabha in the Rajya Sabha even though a similar recommendation
had been obtained and sent earlier to the Lok Sabha when the Bill was
pending there. In other words, a separate recommendation is required to
be obtained in respect of a Bill for each House.33

Rules to be observed by members

Whilst the House is sitting or while speaking in the House, members
have to observe certain rules.34 These have been described in Chapter-9
dealing with Rules of Conduct. However, amongst them the rule of
sub judice is of particular significance in parliamentary procedure and
needs, therefore, elaboration.
Discussion on sub judice matters
Members cannot refer to any matter of fact on which a judicial
decision is pending35. Subject to the provisions of the Constitution and
rules, there is freedom of speech in Parliament.36 Certain restrictions on
this freedom have, to a limited degree, been self-imposed. One such
restriction is that discussions on matters pending adjudication before courts
of law should be avoided on the floor of the House, so that courts function
uninfluenced by anything said outside the ambit of trial in dealing with
such matters. The question whether a particular matter is sub judice is
decided by the Chairman on the facts and circumstances of each case.
Under the rules, any matter which is under adjudication by a court
of law having jurisdiction in any part of India cannot be raised in the House
in any form such as questions,37 motions,38 and resolutions.39
On 25 November 1986, a member wanted to raise a question with
regard to the decision of the Court in Kerala. He said that Mr. Justice
Sukumaran of the Kerala High Court in his verdict had stated that the
Electricity Minister, Shri R. Balakrishna Pillai had violated his oath of
office and his reappointment as a Minister of State was
unconstitutional. The Chairman observed:

Now I must stop. The point is this, as I have understood the

matter. The Kerala High Court has said that this has been referred
to the Division Bench of Kerala High Court to advise them whether
it has powers under article 226 of the Constitution on the matter
raised. Therefore, it is again fully sub judice and no decision has
been taken. I am afraid, I cannot allow this discussion. I therefore
say, I rule this out.40

On 7 December 1970, a member called the attention of the Minister

of Irrigation and Power to the reported protest by the Government
of Maharashtra to the Central Government in allowing the Government
of Andhra Pradesh to raise the height of the Nagarjun Sagar Dam by
General Rules of Procedure 973

fixing crest gates. Certain questions were put by some members, to

which the Minister said that he would not be able to enter into a
discussion about the matter as it was before the tribunal. When the
member insisted on getting information from the Minister, the Deputy
Chairman observed:

The hon’ble Minister has just now stated that all the questions
that have been asked by Mr. Dharia or Mr. Raju refer to matters
which are being referred to and will be decided by the tribunal
and, therefore, the hon’ble Minister does not want to give any
information as the proceedings before the tribunal may be
prejudiced. Therefore, it would not be desirable to compel the
hon’ble Minister to give information on the facts which are before
the tribunal for consideration...41

On 22 July 2003, a member was permitted to raise the issue of

withdrawal of charges by the CBI against highly placed accused.
However, at the appointed time he rose to inquire about the motion
that he had given to raise a discussion on the topic under rule 170.
He said that notice had been given under rule 168 and the discussion
could take place under rule 170. He further stated that in the motion
he had submitted, he had mentioned that while discussing the matter
he would not like to interfere with the functioning of the judiciary
or any sub judice matter and that as per precedents which have been
followed on earlier occasions, there was scope that even if a motion
appeared partly to be sub judice, the part which was not sub judice
could be discussed. In this regard, he cited earlier instances also. The
discussion on the admissibility of the motion went on and members
also participated in the procedural aspect raised by Shri Mukherjee.
Other members also wanted to speak on the issue and as a result
there were frequent interruptions. Finally, the Chairman clarified the
rule position thus:

...the notice of motion received by me today has been given

under rule 168 of the Rules of Procedure and Conduct of Business
in the Council of States. I have examined the notice in the light
of rule 169, which gives the conditions of admissibility for such
a motion. Rule 169(viii) states, “it shall not relate to any matter
which is under adjudication by a court of law having jurisdiction
in any part of India”. The Babri Masjid demolition case which has
been mentioned in your notice is under adjudication in a court
of law. Therefore, I cannot permit admission of the motion under
rule 168.42

On 27 February 2006, a member sought to raise a sub judice matter

concerning cash for questions scam and circulation of CDs involving
a member of Rajya Sabha. However, the Chairman did not permit him
to raise the issue until prior notice was given to the concerned
member. The member, however, insisted on raising the matter. Another
974 Rajya Sabha at Work

member demanded to set up a commission of inquiry. Amidst

interruptions some members further demanded to refer the matter
to the Ethics Committee. Giving his ruling in this regard the Chairman
said:

I want to ask the hon’ble members that when a matter is sub

judice how can I refer the sub judice matter to the Ethics
Committee. I cannot refer sub judice matter to the Ethics
Committee.43

However, on one occasion the Chair allowed discussion on some

aspects of sub judice matter by defining the scope within which it should
be discussed.
On 12 December 1994, immediately after the papers were laid on the
Table, Dr. Biplab Dasgupta raised a point regarding settlement of
Babri Masjid issue. Prof. Vijay Kumar Malhotra also joined the issue
and made certain observation. At this point Syed Sibtey Razi raised
a point of order regarding the desirability of discussing a subject
which was pending in the Allahabad High Court. Responding to that
point of the order, the Deputy Chairman ruled:

“I would say that any matter which is pending before any court,
which is sub judice, we do not take up in this House. As the
Chairman Saheb has given permission to Dr. Biplab Dasgupta – I
can read out the title which says ‘Settlement of the Babri Masjid
Issue’ – we should limit ourselves to the topic. We should not go
into the details of it. To talk about a settlement of any problem
is permitted but let us not go into the details which may be
bringing us into difficulties when the matter is pending in the
court.”44

The rule of sub judice does not apply to Bills.

An objection was taken that the Muslim Women (Protection of Rights
on Divorce) Bill, 1986, could not be taken up for consideration in the
House, as some cases of maintenance were pending in courts. The
Chairman ruled:

...this is a sovereign body and it has the power to legislate on

any matter, whether it is pending in a court or not.45

A Committee of Presiding Officers appointed to consider, inter alia,

the scope of rule of sub judice has given the following guidelines which are
illustrative but not exhaustive:
1. Freedom of speech is a primary right whereas rule of sub judice is a
self-imposed restriction. So where need be, the latter must give way
to the former.
2. Rule of sub judice has no application in privilege matters.
General Rules of Procedure 975

3. Rule of sub judice does not ordinarily apply to legislation.

4. Rule of sub judice should apply in regard to proceedings before civil
and criminal courts and courts martial in any part of India and not
ordinarily to other judicial or quasi-judicial bodies such as Tribunals,
etc. which are generally fact finding bodies.
5. Rule of sub judice applies to questions, statements, motions (excluding
motions in respect of leave to introduce a Bill, take a Bill into
consideration, refer a Bill to a Select/Joint Committee, circulate a
Bill for eliciting opinion thereon, pass a Bill) resolutions and other
debates.
6. Rule of sub judice applies only in regard to the specific issues before
a court. The entire gamut of the matter is not precluded.
7. In case of linked matters, part of which is sub judice and part not
sub judice, debate can be allowed on the matters which are not
sub judice.
8. Rule of sub judice has application only during the period when the
matter is under active consideration of a court of law or courts
martial. That would mean as under:
(a) In criminal cases - From the time chargesheet is filed
till judgement is delivered.
(b) In courts martial - From the time charges are preferred
till the charges are confirmed.
(c) In civil suits - From the time issues are framed till
judgement is delivered.
(d) In writ petitions - From the time they are admitted till
orders are passed.
(e) Injunction petitions - From the time they are admitted till
orders are passed.
(f) Appeals - From the time the Appeal is admitted
till judgement is delivered.46

Participation of a member appointed as a Minister in a State in the

proceedings of the House
Where a member of either House of Parliament is appointed as a
Minister in a State, he does not incur any disqualification and continues to
be a member of that House as well as minister in the State for a period
of six months without being a member of the State legislature. On more
than one occasions in the past, points have been raised about such members
attending and participating in the proceedings of the House or voting. In
one case, a member of the Rajya Sabha who was appointed a Minister in
a State attended the House. In another case, a member of the Rajya Sabha
976 Rajya Sabha at Work

who was appointed the Chief Minister of a State was present in the House
to vote on the Constitution (Fifty-ninth Amendment) Bill, 1988. The Chairman
had on these occasions observed:
On the question of propriety of a member who has assumed office as
a Minister in a State continuing to take part in the proceedings of the
House, I would merely observe that it does seem somewhat odd that
a member functioning as a Minister in a State should be attending the
Rajya Sabha and taking part in the proceedings thereof.47

The Chairman, therefore, on the second occasion stated that he

could not direct the member concerned not to vote. The member
concerned who voted on the Bill stated, “paramountcy of the nation’s
interest is more important than my personal interest.”48

Disruption in proceedings of the House by members of Lok Sabha who are

Ministers
Every Minister has the right to speak in, and otherwise to take part
in the proceedings of, either House, any joint sitting of the Houses, and
any committee of Parliament of which he may be named a member, but
not entitled to vote.49 There has been an instance when Ministers, who
were members of Lok Sabha, disrupted the proceedings of the House.
On 19 February 2014, the Ministers belonging to the Lok Sabha were
disrupting the proceedings of Rajya Sabha. Shri Arun Jaitley, the
Leader of Opposition, Rajya Sabha raised a point of order on whether
a person who is not a member of the Rajya Sabha had the right to
disrupt the proceedings of the House, where he is participating as a
Minister. He pointed out that according to article 88 of the Constitution
of India a member of one House who is appointed as a Minister can
address the other House and answer the questions. He raised a point
as to whether a member of the Lok Sabha who is a Minister, without
having to address the proceedings can disrupt the proceedings of the
Rajya Sabha. To this the Deputy Chairman made the following
observation:

Hon. Members, according to me, the hon. Leader of the Opposition

has raised a valid point that a member of the other House, as a
Minister, can come here, speak and reply to the queries because
article 88 of the Constitution is very clear. He is not allowed or
expected to come and disturb the House. Therefore, what is
being done by the hon. Ministers is unbecoming of them. I request
them to go back to their House, or, take their seats…50

Making of allegation against a person

The Constitution confers on a member the freedom of speech in the
House and grants immunity from proceedings in any court, civil or criminal,
General Rules of Procedure 977

for anything said by him on the floor of the House.51 This constitutional
privilege is, however, subject to the other provisions of the Constitution
and the rules of the House.
One of the rules of the House provides that the conduct of persons
in high authority should not be discussed except on a substantive motion
drawn in proper terms under the Constitution.52 The Constitution provides
for discussion of the conduct of some of the authorities in the manner
indicated therein e.g., President, Vice-President, Deputy Chairman, Judges
of the Supreme Court and High Courts, Comptroller and Auditor-General of
India, Chief Election Commissioner, etc. The conduct of other high
functionaries such as Governors can be discussed on appropriate motions
drawn in a form approved by the Chairman. In fact, the House has discussed
actions of Governors in their official capacity in various forms.
The House had discussed motions (i) recommending dismissal of a
Governor of a State53 and (ii) condemning the action of a Governor
in dismissing a Government in a State.54 Both the motions were,
however, negatived.

The House has also discussed calling attention or short duration

discussion on dissolution, 55prorogation, 56suspension57 of Assemblies
by Governors.

Matters regarding role, power, functions and method of appointment

of Governors have also been discussed through calling attention and
short duration discussion.58

As regards the conduct of a Chief Minister or a Minister in a State

Government, the same may be discussed if the matters fall within the
jurisdiction of the Union Government or are under its consideration. There
have been some instances when matters pertaining to Chief Ministers/
State Ministers have been raised in the Rajya Sabha.
A short duration discussion was held regarding some disparaging
remarks made by a Minister of State Government against the Scheduled
Castes.59

A short duration discussion related to the action taken by the

Government on a memorandum submitted to the President alleging
corruption against and misuse of power by a Chief Minister.60

The report of a Commission of Inquiry on allegations made against a

Chief Minister was the subject of a motion.61

There was a calling attention on the reported unwillingness of the

Union Home Ministry to furnish to the Government of Orissa (now
Odisha) a copy of the CBI report and the Cabinet sub-Committee’s
findings thereon regarding certain allegations against a former Chief
Minister.62
978 Rajya Sabha at Work

A statement of a Chief Minister regarding undermining of the

Constitution from within was the subject of a calling attention.63

When a member raised a point of order on certain observations of

another member on the Chief Minister of a State on the ground that
the conduct of a Chief Minister could be discussed only on a substantive
motion, the Deputy Chairman, pointing out certain precedents, held
that there was no such provision of bringing a substantive motion for
discussing the conduct of a Chief Minister.64

As per rule, no allegation of a defamatory or incriminatory nature

can be made by a member against any other member or a member of the
House unless the member making the allegation has given previous
intimation to the Chairman and also to the Minister concerned so that the
Minister may be able to make an investigation into the matter for the
purpose of a reply.65 Nevertheless the Chairman may at any time prohibit
any member from making any such allegation, if he is of opinion that such
allegation is derogatory to the dignity of the House or that no public
interest is served by making such allegation.66
On 30 May 1967, a member while participating in a discussion on the
Hazari Report on Industrial Planning and Licensing Policy made certain
allegations against Dr. Ram Manohar Lohia, a member of Lok Sabha. On
5 June 1967, another member stated that the allegations against
Dr. Lohia were not substantiated, and, therefore, were baseless and,
therefore, constituted violation of the privilege of the House.
On 6 June 1967, when the Chairman asked the concerned member
to clarify his stand on the allegations made against Dr. Lohia he stuck to
them and declined to withdraw. The Chairman asked the member to meet
him and substantiate his charge. In the said meeting the concerned member
could not substantiate the allegations and admitted that he had no primary
evidence in support of his allegations. He was directed by the Chairman
to file a written statement in which he submitted: “I never said that the
money was given to Dr. Lohia in my presence. I had no intention to defame
Dr. Lohia, and there was no conspiracy by me to defame him and to
mislead the House. Shri Rajnarain in his speech described my Congress
Party and Congress Government as an orderly of the Birla empire and I had
to pay him in the same coin.”
On 19 June 1967, the Chairman gave his ruling on the matter and
said:
I want to make it clear that members, who are not in a position to
substantiate charges of the nature made in the present case, should
not make such statements. Allegations and counter-allegations of this
nature by members detract from the dignity of Parliament. As has
been well stated by May, “Good temper and moderation are the
General Rules of Procedure 979

characteristics of parliamentary language. Parliamentary language is

never more desirable than when a member is canvassing the opinions
and conduct of his opponents in debate.” I would like to add that it
would be a good rule to observe that members of one House should
not use the freedom of speech on the floor of the House to make
allegations or charges against members of the other House. As
Shri Yajee has stated that he had no intention to defame Dr. Lohia
or to mislead the House, I would like the matter to rest here. I hope
Shri Sheel Bhadra Yajee would take note of what I have stated.67

When allegations are made by a member against another member or

a Minister and the latter denies those allegations, the denial should normally
be accepted by the member who made the allegations. The Chairman may
also ask a member to substantiate allegations made and after inquiry
inform the House of the result of his findings.68
Normally, when a member makes an allegation without giving advance
notice thereof, the rule on the subject is invoked and the member is
called to order. In many cases, these allegations find a place in the
proceedings and if they go unchallenged they might affect the honour and
dignity of the member concerned. Therefore, where any such allegations
have gone on record, the Minister or member against whom allegations
have been made, is allowed to make a statement in the House clarifying
the position either on the same day or latter on and that brings the matter
to an end.69
As regards allegations against an outsider on the floor of the House,
the practice and convention is not to bring in the name of any person who
cannot defend himself on the floor of the House.70 If, however, such an
allegation becomes the subject-matter of a case for investigation by police
or any other investigating authority, the police or the investigating authority
cannot approach the member and call upon him to divulge the source of
his information or give up evidence in his possession which may assist the
police or the investigating authority in their investigation. The Committee
of Privileges has laid down the course of action which should be followed
in such cases, as has been explained in Chapter-8 relating to Privileges.

Personal explanation
A member or a Minister may, with the permission of the Chairman,
make a personal explanation although there is no question before the
House, but in this case no debatable matter may be brought forward and
no debate should arise.71
A member made a statement regarding an incident in Burdwan to
which a reference had been made by another member in the House
a few days back. A point of order was raised as to whether the
980 Rajya Sabha at Work

member could be permitted to make a statement with reference to

a matter which did not personally concern him but which only related
to a political party. The Chairman referring to the then rule 203
(corresponding to the present rule 241) ruled that the member had
not taken the Chairman’s prior permission to raise the point on the
floor of the House and, therefore, his making the statement in question
was not in order. He was trying to give the version of a party of the
incident to show that the criticism levelled against that party was
not justified. This introduced debatable matter which also was not
permissible under the rules. The Chairman further observed:

It is true that in regard to the explanation of a personal nature,

the House is usually indulgent and it permits a statement of that
character to be made, provided that leave has been previously
obtained from the Chair but general arguments and observations
beyond the fair bounds of personal explanation are out of order.
The indulgence of personal explanation should be granted with
caution so that no debatable matter may be brought forward and
no debate shall arise.72

On an occasion, a member was given permission to make a personal

explanation with reference to certain observations made by the Deputy
Prime Minister and Minister of Finance concerning him, in the course
of the intervention in the debate on Birla Affairs on 5 March 1969.
The member was informed in writing that his personal explanation
should only refer briefly to the budget proposals and not other matter.
However, after the member had made the personal explanation, the
next day, the Chairman made the following observations when he
found that the member had exceeded the permission given to him
and had referred to matters not relevant to personal explanation:

This is clearly against procedure and well-established conventions.

I would like to say that if members who seek my indulgence in
matters like this misuse it, I will have to seriously consider whether
hereafter I shall not have to insist that the member who seeks
this privilege should put down the statement of personal
explanation in writing in advance and show it to me before the
statement is made.73

On another occasion, when a Minister made a personal explanation

apologising for some mistaken statement she had made earlier in the
House, but bringing in some other matters and names of various
leaders, a member raised a point of order under rule 241. The
Chairman stated that he would go through the speech and if anything
came within the terms of the debatable matter, he would expunge
it.74

If the permission is granted, the member concerned makes a statement

and no further questions or clarifications thereon are permitted, the
General Rules of Procedure 981

intention being that the personal explanation should not be converted into
a debate. As has been observed, “These statements are made by the
indulgence of the House, and not of right, since there is no question
before the House at the time, and no debate can take place”75
When a member wanted to put some questions by way of seeking
clarifications on a personal explanation made by a Minister, the
Chairman observed, “You cannot discuss it here.....on personal
explanations, no questions are put.”76

After a member made a personal explanation, many members wanted

to raise points of order and a discussion on the matter. The Deputy
Chairman observed that no discussion was permissible thereon. If
members wanted to discuss any issue, they should follow appropriate
procedure for the purpose. Both the versions of the Minister and of
the member had appeared in the proceedings and the matter ended
there.77

The scope of a personal explanation has already been described in

Chapter-15 dealing with the arrangement of business. In this connection,
the following observations may also be germane:
When a member makes a personal statement, the House assumes
that he does so with complete integrity. As Mr. Harold Wilson put it,
in the course of debate on the Profumo case on 17 June 1963, “this
House allows freedom of personal statement without question or
debate on the premise that what is said is said in good faith.”78

Some of the personal explanations permitted to be made in the

Rajya Sabha may also be mentioned.
(a) To clarify misleading press reports
A member was permitted to clarify certain misleading press reports
about his statement in the House.79
A member made personal explanation on press report about him on
the Cauvery issue.80
A member made personal explanation as his speech in the Rajya
Sabha regarding the Indian Express Building case had been selectively
reported and some parts wherein he had paid tributes to the Judge
concerned were omitted in the press and so in order to correct the
“regrettable impression” and to set the record straight. When another
member said something thereon, the Chairman directed it not to be recorded
and observed, “Nobody can make any comment on personal explanation.”81
(b) To refute remarks attributed to a member
A member made a personal explanation to deny a statement alleged
to have been made by him in the Central Hall as attributed to him.82
982 Rajya Sabha at Work

(c) To clarify regarding arrest

A member made a personal explanation regarding her arrest and the

circumstances in which she was transferred to the Tihar Jail, Delhi and
brought to Parliament House to attend the session of the Rajya Sabha.83

(d) To explain the position

A member made a personal explanation to clarify the position

regarding raid on his house, etc. Another member raised a point of order
that the personal explanation was not connected with the business of the
House. The Deputy Chairman clarified that the member was permitted
because his image as a member of the House was spoiled.84

Five members of the Rajya Sabha were permitted to offer personal

explanations arising out of newspaper reports that their names figured in
the charge-sheet in the Ram Swaroop espionage case.85

(e) To refute allegations

Prime Minister, Shrimati Indira Gandhi, laid on the Table a statement

refuting an allegation made by a member regarding her telephone charges
of a particular month.86

On an occasion, the Chairman made the following announcement in

the House:

During the discussion on the calling attention notice on the takeover

bids of Indian companies by certain non-residents of Indian origin,
one hon’ble member mentioned, inter alia, that the money invested
was ‘‘the Prime Minister’s money, political money and money not
earned honestly. Unfortunately this comment went on record in the
absence from the House of the Prime Minister and there was no
chance to refute it. I have since been told that the allegation made
is totally baseless. As the allegation has gone on record, I consider
it fair that the refutation should also be on record.87

(f) Explanation and counter-explanation

The general practice is that when a personal explanation is made by

a member, another member who originally made the observations is not
allowed to make a counter-explanation. The matter is treated as closed
with the statements of both the members being on record.

However, a member made a personal explanation regarding a matter

concerning him mentioned by another member in the House. The
next day, the latter member made a personal explanation in respect
of matter mentioned about him by the former.88
General Rules of Procedure 983

A Minister made a personal explanation regarding certain allegations

made against him in his earlier capacity as a Minister of another
Ministry, by a member. After three days the member made a statement
with the permission of the Chairman, denying the allegations made
by the Minister.

When several members rose, the Chairman observed, “There is a rule

that after the statement has been made, there shall be no other
personal statement. But if a ‘statement of fact’ is made therein by
a Minister or anybody, ‘that can be contradicted.’ Hence, it was
permitted.”89

(g) To clarify a statement

A member was permitted to make a personal explanation to clarify
that during a supplementary question he had referred to a cartoon appearing
in a newspaper out of misunderstanding. He requested that his
supplementary be expunged from the proceedings of the House. The
Chairman ruled that the statement of the member would go on record.90
A member stated that while speaking on the motion regarding report
of the Commission of Inquiry on Dalmia-Jain Companies, he had stated
that fifteen lakhs was collected for election. He was allowed to correct it
to several lakhs. He also stated that he was placing a paper on the Table,
in support of his statement.91
(h) Ministers making personal explanations
There is no bar for a Minister who is a member of the other House
to make a personal explanation to refute allegations or observations made
against him by members in the House. On a number of occasions such
statements have been made.92
A Minister of State or Deputy Minister was permitted to make a personal
explanation regarding the so-called dispute between her and her Cabinet
Minister. Some members raised a point of order that since the Minister
concerned was not a member of the House, she could not make a
personal explanation. The Deputy Chairman ruled out the point of
order holding that had the concerned Minister been only a member of
the other House, the Chair would not have allowed any allegations
against her. It was allowed because she came to the House as a
Minister... was answerable to the questions of members of both the
Houses. Secondly, the Chairman in his right had permitted her to make
a personal explanation and so she was in the House.93

Order of speeches and the right of reply

After the member who moves a motion has spoken, other members
may speak on the motion in such order as the Chairman may call them.
984 Rajya Sabha at Work

If any member who is so called does not speak, he is not entitled, except
with the permission of the Chairman, to speak on the motion at any later
stage of the debate.94
Except in the exercise of a right of reply or as otherwise provided
by these rules, no member can speak more than once on any motion,
except with the permission of the Chairman.95 A member who has moved
a motion may speak again by way of reply, and if the motion is moved by
a private member, the Minister concerned may, with the permission of the
Chairman, speak (whether he has previously spoken in the debate or not)
after the mover has replied.96 The right to reply, however, does not extend
to the mover of an amendment to a Bill or a resolution save with the
permission of the Chairman.97
Closure
At any time after a motion has been made, any member may move,
“That the question be now put,” and unless it appears to the Chairman
that the motion is an abuse of the rules or an infringement of the right
of reasonable debate, the Chairman puts the motion, “That the question
be now put.”98 If the motion is carried, the question or questions consequent
thereon are put forthwith without further debate, subject to the right of
reply which may be allowed by the Chairman to a member.99 If the closure
is not carried, the debate on the motion is resumed at the point where
it was interrupted.100
The Criminal Law Amendment Bill, 1952, was discussed at length. A
member moved with the permission of the Chair for the closure of the
debate. Another member supported the motion. The Deputy Chairman
declared that there had been a reasonable debate and he put the
question: ‘‘That the question be now put.’’ The motion was adopted.
Thereafter, the Minister concerned replied to the debate (though the
reply itself was spilled over to the next day).101

The motion to refer the Hindu Marriage and Divorce Bill, 1952 to a
Joint Committee was discussed for nearly ten hours. A member moved,
“That the question be now put.” Before putting the question, the
Chairman observed that almost all the points of view had been set
forth. He put the question. It was adopted after taking a count of
members supporting the motion. Thereafter, the Minister replied.102

A private member’s resolution regarding enlistment of public cooperation

in the Second Five Year Plan was being discussed. At 5 minutes to
5.00 p.m., a member moved, “That the question be now put.” The
motion was adopted. The mover gave a reply. The resolution was
thereafter withdrawn by leave of the House.103

In regard to a private member’s resolution regarding constituting a

permanent Board for Youth, a member moved, “That the question be
now put.” The motion was negatived. The discussion proceeded.104
General Rules of Procedure 985

Limitation of debate
Whenever the debate on any motion in connection with a Bill or any
other motion becomes unduly protracted, the Chairman may, after taking
the sense of the House, fix the hour at which the debate is to conclude.105
At the appointed hour, in accordance with the time-limit fixed for
discussion and passing of a particular Bill or motion, unless the debate is
concluded sooner, the Chairman proceeds forthwith to put all such questions
as may be necessary to determine the decision of the House on the original
question.106
The Special Marriage Bill, 1952 was discussed for three days. On 4 May
1954, the Deputy Chairman wanted to close the debate on the Bill
under the rule 207 existing then (corresponding to the present
rule 245). He took the sense of the House and when he saw that very
large number of members wanted the debate to continue, the debate
was continued.107

Question for decision

A matter requiring the decision of the House is decided by means of
a question put by the Chairman on a motion made by a member. 108 After
the motion has been moved, the Chairman formally proposes or places the
motion for the consideration of the House. At the end of the debate on the
motion, he puts the motion for the decision of the House thus: “That the
question is: ‘....’ (Here the Chairman repeats the motion as moved by the
member). Those in favour will say ‘Aye’; those against will say ‘No’. “ If
a motion embodies two or more separate propositions, those may be
proposed by the Chairman, as separate questions.109
No debate on a motion can take place until the question has been
proposed by the Chairman and the House is in possession of the motion and
the question is proposed at the conclusion of the speech of the mover.
On an occasion, a Minister moved a motion for extension of time for
presentation of a report of the Joint Committee on a Bill. Immediately,
thereafter speeches were made by some members and the Prime
Minister on the motion. The Chairman observed:

All the speeches hitherto made are completely irrelevant because

I have not put the question to the House.110

Generally, no question can be put for the decision of the House

without debate unless there is agreement in the House or where it is
specifically provided in the rules.
On several occasions, the House has passed Bills without discussion on
the recommendation of the Business Advisory Committee or consensus
in the House.
986 Rajya Sabha at Work

When a member is suspended by motion being made to that effect, no

debate is permitted on such a motion.111

No member is permitted to speak on a question after the Chairman

has collected the voices both of the Ayes and of the Noes on that question.112

Laying of papers on the Table

Laying of papers by Ministers
Papers are laid on the Table of the House either in compliance with
specific provision in the Constitution, statutes of Parliament, rules of
procedure or practices and conventions in regard thereto. Chapter-15
relating to Arrangement of Business has listed a variety of papers which
are presented to Parliament.
If a Minister quotes in the House a despatch or other State Paper
which has not been presented to the House, he is required to lay the
relevant paper on the Table.113 The rule, however, does not apply to
documents which are stated by the Minister to be of such a nature that
their production would be inconsistent with public interest.114
During his speech on a motion for modification of IAS (Recruitment)
Rules, 1954, Dr. K. N. Katju, Minister of Home Affairs and States, read
from a private letter written by Sardar Vallabhbhai Patel, having a
bearing on the matter under discussion. On a point of order, a member
demanded that the paper should be laid on the Table of the House.
The Minister stated that it would not be in the public interest to lay
any private letter on the Table of the House. The Deputy Chairman
ruled that even though it was a private letter, inasmuch as it dealt
with a matter of State and the Minister had declared that it would not
be in the interest of public to lay it on the Table, the 1st proviso to
rule 211 (old) would apply to the document and therefore it need not
be placed on the Table.115

The Minister of State in the Ministry of Finance, in reply to a question,

quoted from a Report of the Company Law Board. A demand was made
that the Report should be laid on the Table of the House under
rule 249. The Chairman directed the Minister to lay the Report. The
Minister laid it later.116

During the discussion on a calling attention regarding security lapse at

Rajghat, the Minister concerned had quoted a comment made by the
Indian Consul-General at Karachi, in a cable received in the Ministry
of External Affairs. There was a demand that the cable should be
placed on the Table of the House. The Minister concerned contended
that it would not be in the public interest to do so. In order to
ascertain the position, the Chairman called for a copy of the cable and
on perusal ruled that since the cable contained other materials besides
General Rules of Procedure 987

the comment of the Consul-General, which it would not be in the

public interest to disclose, the proviso to rule 249, which protected
such papers when quoted from being laid on the Table, applied in this
case and upheld the Minister’s contention.117

On 19 September 1963, in reply to a question regarding enquiry into

the charges levelled against a Chief Minister, the Prime Minister,
Shri Jawaharlal Nehru, had referred to a report of a sub-Committee
(of the Congress Party) to which the charges were referred (by the
Congress President). There was a demand made by some members
that the report should be placed on the Table of the House. The Prime
Minister stated that the report was not under his custody. Next day,
the demand was repeated. The Prime Minister left the matter to be
decided by the Chairman, especially when the report had already been
published in newspapers and he had no objection to show it to the
members. The Chairman ruled that he would not ask the Prime Minister
to lay it on the Table as it would be a bad precedent and the report
had already been published and was a public document. It was, he
held, neither a despatch nor a State Paper in terms of (old) rule 211.
The Prime Minister thereafter clarified that he was not putting any
obstruction in the way of placing the paper. The Chairman then stated
that he took into consideration the Prime Minister’s readiness to place
the paper but he was not asking the Prime Minister to lay it as he did
not wish to create a precedent.118

During the course of supplementaries on a starred question regarding

Lt. Gen. Kaul’s book, The Untold Story, a member wanted to know
whether the Minister of Defence to whom the question was addressed
was prepared to place on the Table of the House the report by
Gen. Henderson on the debacle in NEFA. The Minister stated that it
would not be in the public interest to publish the report. Another
member raised a point of order that if the Minister was seeking the
protection of the Chair to withhold the report from the House, then
he (the Minister) would have to seek the Chairman’s permission not to
lay the report on the Table. The Chairman observed, “....the
Government is entitled to plead that it is not in the public interest to
put the documents on the Table of the House even without my
permission but in that case in order to have the smooth working of the
House the Government should do so in consultation with the Chair.”119

Where a Minister gives in his own words a summary or gist of such

despatch or State Paper it is not necessary to lay the relevant papers on
the Table.120
While replying to a calling attention, the Minister had quoted
2-3 letters. A member raised a point of order to demand laying of
those letters on the Table. The Deputy Chairman ruled, with reference
to the proviso to rule 249, that whatever the Minister had said was
there in the main statement of the Minister also and, therefore, it was
not necessary to lay the papers.121
988 Rajya Sabha at Work

Laying of correspondence between Ministers

During the July-August 1978 session of the Rajya Sabha a demand
was raised time and again for laying on the Table of the House some
correspondence which had taken place between the Prime Minister,
Shri Morarji Desai and the then Home Minister, Chaudhary Charan Singh
regarding allegations of corruption against the family members of each
other. On 19 July 1978, speaking on the calling attention on the subject,
the Prime Minister, inter alia, observed that it was a well recognised
principle that communications between Ministers were privileged
communications. It was necessary for a free and frank exchange of views
between the Ministers and had been recognised in May’s Parliamentary
Practice also. The Prime Minister added that he proposed to adhere to this
principle in the transaction of Government business.122
Following continued demands for laying the documents on the Table
and noisy exchanges leading to early adjournments of the House on some
days, the Chairman made the following announcement:
Members may recall that I had informed the House on 24-7-1978 that
I would try to find out some solution to the matter raised in the House
with regard to the tabling of the correspondence that took place
between the Prime Minister and former Home Minister, Chaudhary
Charan Singh. As you are aware, I had already discussed the matter
with the Leader of the House, Leader of the Opposition as well as
Leaders of the other parties and groups in the House. I, therefore,
know the strong feelings of the Opposition parties on this issue.
Subsequent to my commitment to the House on the 24th I contacted
the Leader of the House and discussed thoroughly the matter with
him.

I have advised the Government that it would be better if the

Government place this correspondence in the Chairman’s Chamber for
perusal by the Leader of the Opposition and Leaders and some members
of other parties and groups in the House who attended our meetings.
The modality and procedure for the perusal of the said correspondence
would be the same as was adopted in the matter of the Import Licence
case in December 1974. The Government have agreed to my suggestion.
I hope this will satisfy all the members of the House.123

However, the matter continued to be raised in the House, first to

demand that the correspondence be laid on the Table and then to press for
admission of a no-day-yet named motion on the subject.124 On 3 August
1978, the Chairman gave the following ruling so far as the placing of the
correspondence on the Table of the House was concerned:
Two points were raised in the House. The first dealt with notices of
motions given by some members regarding tabling of the correspondence
General Rules of Procedure 989

between the Prime Minister and the former Home Minister, Chaudhary
Charan Singh. Members are aware that this issue has been raised
practically every day in the House since the session commenced on the
17th of the last month. On July 27, 1978, I announced my decision that
leaders of the various parties, groups and some other members of the
Rajya Sabha may peruse the said correspondence in the Chairman’s
Room. I made this announcement after consulting all the leaders who
attended our meetings; and after I made the announcement in the
matter, the House accepted it and nobody opposed it. In view of this,
I am of the opinion that the demand made in the said motions given
notice of by these members regarding tabling of the said correspondence
does not arise.125

Laying of CBI Report on Pondicherry Licence Case

A reference has been made to the Import Licence case earlier. It is
a landmark precedent in the procedural history of the Indian Parliament
and subsequently, whenever similar or near similar occasions have arisen,
a reference has always been made to the procedure adopted in this case.
It may, therefore, be mentioned in more detail.126
The genesis of this case can be traced to a supplementary question
asked on 13 August 1974 to the Starred Question (SQ) no. 380, when a
member referred to certain Members of Parliament saying that their
signatures had been forged on a letter recommending licences to certain
firms in Yanam and Mahe in the Union territory of Pondicherry.127 It was
followed up by a question (SQ no. 730) based on a press report, on
27 August 1974. In reply to the question the Minister of Commerce gave
the names of members involved and the firms to which licences were
issued. The Deputy Chairman directed the Minister to verify the signatures
of members. The same evening the Minister made a statement saying that
eighteen members had told him that their signatures were forged.128 On
11 September 1974, the House discussed a motion seeking to appoint a
Parliamentary Committee to investigate all matters arising out of the
question of 27 August 1974. The motion was negatived by a division.129 The
members, however, continued to pursue the matter.
When, on 4 December 1974, some members of the opposition wanted
the Government to lay on the Table the CBI report in the matter, the
Minister of State in the Ministry of Home Affairs did not agree to it on the
ground that the CBI report was a confidential and a sensitive document,
that it was contrary to known practice not to lay it on the Table and that
it would be injurious to the public interest to do so. He also quoted in his
support the Chairman, Dr. Zakir Husain’s ruling which inter alia stated, “...
I have also consulted the Government in the matter. The Government do
not propose to lay the CBI report and the findings of the Cabinet
Sub-Committee on the Table of the House as they are of the view that
990 Rajya Sabha at Work

these are secret and confidential documents and as such privileged. In

these circumstances, I will not be able to insist upon the laying of these
documents by Government on the Table of the House.” The Deputy Chairman
observed: “I abide by Dr. Zakir Husain’s ruling and I cannot go beyond
that.”130
To resolve the protracted issue the Deputy Chairman suggested that
“conscious of the fact there shall not be a precedent nor shall we transgress
any ruling that is given in this House, Government should consider the
possibility of calling all the leaders of all the opposition groups and also
the Minister of Parliamentary Affairs, etc. and the CBI report could be
given to the Chairman and all these leaders could go through it on oath
of secrecy so that nothing was divulged to the press.”131
On 9 December 1974, the Prime Minister, Shrimati Indira Gandhi
made a statement in the House explaining the reasons for not laying the
CBI report on the Table but stated that “in view of the entirely unjustified
propaganda being carried on... and to accommodate the sentiments of the
Opposition, while maintaining legal rectitude, Government is willing to
accept the suggestion that the leaders of the Opposition might see, in
confidence and under oath of secrecy, the CBI report, statements made by
witnesses and documents seized during the investigation, the report of the
handwriting expert and even the case diaries which are not even shown
to the accused.”132
On 10 December 1974, the Chairman stated that he would consult
the different political parties and fix up the date of meeting for the
purpose. The significance of the decision of the House was reflected in the
Chairman’s observations: “Really I must say that the credit should go to
this House. We have done very well and it will be in the best atmosphere.”133
Laying of correspondence between the President and the Prime Minister
A demand was made in the House for a discussion on a letter purported
to have been written by the President to the Prime Minister, on the basis
of the text of the letter which appeared in a newspaper. The Chairman did
not permit the discussion and gave a detailed ruling on the subject. He,
inter alia, observed that it was of utmost importance that the confidentiality
of communications between the President and the Prime Minister was
maintained in the larger interest of democracy and the nation.134
Laying of State correspondence
During the interpellations on a question regarding incidents of violence
in Gujarat, the concerned Minister had stated that he had written to the
Chief Minister of Gujarat and the Chief Minister had replied. A member
wanted to know whether the Minister would lay that reply on the Table.
General Rules of Procedure 991

The Minister of Home Affairs stated that he did not see any need to do
so. The Chairman stated that the correspondence could not be placed on
the Table.135

Placing a report in the Parliament Library as good as laying it on the Table

of the House

On 16 March 1981, a member made a reference to the direction

given by the Vice-Chairman on 11 March 1981 that the Puri Committee
Report on gold auctions be placed not only in the Library but also on the
Table of both the Houses. The Minister of Finance, Shri R. Venkataraman,
explained that since certain unauthorised versions of the report had started
leaking out, the report was immediately placed in the Library as it would
take time to prepare a large number of copies to be laid on the Table.

When the Deputy Chairman remarked that for all practical purposes
it was sufficient to do so, the member demanded that the report be
placed on the Table of the House so that the same could be discussed.
Thereupon, the Deputy Chairman observed, “Once the report has been
placed in the Library, the members have an access to that. It is as good
as laying it on the Table of the House.”

Another member pointed out that there was a qualitative difference

between placing it on the Table of the House and placing it in the Library.
He said there was authenticity in placing the report on the Table of the
House because somebody could be held responsible for the same. After
persistent demand from the members, the Minister of Finance stated that
he would obey the directive from the Chair. There were continued
interruptions and the Deputy Chairman assured the House that when the
Minister will be ready with sufficient number of copies of the report, he
would place it on the Table.136

Competence to lay a paper on the Table

It is for the Government to decide whether a report or a paper

should be placed on the Table. The Chairman has declined to give any
direction to the Government whenever a request has been made by members
for laying of such a report or a paper.

When a Minister was moving a motion for reference of a Bill to a

Select Committee, a point of order was raised that the report of the
expert committee which was referred to in the Statement of Objects
and Reasons appended to the Bill should be laid on the Table of the
House. The Deputy Chairman overruled the point stating that he could
not compel the Government to lay the report.137
992 Rajya Sabha at Work

The House was to discuss the Thakkar Commission Report which was
laid on the Table on 27 March 1989. The issue was whether the interim
and final reports which were laid were the complete report or whether
any portions thereof were withheld by the Government. The opposition
members chose not to participate in the discussion, following the
Government’s refusal to place other papers connected with the report
on the Table of the House. The Chairman ruled, inter alia, that in view
of the Attorney-General’s opinion tendered to the Government, as
conveyed to him, he was not in a position to issue any direction to the
Government in the matter.138

The interim report on the treatment of Shri Jayaprakash Narayan was

not laid by the Minister of Health even though it was listed for laying,
in the list of business. The Minister made a statement explaining the
reasons for not laying the report on the Table.139

The Deputy Minister of Railways and Transport sought to lay on the

Table a copy of a Notification under the Delhi Road Transport Authority
Act, 1950 which had not been formally brought into force. The Leader
of the House, before a member rose on a point of order, suo motu
raised a point that the notification could not be laid on the Table in
view of the decision of the House on the previous day that a fresh
legislation was necessary for validating the actions taken under that
Act. The notification was, therefore, not laid.140

While answering supplementaries to a starred question on exodus of

minorities from East Pakistan, the concerned Minister stated that after
the report of a Committee appointed by Government was received, it
would consider whether the report could be placed on the Table of the
House. A member contended that the question whether the report
should be placed on the Table of the House or not could not be left
to the sweet will of the Government but it was for the Chairman to
decide on it. The Leader of the House (Shri M. C. Chagla) explained
that the constitutional position was that if Parliament appointed a
Committee, its report should be placed on the Table; but if the
Government appointed a Committee, it was not incumbent upon the
Government to lay the report of the Committee on the Table. The
Government would have to study, after receiving the report, whether
there was anything in it which might affect the security of the country
or its international relations and then decide whether it could be
placed on the Table or not. The Chairman agreed with the Leader of
the House.141

When the Report of the Commission on the Maharashtra-Mysore-Kerala

Boundary Dispute was being laid on the Table of the House, points
were raised that the report could not be laid on the Table because the
report was not being presented either in pursuance of any decision of
the House or as a result of any committee having been appointed by
the House. The report, it was contented, was thus extraneous document.
General Rules of Procedure 993

Another contention raised was that the report was time-barred and
should not be laid on the Table. The Deputy Chairman referred to
rules 249 and 250, which were cited by the member in support of his
first contention and stated that rule 249 related to documents which
were referred to by a Minister while speaking in the House; rule 250
related to all documents which were laid on the Table of the House
under any rule or procedure or precedent. All documents once laid on
the Table became public documents. They were then available to
members; could be published in the press and utilised in whatever
manner by the public. The general practice in the House was that
documents or reports were normally placed on the Table of the House
by Ministers. The practice had been that if the Government wanted to
place any document on the Table of the House, it could do so and had
been doing so, with the permission of the Chairman. As regards the
time-limit, there was no time-limit prescribed for laying documents on
the Table of the House. The report had not, therefore, become time-
barred.142

Laying of a paper by the Secretary-General

It has already been mentioned in an earlier Chapter that the Secretary-

General also lays some papers from time to time such as President’s Address,
Bills assented to by the President, etc.143

On an occasion, the Chairman made the following announcement:

I received from the Prime Minister a letter and a note in regard to

certain allegations made against Shri M.O. Mathai, former Special
Assistant to the Prime Minister. The comments of the Finance Minister
and the Comptroller and Auditor-General on the Cabinet Secretary’s
report were also sent to me. I am asking Secretary to lay a copy each
of the documents on the Table of the House.

Thereafter, the Secretary laid the following papers on the Table:

(1) Letter dated 6 May 1959, from the Prime Minister to the
Chairman in regard to certain allegations made against
Shri M.O. Mathai, former Special Assistant to the Prime Minister.

(2) The Prime Minister’s note in regard to those allegations.

(3) Comments of the Finance Minister and the Comptroller and

Auditor-General on the Cabinet Secretary’s report in respect
of the allegations.

The Chairman announced that the papers would be circulated to

members before the House adjourned for lunch that day.144
994 Rajya Sabha at Work

Authentication of a paper to be laid

A paper or a document which is laid on the Table is duly authenticated
by the Minister or member concerned. The authentication is done on the
front page of the paper in accordance with standing instructions issued to
Ministers. In the case of a paper or a document which is to be laid by a
Minister, an entry is made in the list of business. There is no right to a
private member to lay a paper on the Table unless he is permitted to do
so by the Chair. Authentication by a member is required only when he has
been allowed to lay a paper.
Authenticated copies of all papers or documents to be laid on a
particular day are kept at the Table before the commencement of the
sitting and sent to the Parliament Library later.
Procedure for laying
Papers are required to be laid on the Table by Minister both in
English and Hindi versions. Where a paper is permitted to be laid by the
Chairman in one version only, the Minister has also to lay on the Table a
statement giving reasons for not laying simultaneously the other version of
the document.
When a Minister wants to lay on the Table any paper or document,
the Ministry concerned forwards to the Secretariat copies each of Hindi
and English versions of the paper complete in all respects, including one
copy each thereof duly authenticated by the Minister concerned, at least
two days before the date on which the Minister proposes to lay it on the
Table. In special circumstances the Chairman may, on request, permit a
Minister to lay a paper at a shorter notice. If the Minister in whose name
an item stands on the list of business is not present, the paper can be laid
on the Table by another Minister with prior intimation to the Chairman.
While forwarding a paper to the Secretariat, the Minister concerned
is required to indicate the relevant statute under which the paper is being
laid and the date on which it is proposed to be laid. Papers received from
the Ministries are examined in the Secretariat to see whether they conform
to the statutory requirements, if any. If it is found that there has been a
delay in laying a paper, the Minister concerned is required to lay on the
Table a statement, both in Hindi and English, explaining reasons for the
delay along with the paper. The statement is also required to be duly
authenticated by the Minister concerned.
If the Minister has indicated a particular date on which he wishes to
lay a paper on the Table, an entry is made in the list of business for that
date. In case no date is mentioned, the entry is normally made in the
General Rules of Procedure 995

list of business for the next day allotted to the Minister for answering
questions in the House. The entry is made in the name of the Minister who
has authenticated the paper. The paper is identified by the number and
or title assigned to it and the list of business mentions the same or the
subject briefly.
Laying a paper on the Table does not imply that the Minister is
required to literally place the listed paper on the Table or hand it over
thereat. The procedure is that the paper duly authenticated has already
been deposited with the Secretariat; it is available at the Table when the
Minister formally states that he lays the paper on the Table as indicated
in the list of business and that such a paper may be made available for
reference or perusal to the members on request after the Minister has laid
the paper fomally on the Table.
After concluding his speech on a private member’s resolution, a member
walked up to the Table of the House and tried to lay on the Table
some document. When another member inquired from the Chair whether
the paper was being laid on the Table, the Vice-Chairman observed:
“Anything handed over here is not automatically laid on the Table of
the House.”145

On another occasion a member wanted to lay on the Table certain

newspaper items so that they form part of the record. The Deputy
Chairman asked the member to take them back observing, “If I have
to take papers like this, there should be a separate storage for them.
This is not the way of laying papers on the Table.”146

Laying of a paper preceded by a statement

While presenting the report of the Planning Commission on the Second
Five Year Plan, the Prime Minister, Shri Jawaharlal Nehru, made a long
speech. Towards the end, the Chairman observed that in presenting
the report it was not necessary for the Prime Minister to have made
a long speech. But by doing so, he had honoured the House and given
it an advantage.147

Similarly, the Prime Minister, Shri Jawaharlal Nehru, made a statement

on the report of the Netaji Enquiry Committee and laid a copy of the
report on the Table, thereafter.148

Constitutionality of a paper being laid

The Chair does not pronounce on the constitutionality of a paper
that is being laid on the Table.
When the Minister of State in the Ministry of Finance was about to lay
on the Table a copy of the Ministry’s Notification containing the
President’s Order in regard to authorisation of certain expenditure out
996 Rajya Sabha at Work

of the Consolidated Fund of the Union territory of Pondicherry, a

member contended that it was unconstitutional. The Chairman ruled:
The Chair does not pronounce on the constitutional validity of
documents. Moreover, in this case the constitutional validity of
this document is sub judice. Laying any document on the Table
merely means that information is being given to the members
about its contents. Moreover, the document has been referred to
in the Bill and it will be a matter which may be referred in the
debate. It has already been laid in the Lok Sabha and has become
a public document. I hold that this document will be laid on the
Table of the House.149

The Committee on Papers Laid on the Table is entrusted with the

work of examining the papers laid on the Table in accordance with the
rules. The Committee on Subordinate Legislation scrutinises ‘orders’ (i.e.,
rules, regulations, etc.) from various aspects as per the rules.
Papers laid on the Table considered public
All papers and documents laid on the Table are considered public150
and they become part of the permanent record of the House. The papers
are placed in the Parliament Library and find a mention in the printed
proceedings of the House together with the Library Index number given to
them.
Circulation of a paper laid
Copies of papers laid on the Table are circulated to members if the
Minister so desires or there is a general demand in the House. Papers on
which discussion takes place in the House like the Budget documents,
reports of UPSC, UGC, SC/ST Commissioner, etc. are invariably circulated
to members.
On an occasion, the Prime Minister, Shri Jawaharlal Nehru explained
that it was not possible for Government to place on the Table papers
connected with the enquiry into LIC affairs immediately and yet
Government did not want to delay their publication till the next session.
He, therefore, sought the advice of the Chairman whether it would be
possible for Government to send the papers to members instead of
waiting for the next session and then place them on the Table of the
House. After some discussion the Chairman observed, “Our conclusion
is that after the Government have considered this matter and when
they come to certain decision, the UPSC report and Government’s
decisions will be sent to our Secretary who will distribute them to
members.”151

Re-laying of a paper
Where the Constitution or a statute provides that ‘orders’ issued
thereunder should be laid on the Table for a specified period, it is required
General Rules of Procedure 997

to be completed in one session and if it is not so completed, the ‘order’

is required to be re-laid in the subsequent session or sessions until the said
period is completed in one session. Where the ‘orders’ are laid on the
Table in two Houses on different dates, the period for which they are
required to be laid commences from the later date.

Where a statute provides that the ‘orders’ framed thereunder should

be laid on the Table for a certain period which may be comprised in one
or in two or more sessions the ‘orders’ after having been laid initially in
a session are deemed to lie in the succeeding sessions till the specified
period is completed and thus such ‘orders’ are not formally re-laid on the
Table in the succeeding sessions, for the completion of the prescribed
laying period.

List of Statutory Orders laid during a session

The Secretariat publishes weekly during each session, for the

information of members the list of Statutory Rules and Orders made under
the delegated powers of legislation, laid on the Table of the Rajya Sabha
during that session together with the relevant provisions of the Statutes
under which they are laid, the period for which they are to lie on the Table
and the period during which modification can be made in those rules and
orders.152

Laying of sensitive notifications

Sensitive notifications are those which make changes in export duties,

import duties or excise tariffs involving revenue of more than rupees fifty
lakhs per annum except cases where an existing concession is being
continued.153 These notifications are required to be laid within the time as
per the recommendations of the Committee on Subordinate Legislation of
the Lok Sabha.154 Supplementary list of business is issued for laying such
notifications, before the House rises for the day so that the contents of
the notifications are known to members in advance.155

Laying report of a parliamentary delegation

The Chairman and the Speaker had appointed a delegation consisting

of nine members to tour the State of Assam for a period of ten days from
12 August 1960 with a view to:

(i) make an assessment of the situation there;

(ii) suggest measures for improvement; and
(iii) propose steps for the prevention of a recurrence of such
happenings there.
998 Rajya Sabha at Work

The delegation was asked to submit a report to the Presiding Officers

of both the Houses.156 The report was submitted to the Chairman by a
member of the Committee who was asked by the Chairman to place the
report before the House. Accordingly, the report together with letters of
two members of the Committee was placed on the Table.157

Custody of papers

Custody of all records, documents and papers belonging to the House

or any of its committees or the Secretariat vests in the Secretary-General.
When a document is presented to the House or furnished to any of its
committees or the Secretariat, it forms part of the records of the House.
In case any document connected with the proceedings of the House or a
committee thereof or otherwise in the custody of the Secretary-General
is required to be produced in a court of law, it can be furnished only with
the leave of the House according to the procedure laid down, as has been
described in Chapter-8 relating to Privileges.

Under section 78(2) of the Evidence Act, 1872, the proceedings of

the House can be proved by the production of the authorised parliamentary
publication. As such the Rajya Sabha is troubled only when unpublished
documents of its proceedings are required as evidence in a court of law.
In most of the other cases only the certified copies of the documents are
generally called for in the first instance.

When information concerning a member from the records in the

custody of the Secretary-General is required by the executive authorities
e.g., the police, or such authorities desire to inspect the documents or
have copies thereof, the same is permitted subject to a stipulation that
the same will not be produced before a court of law without the Chairman’s
prior permission.

A request was received from the Assistant Commissioner of Police,

New Delhi, to examine certain documents in the custody of the
Secretary- General in connection with the investigation of a certain
case registered on the complaint of a member of the Rajya Sabha. The
Chairman got the matter examined by the Committee of Privileges and
informed the House that the Committee felt that the Chairman might
permit the police authorities to inspect and make copies (including
photostat copies) of the documents and that the Committee was of
the opinion that the said documents or copies thereof should not be
used or produced before a court of law without obtaining the prior
permission of the Chairman to that [Link] Chairman accordingly
permitted the police authorities with a caution that his prior permission
should be obtained.158
General Rules of Procedure 999

Laying of a paper by a private member

There is no provision in the Rules of Procedure and Conduct of

Business in the Rajya Sabha which confers upon a private member the right
to have a document placed on the Table of the House. If, in the special
circumstances of a case, a private member desires to lay any document on
the Table of the House, he should give prior notice to the Chairman so that
he may look into the document and then decide whether he should permit
the member to lay the document on the Table of the House. The document
can be laid on the Table only after permission has been given by the
Chairman and not otherwise159 and is duly authenticated by the member.160

During a calling attention regarding licences to Birla Industries, a

member started reading out extracts from Dr. Hazari’s report on
Industrial Licensing. Another member demanded that the member
quoting from the report should be asked to place an authenticated
copy of the report on the Table. A Minister stated that in the case of
a report submitted to Government the Minister concerned was the
only person to decide whether it was in the public interest to so lay
it. The concerned Minister, thereafter, said that he would be placing
a copy of the report on the Table of the House the next day. The
Chairman observed:

So far as rule 249 goes, it refers only to the Minister. If a Minister

quotes from any document, he could be forced to lay it on the
Table of the House. There is no such rule about private members.
It is left entirely to my discretion. There are circumstances in
which the use of discretion can be very dangerous and can be
misused and, therefore, I would not like to create a precedent,
especially because the Minister has himself said that he would lay
it on the Table of the House.161

When a member insisted on laying on the Table a photostat copy of

a letter he had obtained, the Deputy Chairman observed:

Any member can refer to any document, he may read out or he

may give a summary; that is permissible, but not laying on the
Table of the House. That is a discretion of the Chair. I will not
allow it to be laid on the Table of the House.162

There have been a number of instances when private members have

been permitted to lay on the Table papers and documents. Some important
instances are mentioned below:

A member referred to a telegram he had received in connection with

the strike in a public sector undertaking. After the Leader of the
House replied, the member sought the Chairman’s permission to lay
the telegram on the Table, which was granted.163
1000 Rajya Sabha at Work

When a member, in support of his resolution, referred to the contents

of some letters which certain persons had sent to Government, the
Deputy Chairman ruled that although the member had not read the
letters, in view of the fact that he had referred to them on the floor
of the House and alleged that Government had not replied to them,
he should place those letters on the Table. The member said that he
would.164
A member placed on the Table a copy of a “confidential memorandum
presented to the Joint Committee on the Companies Bill, 1953, on
behalf of some of the representatives of Managing Agency Houses in
the country” to which the member had made a reference in his
speech.165
The Leader of the Opposition (Shri S. Jaipal Reddy) laid on the Table
a copy of the letter dated 11 November 1991, of the Minister of
Finance alongwith an Annexure to the President of the World Bank.
[On the same day in the afternoon, the Minister of Finance also laid
on the Table a copy of the said letter together with its enclosure.]166
On a subsequent occasion, the Leader of the Opposition (Shri S. Jaipal
Reddy) was permitted to lay on the Table photostat copies of the
following papers in connection with the award of a contract to Asea
Brown Boveri (ABB) Company, which he had sought to lay while raising
a discussion on the subject:
(i) Tender Committee Note.
(ii) Note of Member (Electrical), Railway Board.
(iii) D.E.A. Note dated the 7 February 1992.
(iv) Minutes of the Inter-Ministerial meeting held on the 10 February
1992.
(v) Memorandum No. 87/F(FEX)/115/1/ADB, dated the 30 October
1991.
(vi) Recommendations of the Tender Committee against Global Tender
G-140/R (Commercial Rebids) for procurement of 6000 HP
3-phase AC Electric Locomotives with transfer of technology.167
A member sought to lay on the Table certain papers relating to Draft
Eighth Five Year Plan. The Deputy Chairman, after perusal, permitted
a photostat copy each of the following papers relating to the matter
to be treated as papers laid on the Table:
(i) The World Bank/IFC/MIGA Office Memorandum, dated the
10 June 1992; Sub.: Fiscal Adjustment and the 8th Plan.
(ii) The World Bank/International Finance Corporation Office
Memorandum, dated the 10 June 1992; Sub.: Eighth Plan.
(iii) Eighth Plan—Education Sector.

(iv) Industry—VIII Plan.168

General Rules of Procedure 1001

A member was permitted to lay on the Table a set of papers

authenticated by him as comprising a true copy of a paper captioned
‘A Note on the import of sugar by Department of Food in 1989.’169

A member laid on the Table a copy each of the communications

exchanged between the Joint Secretary of the Ministry of Home Affairs
and the Chief Secretary of West Bengal in connection with the Purulia
incident.170

On 4 December 2002 during the short duration discussion on public

sector undertakings a member alleged about irregularities in the sale
and resale of Airport Centaur Hotel, Mumbai and quoted from some
documents. The Vice-Chairman then directed him to authenticate and
lay the said documents on the Table of the House. Accordingly, as
requested by the member, the Chairman accorded permission and the
following papers were treated as deemed to have been laid on the
Table of the House and the same was published in Parliamentary
Bulletin Part–II dated the 11 December 2002:-

(i) Sale agreement dated the 18 April 2002 between Hotel

Corporation of India Limited and Batra Hospitality Private Limited.
(ii) Communication dated the 1 January 2002 from Shri Arun Das,
Vice-President – Investment, JP Morgan Private Limited to
Shri A. L. Batra, C&MD, A.L. Batra Group, New Delhi.
(iii) D.O. No. 18050/130/2001-AI dated the 2 January 2002 from
Shri Sanat Kaul, Joint Secretary, Ministry of Civil Aviation to
Shri R.C. Agarwal, Managing Director, Hotel Corporation of India,
Mumbai Airport.
(iv) Letter No. HQ:ACCTS/440:501:410 dated the 4 January 2002
from Shri R. C. Agarwal, Managing Director to Shri Sanat Kaul,
Joint Secretary, Ministry of Civil Aviation.
(v) D.O. No. 7/37/2001-MOD (Vol. II) dated the 22 January 2002
from Shri K. K. Gupta, Ministry of Disinvestment to Shri Sanat
Kaul, Joint Secretary, Ministry of Civil Aviation.
(vi) Letter No. BHPL/PER/B-91/180 dated the 22 November 2002
from Shri S. Iyer, Manager Personnel, Sahara Hospitality Private
Limited (formerly known as Batra Hospitality Private Limited
to Shri P.S. D’Souza, Deputy General Manager, Hotel Corporation
of India, Mumbai.
(vii) Letter dated the 23 October 2002 by Shri Sanjay Nirupam, M.P.
to Shri Atal Bihari Vajpayee, Prime Minister of India171.

A member sought to lay on the Table a copy of the report of the

steering group constituted by the Planning Commission on Foreign
Direct Investment (FDI) (August, 2002), to which he and some other
members had made a reference during the discussion on a motion on
1002 Rajya Sabha at Work

FDI in multi-brand retail sector held on 6-7 December 2012. The

Chairman permitted the member to lay on the Table a copy of the said
report.172

Permission to lay a paper not granted

A member wanted to place on the Table a copy of a letter alleged to
have been written by Shri M.O. Mathai to Miss Padmaja Naidu, Governor
of West Bengal, in which Shri Mathai was said to have confirmed an
allegation made by a member in the House against the Prime Minister,
Shrimati Indira Gandhi. The Chairman made his own inquiries in the
matter from the addresser as well as the addressee on the basis of a
document supplied by the member and gave the following ruling:

A House of Parliament is a privileged place since the parliamentary

proceedings enjoy certain immunities under our Constitution. In
my opinion, private correspondence of individuals cannot be laid
on the Table of the House and thus given immunities which they
will not otherwise enjoy. I cannot, therefore, allow the copy of
the letter in question to be laid on the Table of the House. Members
of Parliament enjoy freedom of speech in the House. But I consider
it to be an unhealthy practice for the members to use their freedom
of speech for making charges on the basis of statements contained
in private correspondence of individuals who are not entitled to
use the floor of this House for making any statement.173

A member sought permission to lay a statement of his party’s Secretary

regarding an incident which was referred to by another member in the
House. The permission was not given as the member did not give
previous notice, did not show the paper to the Chairman and “it would
not be in order to permit such a statement to be laid on the Table of
the House and thereby make it a part of the proceedings of the
House.”174

On 27 July 2005, the Leader of Opposition sought permission to lay the

entire transcript of a television interview that he had referred to
while participating in the short duration discussion on situation arising
due to increasing incidents of cross border terrorism and terrorist acts
in the country, particularly with reference to the attack in Ayodhya.
The Chairman did not permit the document to be laid on the Table of
the House as it was neither duly authenticated nor the member had
formally laid it and hence it was not treated as part of the proceedings
of the House. 175

A member sought permission to lay a communication written by the

Chief Minister of Delhi to the Prime Minister, to which he had referred
while participating in the short duration discussion on the Liberhan
Commission Report and trial of Babri Masjid case on 9 December 2009.
Permission was not granted and the paper was not treated as deemed
to have been laid on the Table of the House in view of the technical
General Rules of Procedure 1003

flaw in the authentication and the ruling given by the Chairman on

31 March 1967 that private correspondence of individuals cannot be
laid on the Table of the House.176

A member sought permission to lay on the Table a copy of the

‘Memorandum of the Kannada Development Authority’. The permission
was not granted as the request made by the member was not in
conformity to the requirements laid down in the Directions by Chair
and the document (in original) was returned to the member.177

Quoting from copy of a document

A member started reading from a letter sent by a Superintendent of
Police to a company. On the Deputy Chairman questioning the member, he
admitted that it was not the original letter but a cyclostyled copy of it.
The Deputy Chairman did not permit him to read it holding that the
member could read only from an original or certified copy thereof and if
the member was prepared to place it on the Table.178
Laying or quoting from secret documents (CBI report)
When a member quotes from a secret document which has not been
disclosed in public interest and seeks to lay it on the Table, he is required
to submit the document or a copy of it to the Chairman who may consult
the Government in the matter before deciding whether the document
should be allowed to be laid on the Table. However, members are expected
to use their discretion in the use of material that gets into their hands.179
After Question Hour was over a member claimed that he had a copy
of the CBI report on certain allegations against two Chief Ministers and
some other Ministers of the Government of Orissa and also of the
findings of the Cabinet sub-Committee thereon and asked for the
Chairman’s permission to lay a copy of the documents on the Table of
the House. The Chairman did not give permission and asked the member
to supply the documents to him so that he could examine them and
decide. Later in the day, when the member tried to quote from the
CBI report, the Chairman said that the CBI report was a Government
document and had not been laid on the Table. The Chairman, therefore,
did not permit the member to quote from it and again asked the
member to give him a copy of the documents so that he could consult
the Government and decide. The Chairman stated that a non-official
member could not lay any paper on the Table of the House except
with the permission of the Chairman. After a few days the Chairman
gave the following ruling after examining the papers:

I have since seen the papers given by Shri Lokanath Misra and also
consulted the Government in the matter. The Government do not
propose to lay the CBI report and the findings of the Cabinet
sub-Committee on the Table of the House as they are of the view
1004 Rajya Sabha at Work

that these are secret and confidential documents and as such

privileged. In these circumstance, I will not be able to insist upon
the laying of these documents by Government on the Table of the
House.

The next question is whether Shri Lokanath Misra may be permitted

to lay the papers which he has in his possession and which he
claims to be copies of the CBI report and findings of the Cabinet
sub-Committee on the Table of the House. I regret I cannot permit
him to do so. These are in their very nature confidential and
secret documents and as such I cannot permit them to be laid on
the Table of the House. Besides, for obvious reasons, Shri Lokanath
Misra cannot authenticate the papers he desires to lay on the
Table.

As to how far Shri Lokanath Misra can, during the course of his
speech in the House, make use of the contents of these papers,
I would only say this much that the matter should be left to the
good sense and discretion of the member himself. 180

When a matter regarding bugging of telephones of some Members of

Parliament, MLAs, Ministers, etc., was being raised, there was demand
for laying the report of the CBI on tapping of telephones. The Prime
Minister in reply, inter alia, stated as follows:

The CBI report is not the Commission of Inquiry report. Investigating

agencies’ reports are not laid on the Table of the House. There has
been an occasion when private members have laid some purported
report of the CBI or other agencies but never in the history of this
Parliament, the Government has ever laid on the Table of the
House the report of the investigating agency because it will not be
possible then for the investigating agency to function properly.
Otherwise, I have no other thing to conceal or keep away the
report from this House. In order to see that the investigating
agency functions effectively, I am constrained to say... I will not
share... I am guided by the rules, by laws and by conventions.

When a member stated: “This is the report. I beg to lay on the Table.”
The Deputy Chairman observed: “ ... without my permission it cannot
be laid on the Table of the House... He should not do it. It is not
proper.”181

Statement by Minister
With a view to keeping Parliament informed about matters of public
importance or Government’s policy in regard to various matters, Ministers
make statements in the House from time to time, with the consent of the
Chairman. As per the rule, no questions can be asked at the time the
statement is made.182 Ministers also inform the House about the outcome
of their official visits abroad or about treaties signed with other countries
as well as about issues of national importance.
General Rules of Procedure 1005

In case a Minister wishes to make a suo moto statement on a matter

of policy or other issues of public importance, he/she writes a letter
addressed to the Chairman forwarding therewith a copy of the statement
(in English and Hindi) expressing his/her wish to make a statement on the
subject in the House on a specific date and time or on any other day or
time as appointed by the Chairman. Thereafter, an item pertaining thereto
is included in the list of business. Copies of the statement, received from
the Ministry are circulated to the members when the Minister rises to make
his statement in the House. However, in urgent cases on receipt of request
from a Minister to make a statement on the same day, a supplementary
list of business is issued, if time permits and circulated to members for
their information. Statements are generally listed as the last item for the
day or on the day specified by the Minister. Time is indicated only on the
express request of the Minister and only if agreed to by the Chairman.
However, the statement to be made by the Prime Minister is listed
immediately after the question hour. At times, statements are also made
by Ministers in pursuance of the direction of the Chairman. It is a convention
that the Minister should make similar statement in both the Houses at
least on the same day.183
Circulation of copies of a statement to be made
As per the practice copies of the statement to be made are required
to be circulated to members in Hindi and English in the Chamber itself.
When a Minister was about to make a statement on the situation in
Punjab, some members complained that they were not supplied with
copies of the statement. When the Minister stated that the copies
were on the way, the Chairman ruled that the statement should have
been circulated to members immediately, even when the Minister
started making the statement; otherwise it would be difficult for
members to follow.184

Copies of statement
Till the Two Hundred and Fifteenth Session of Rajya Sabha (February
2009), the Ministries/Departments of the Government of India provided
300 copies of the English version and 100 copies of the Hindi version of the
Minister’s statement to the Table Office, well in advance of the time the
Minister is supposed to make his statement. Besides this, they were also
requested to provide the electronic copy of the statement in a floppy
diskette.
However, presently, the number of copies of the statement proposed
to be made for distribution to the members, the press and media, and
other agencies has been revised. The Ministries/Departments provide
1006 Rajya Sabha at Work

300 copies of the English version and 150 copies of the Hindi version of the
statement to be made. They also provide the electronic copy of the
statement in a CD. Twenty-five (25) copies each in English and Hindi of the
statements regarding status of implementation of recommendations
contained in the reports of the department-related Parliamentary Standing
Committees are also provided by the Ministries/Department concerned.
Time for making Statement and seeking clarifications
A statement to be made on matters of public importance is listed in
the list of business towards the latter half of the sitting of the House,
either at 5 p.m. or before the House rises for the day after completion of
the listed business. This practice evolved on the basis of the
recommendations made by the Business Advisory Committee in its meeting
held on 8 August 1985 that a Minister who wishes to make a statement in
the House, may do so with the consent of the Chairman, ordinarily at
5 p.m. or thereafter unless the Chairman permits the statement to be
made at some other time.
Notwithstanding the mandatory provision of the rule, a convention
or practice has grown in the Rajya Sabha over a considerable period of
time to permit members to seek a few clarifications on a statement made
by a Minister.185 Generally, the clarifications are sought immediately after
the statement is made. However, if the statement is lengthy or is on a very
important matter, the clarifications may be deferred and sought on the
next or subsequent day.186 Sometimes clarifications have spilled over to
the next day also.187
For instance, on Friday, 22 November 1991, three statements were
made; clarifications on two of them were sought on Monday,
25 November 1991; clarifications on the third statement were sought
on Tuesday, 26 November 1991.

The Minister gives a reply to all the clarifications together immediately

or on the next day,188 or on a subsequent day,189 depending on the business
of the House or the subject-matter of the statement.
However, no clarification can be sought after the Minister’s reply.
On 16 August 1993, while the Minister of State in the Ministry of Home
Affairs Shri Rajesh Pilot, was replying to the clarifications on the
statement made by him, a member sought to ask some more questions.
Thereupon, the Vice-Chairman gave his ruling, “There cannot be any
clarifications after the Minister’s reply.”190

Clarifications only on suo motu statement

In view of the long-established practice in the Rajya Sabha in
permitting members to seek clarifications on a statement made by a Minister,
General Rules of Procedure 1007

sometimes a question arises whether the statement made by the Minister

is a suo motu statement or is in response to some observations made by
members on some matter. In the latter case, ordinarily no clarifications
are permitted.

While the Prime Minister was replying to certain points raised by some
members regarding purchase of Bofors Guns, a member wanted to
seek a clarification thereon. The Chairman ruled that if the Prime
Minister made a suo motu statement, the member was entitled to
seek clarifications. The Prime Minister’s statement was just in response
to members’ questions. Hence no clarifications were permitted to be
sought.191

As directed by the Chairman, the Minister of Finance laid a copy of the

letter written to the World Bank.192 A demand was made the next day
that the full report of the World Bank be laid on the Table. At the end
of the day the Minister wanted to make a statement in response to the
points raised but when some objections were taken thereon, he was
permitted to lay the statement on the Table.193 Members could not,
therefore, seek clarifications on the statement. Next day there took
place a procedural controversy whether the statement laid amounted
to a suo motu statement and the members had a right to seek
clarifications thereon194. The Deputy Chairman ruled that the statement
which the Finance Minister had laid on the Table was not a statement
of the type on which clarifications could be allowed.195

However, on an occasion, as per the direction of the Chairman when

the concerned Minister came to the House to make his statement on
the Narmada Sarovar Project in response to special mentions made on
the subject by members a couple of days ago, the Deputy Chairman
clarified that it was a statement made to clarify points raised by
members and no further clarifications should be sought. But members
did not agree. Eventually, the making of the statement was deferred
by more than four hours with the direction that copies of the statement
in English and Hindi should be got ready for circulation amongst
members. Thereafter, the statement was made and clarifications
thereon were permitted.196

If, however, a statement is not made but the Minister is permitted

to lay the statement, clarifications thereon may be permitted at a time
which may be fixed by the Chair.197

A statement was laid on the Table on 9 May 1972, regarding suicide

of a scientist of IARI, New Delhi. Members sought clarifications the
next day. A further statement was laid clarifying the points on 16 May
1972. On 18 May 1972, a short duration discussion was held on the
subject.
1008 Rajya Sabha at Work

On 27 August 2012, the Prime Minister read out a few paragraphs of

the statement regarding performance audit report on allocation of
coal blocks and augmentation of coal production and amidst din laid
on the Table remaining part of the statement. However, no clarifications
were sought.

Thus, the practice of seeking clarifications has become an integral

part of the procedure of the House. The House seldom forgoes this ‘right’.
The House may not use the ‘right’ when opportunity is otherwise made
available for discussion on the subject-matter of the statement; 198or a
statement may be made or laid without seeking clarifications by the
members for want of time.
The Prime Minister made a statement on the Jawahar Rozgar Yojana.
No clarifications were sought thereon on the assurance that the House
would discuss the statement and the scheme, 199 which was done on
12 May 1989.

The advantage of the practice is that it provides an additional

opportunity to members to discuss a subject of public importance. It enables
the members to extract a little more information or find out a little more
indication of Government’s mind. However, the practice or procedure also
poses a problem both to the Chair as well as to the House as a whole. The
Chair faces the problem because at a particular time there are always a
number of members wanting to seek clarifications and it becomes difficult
for the Chair to choose who, out of so many members wanting to speak,
should be called. The problem before the House is, as elsewhere in other
Parliaments, paucity of time. If the process of seeking clarifications gets
prolonged or develops into a debate on a statement it consumes a lot of
time.
During the 139th Session (1986), 18 hours were spent on clarifications
on statements of Ministers; during the 159th Session (1991), 21 hours,
during the 155th Session (1990), 22 hours and 25 minutes and during
the 153rd Session (1990), 23 hours and 19 minutes were devoted to
seeking clarifications. Some statements have evoked 3-4 hours of
clarifications and on an occasion one statement consumed seven hours
spread over three sittings due to clarifications (however, the statement
was of extreme importance, namely, the escape of an accused in the
Rajiv Gandhi Assassination case).200

On an occasion the Deputy Chairman observed:

There is no difference these days between observations made during
calling attention and clarifications on Ministers’ statements. On both
the occasions members made speeches, “only the nomenclature is
different.”201
General Rules of Procedure 1009

Regulating clarifications on a statement

A sort of regulatory measure was adopted by the Chairman who laid
down the following procedure regarding clarification on Minister’s statement:
(i) Only one member from a party/group be called to seek
clarification on a Statement.
(ii) If there are more than one member to seek clarifications, the
request received first in point of time may only be accepted
ignoring the request from another member belonging to the
same party/group received later in point of time.
(iii) Requests for seeking clarifications on a statement should be
made before the Minister makes the statement; those received
subsequently may not ordinarily be entertained.202

Subsequently, the Business Advisory Committee considered the matter

and recommended the following procedure:
(i) Only one member from a party/group having a strength of four
or more members may be called to seek clarifications on a
statement; and so far as the Congress (I) party is concerned,
2-3 members from that party may be called to seek clarifications.
(ii) Members belonging to a group whose strength is less than four
may be grouped together and given a chance to seek clarifications
by rotation, not more than three on a statement.
(iii) Names of members who may be called to seek clarifications
may be supplied to the Chair by Leaders/Whips of the parties/
groups.
(iv) No member should take more than three minutes to seek
clarifications.203

This recommendation of the Committee was implemented towards

the last three days of the 159th Session when the statements were made.
Some members objected to the new procedure on the ground that it
curtailed their freedom and right to seek clarifications. However, the Leader
of the House observed, “it is necessary for all of us to understand that
there is certain discipline which we have to follow. In the Business Advisory
Committee, all the political parties are represented. ...This is the
commitment we have given.”204
Instead of seeking clarifications on statements then and there, it is
open to members to raise discussion on a Minister’s statement by tabling
a suitable notice. There have been a number of instances when the House
has discussed important Ministerial statements by way of short duration
discussion or motion.205 A statement may be taken up for immediate
1010 Rajya Sabha at Work

discussion also.206 There have also been instances when statements made
by Ministers/Prime Minister were converted into general discussions on
subsequent days.207
The House held a six-hour discussion on 29 July 1982 on the statement
made on the previous day on Kuo oil deal which was the subject-
matter of the Forty-seventh Report of the Public Undertakings
Committee. The Bhopal Gas tragedy,208 securities scam,209 Textile
policy,210 racial riots in South Africa,211 etc. were taken up for discussion
on the basis of statements made by the concerned Ministers. The
statement on demolition of the Ram Janam Bhoomi Babri Masjid
structure was taken up for immediate discussion.212

Statement on Direction from the Chair

A statement is also made by a Minister consequent on a direction
made by the Chair. In such a situation, no supplementary list of business
is issued and circulated to the members.213
Statement when calling attention already admitted
A Minister makes a statement in response to a calling attention also.
However, that does not prevent a Minister from making a suo motu statement
on the same subject without waiting for an opportunity to do so when a
calling attention is taken up.
When the Minister was about to make a statement on the burning of
huts of Harijans in Moradabad, Uttar Pradesh, a point of order was
raised to assert that the Minister could not make a statement on a
subject which was likely to be admitted for the next day. The Chairman
suggested that the Minister might postpone the statement till the
calling attention was taken up. The Leader of the House drew the
Chairman’s attention to rule 251 and stated that the Minister was
entitled to make a statement on the floor of the House after seeking
Chairman’s permission irrespective of the fact whether a calling
attention or special mention was pending. As there was controversy on
the point, the House was adjourned earlier than scheduled for lunch
recess for consultation in the Chairman’s Chamber. After the House
reassembled the Deputy Chairman announced that the direction of the
Chairman was that the Minister might be allowed to make the
statement, no questions should be asked thereon and the calling
attention on the subject would be admitted for the following day for
regular discussion. 214

Statement regarding Bill replacing ordinance

Whenever a Bill seeking to replace an Ordinance, with or without
modification, is introduced in the House, a statement explaining the
circumstances which had necessitated immediate legislation by Ordinance,
General Rules of Procedure 1011

is laid on the Table along with the Bill, and copies of the statement are
circulated to members.215
Statement regarding status of implementation of recommendations of
Department-related Parliamentary Standing Committees
On 24 September 2004, the Chairman, Rajya Sabha made the following
direction in pursuance of provisions of rule 266 of the Rules of Procedure
and Conduct of Business in the Council of States:
The Minister concerned shall make once in six months a statement in
the House regarding the status of implementation of recommendations
contained in the reports of the Department-related Parliamentary
Standing Committees of Rajya Sabha with regard to his Ministry.216

This has now become a regular practice. To make such a statement,

the Minister gives an advance notice to the Secretariat, along with a copy
of the statement, indicating the date on which he/she desires to make the
statement. Accordingly, an item is included in the list of business. However,
in practice, such statements are usually laid on the Table of the House and
are not made/read out by the Ministers.

Division
General Procedure
Save as otherwise provided in the Constitution,217 all questions at
any sitting of either House or joint sitting of the Houses are determined
by a majority of votes of the members present and voting, other than the
Speaker or the person acting as the Chairman or the Speaker. 218
“Ordinarily, questions are decided in the House by a vote, a simple
majority being required to affirm or negative a question. Sometimes a vote
is carried to a division, which is a physical separation into two lobbies of
those members wishing to vote for and those wishing to vote against a
question.”219 Though due to introduction of automatic vote recorder system
of voting in the House, physical separation of the House has become rare,
the word ‘Division’ continues to be used for the voting process.
On the conclusion of a debate, the Chairman puts the question before
the House and invites those who are in favour of the motion to say “Aye”
and those against the motion to say “No”.220 Then the Chairman says
(tentatively) “I think the Ayes (or the Noes, as the case may be) have it.”
If the opinion of the Chairman as to the decision is not challenged, he says
twice (definitely). “The Ayes (or the Noes, as the case may be) have it”
and the question before the House is determined accordingly.221 If the
opinion of the Chairman as to the decision of a question is challenged, he
1012 Rajya Sabha at Work

may, if he thinks fit, ask the members who are for “Aye” and those for
“No” respectively to rise in their places and, on a count being taken, he
may declare the determination of the House. In such a case, the names
of the voters are not recorded.222

When the resolution extending the President’s Rule in Tamil Nadu was
put to vote, there was a demand for division. The Chair asked the
members to stand in their places and after taking a count for “Ayes”
and “Noes” declared the resolution as adopted. Objection was taken
by a member to this procedure but the objection was not sustained
in view of rule 252(3).223

If the opinion of the Chairman as to the decision of a question is

challenged and he does not adopt the above procedure, he orders a “Division”
to be held.224. After a lapse of three and a half minutes, the Chairman puts
the question a second time and declares whether in his opinion the “Ayes”
or the “Noes” have it.225 If the opinion so declared is again challenged,
votes may be taken by operating the automatic vote recorder, or the
members going into the Lobbies.226

Questions are generally decided by voice vote unless the opinion of

the Chairman is challenged by members and they demand a division, in
which case the Chairman orders the division. When a question is decided
by a voice vote, the Chairman does not announce the numbers of “Ayes”
and “Noes”.

In theory, he (the Chair) judges by the loudness of the respective cries

whether the ayes or the noes are the more in number. In practice his
decision is based on his knowledge of the balance of opinion in the
House. Unless some member challenges his decision by calling out ‘no’
when he says that he thinks the ayes have it or vice versa, the Chair
declares that the ayes or the noes, as the case may be, “have it”. If,
however, the minority or any individual member challenges his decision,
he directs the lobby to be cleared.227

If a member wants to challenge the decision of the Chair on a

question, he must do so immediately after the Chair expresses the view “I
think the Ayes/Noes have it” and before he declares the result.

On an occasion, a private member’s resolution was declared as adopted

by voice vote. Some members objected stating that before the result
was declared they had demanded division. The matter led to a
controversy and the House was adjourned for a while for consultation.
After the House reassembled, two amendments were permitted to be
moved by the mover and the resolution, as amended, was put to vote
and adopted again.228
General Rules of Procedure 1013

When a division is about to be taken, only members of the House

have the right to be present in the inner lobby and all other persons must
vacate it. In other words, the lobby has to be cleared for a division. A
member of the other House, who is a Minister can be present in the House
during a division though he has no right to vote. It is, however, better if
he is not present in the House to avoid objection.

When an amendment to the Motion of Thanks on the President’s Address

was being put to vote, a member requested all the Ministers except
the Prime Minister who were not members of the House, to vacate the
House before voting. The Leader of the Opposition (Shri Lal K. Advani),
however, did not agree with the suggestion. He was of the opinion that
Ministers who were not members of the House could remain in the
House. Thereupon, the Chairman observed, “Nobody who is not a
member of this House will be allowed by me to vote. That is the end
of the matter.”229

Before the motion for consideration of the Constitution (Sixty-fourth

Amendment) Bill was put to the vote of the House, an objection was taken
by a member about the presence of Ministers who were not members of
the House. The member wanted that the concerned Ministers should be
asked to leave the House while the division was in progress. The Chairman,
however, overruled the objection, observing that the Chair had no right to
ask them to go out. It was at their discretion. They should not, however,
go into the inner lobby.230

As per the practice where there are several divisions on the clauses
of a Bill or amendments to clauses, these are held one after the other and
the lobby is not cleared again and again.

Operation of Division Bells

The Division Bells of the Rajya Sabha and the Lok Sabha are painted
in red and green colour, respectively.

The distinction in the sound of these two kinds of Division Bells is

that in the former case the bell rings intermittently while in the latter
case it rings continuously.

Whenever a division is called in the Rajya Sabha, the Secretary-

General operates a switch at his/her Table, which causes the Division Bells
of the House to ring for three and half minutes at hundred twenty-four
points in various parts of the Parliament House, Parliament House Annexe
and Parliament Library Building in order to summon the members to the
House.
1014 Rajya Sabha at Work

The Division Bells for both the Chambers of Parliament have been
installed on all the floors of the Parliament House, Parliament House
Annexe, but more particularly in or near Committee Rooms, Library Rooms,
Ministers’ Rooms, Notice Office, Post Office, Refreshment Rooms and Waiting
Halls.231
No speeches during a division
When a division has been called and the lobbies are being cleared,
the debate is closed and no member can rise to speak, or address the
House. When the lobbies are being cleared, no speech, or submission is
recorded in the proceedings.
Discretion of the Chair not to allow a division
In order that the House may not be forced to a division on trivial
occasions, the Chair has the power, if he thinks a division is being
unnecessarily claimed, to disallow a request for a division. He can also call
upon the members, who support and those who challenge his decision,
successively to stand up, and thereupon, as he thinks fit, to declare that
“the ayes (or Noes) have it”, as stated earlier:
On an occasion when a member asked for a division on his amendment,
the Vice-Chairman invited the member’s attention to sub-rule (3) of
rule 252 and emphasised the words “if he thinks fit” in that sub-rule
and observed that the concerned member did not genuinely think it
fit to ask for a division.232

Division by Automatic Vote Recorder

If the Chairman decides that the votes should be taken by operating
the automatic vote recorder, he directs accordingly and the machine is put
into operation. Each member is assigned a fixed seat and a member casts
his vote from there by pressing the requisite button provided for the
purpose. In December 1994, a new computer-controlled Integrated Sound,
Simultaneous Interpretation and vote recording system was installed in the
Rajya Sabha Chamber. Under that system, each member has been provided
with an integrated microphone and voting console which contains Four
Buttons-”PRES”—”P” for Present; “ABST”—”O” for Abstain; “AYES”—”A” for
Yes and “NOES”—”N” for No. Also there is a separately situated security
button in “Red” (Vote Activation) provided on the LANGUAGE SELECTOR
which has to be pressed in addition to the voting button. Both buttons
have to be pressed simultaneously at the time of closing of voting in order
to register a valid vote.
For example, if the voting period is ten seconds, then the buttons kept
pressed at the tenth second will record vote. In case either one or
both these buttons are released prior to close of voting period, the
vote will not be registered.
General Rules of Procedure 1015

During the voting period, the member can change his vote at any
time. The vote cast at the time when the voting period is ending will only
be recorded. The countdown time is indicated on the Total Result Display
Boards/Large Screen Hall Display. There are two types of Display Boards
provided in the Chamber. One set displays the individual results and the
other, total results.
The Individual Result Display Panels are located on either side of the
Chairman’s seat, arranged in a geographical layout similar to the seating
arrangement of the Chamber. For each member, the corresponding division
is indicated on the Panel alongwith display array which shows: a green “A”
for Ayes, a red “N” for No, a yellow “O” for Abstain, and an amber “P” for
Present.
These are shown instantaneously changing while voting and is “frozen”
at the end of the voting, by three characters A, N or O. The total results
come on Display Panels located in galleries on left and right sides of the
Chair.
On the Secretary-General’s Table, a Key-Board is fixed by operating
which, at the Chairman’s direction, the Secretary-General sets the voting
process in motion and before doing so also explains the procedure to the
members in the House, if so directed by the Chair. The voting process
starts with a musical sound on Large Screen Display in two corners of the
Chamber.233
After the result of the voting appears on the Indicator Board, the
Secretary-General presents the totals of “Ayes” and “Noes” to the Chairman.
The result of the division is announced by the Chairman and cannot be
challenged.234
A member, who is not able to cast his vote by pressing the button
due to any reason considered sufficient by the Chairman, may be permitted
to have his vote recorded verbally by stating whether he is in favour of
or against the motion, before the result of the division is announced.235
Similarly, if a member finds that he has voted by mistake by pressing the
wrong button, he may be allowed to correct his mistake before the result
of the division is announced.236
On 15 December 1961, the Deputy Chairman made the following
announcement in connection with the correction of voting figures on
an amendment to a clause of the Constitution (Eleventh Amendment)
Bill, 1961:
...many members stood up and represented that they had not
correctly understood the proposition before the House and had
not, therefore, been able to record their votes properly. Some
members pointed out that they had not voted at all; some members
1016 Rajya Sabha at Work

stated that they had voted for the amendment by mistake; and
one member represented that he had voted against the amendment
instead of for it. I permitted those members to give their names
and their names were accordingly recorded and taken into account
for the purpose of declaring the decision of the House. The decision
as announced was: Ayes...25 Noes...134.

On checking up with the photostat copy of the division list, it is

found that ten members whose names had been recorded as stated
above, had in fact taken part in the voting and their names are
included among the “Ayes” list. What these members had requested
was only to correct their mistake and transfer their names from
the ‘’Ayes” list to the “Noes” list. In announcing the result of the
division, although the names of those ten members were included
in the “Noes”, they were not excluded from the “Ayes”. One member
who had voted with the “Noes” by mistake but who wanted to
correct his mistake was also included in the “Ayes” list at the time
of announcing the decision. His name had not also been taken out
of the list of “Noes”.

Under sub-rule (5) of rule 214A (old) of the Rajya Sabha Rules, if
a member finds that he has voted by mistake by pressing the
wrong button, he can bring the matter to the notice of the Chair
before the result of the division is announced and would be allowed
to correct his mistake.

It will thus appear that there was an error in the announcement

of figures of the division. The House has already taken a decision
on the amendment and this error has absolutely no effect on it.
However, I consider that the correct position should be on record.

I have accordingly directed necessary corrections to be made in

the records of the House of December 12, 1961. The result of the
voting as so corrected will be: Ayes.. 15; Noes.. 134.

Thereafter, a member on a point of order, pointed out that the

ruling had created a wrong precedent and the voting figures could not be
changed after the result was announced. The Deputy Chairman referred
again to (old) rule 214A corresponding to present rule 253(5) and stated:

On the day on which the votes were recorded several members

represented that they had made wrong voting and, therefore, their
vote was recorded by voice. This could not be checked up with the
photostat copy which came to the Office only the next day. And I find
that ten persons have voted twice. What is now sought to be done is
only to correct the records in consonance with the photostat copy, and
nobody’s vote is taken away either for “Ayes” for “Noes.” I find that
there is no point of order and the ruling given is correct.237
General Rules of Procedure 1017

Division by distribution of slips

The method of division by distribution of slips in the House is used
only when the AVR machine goes wrong. Whenever it becomes necessary
to hold a division by this method, members are supplied at their seats with
“Ayes”/“Noes” printed slips for recording their votes. They are printed in
different colours for use of members, block-wise. On these slips, members
are required to record votes of their choice by signing and writing their
names, division numbers and dates legibly at the appropriate places.
After the votes have been recorded, the division clerks collect the
slips from each member and handover the same to the Officer at the Table
who scrutinises the same, counts the votes recorded and compiles the
result. The result so arrived at is then announced by the Chair and thereafter
incorporated in the printed debates, with particulars of each member’s
vote.
On the motion for consideration of the Constitution (Sixty-fifth
Amendment) Bill, 1989, the Chairman directed “in order to avoid any
confusion, slips are distributed. Each member will mention his division
number and will write Yes or No and put his signature so that we will
have the record.”238

Division by going into the Lobbies

When the Chairman decides that the votes should be recorded by
members going into the Lobbies, he directs the members for “Ayes” to go
into the Right Lobby and those for “Noes” into the Left Lobby. In the “Ayes”
or the “Noes” Lobby, as the case may be, each member calls out his
Division Number and the Division Clerk while marking off a member’s
number on the division list, simultaneously calls out the name of the
member.239
After voting in the Lobbies is completed, the Division Clerks handover
the division lists to the Secretary-General, who counts the votes and
presents the totals of “Ayes” and “Noes” to the Chairman.240 The result of
a division is then announced by the Chairman and cannot be challenged.241
A member who is unable to go to the Division Lobby owing to sickness
or infirmity may, with the permission of the Chairman, have his vote
recorded either at his seat or in the Members’ Lobby.242 If a member finds
that he has voted by mistake in the wrong Lobby, he may be allowed to
correct his mistake, provided he brings it to the notice of the Chairman
before the result of the division is announced.243 When the division lists
are brought to the Secretary-General’s Table, a member who has not upto
that time recorded his vote but who then wishes to have his vote recorded
may do so with the permission of the Chairman.244
1018 Rajya Sabha at Work

The House held a marathon sitting to vote on the 14-clause of Essential

Services Maintenance Bill, 1981. During this period, the House underwent
58 divisions, 54 by automatic vote recorder and 4 by going into
Lobbies.245

Abstention not counted for ‘Present and Voting’

As already noted in Chapter 21 dealing with Legislation, abstentions
in any voting are not taken into consideration in declaring the result on
any question. A member who votes “abstention’ either through the electronic
vote recorder or on voting slip or in any other manner does so only to
indicate his presence in the House and his intention to abstain from voting.
He does not record his vote within the meaning of the words ‘present and
voting’ used in article 368 dealing with amendment of the Constitution.
On 13 October 1989, one member raised a point of order relating to
interpretation of ‘Abstention’ in the electronic vote recorder while
voting on a Constitution (Amendment) Bill. The Constitution
(Amendment) Bills require a special majority of the House which has
been defined under article 368 of the Constitution wherein it is said
that the Bills have to be passed by a majority of not less than
two-thirds of the members of the House present and voting. The
member raised this issue as the electronic device was provided with
three buttons, ‘Ayes, Noes and Abstention’ and his point was that if
a member is present and pushes the ‘Abstention’ button, he is also
voting and therefore, the total strength of the House, present and
voting includes him. Therefore, what is crucial is not that he voted
against the Bill but that he did not support the Bill. He was keen on
ascertaining the Chair’s interpretation of ‘present and voting’, and
whether the strength of those members who vote for ‘Abstention’ is
also to be computed while deciding the special majority that has
voted in favour or not. The Deputy Chairman observed:

I will read out what is the legal implication. But I also want to say
that in common sense voting means that you are here voting ‘yes’
or you are voting ‘no’. ‘Abstention’ is for computing how many
members are present, to correct it. That is what my understanding
is. I will read out the legal paper that the Secretariat has found
out. Article 368(2) of the Constitution, inter alia, provides that a
Bill to amend the Constitution is required to be passed in each
House by the majority of the total membership of that House and
by a majority of not less than two-thirds of the members of that
House present and voting. A point has been raised whether the
member who abstained from voting can be deemed to be present
and voting within the meaning of the article. In other words, the
point is whether the abstention could be counted in any way for
the purpose of voting. It is established that abstentions in any
voting are not taken into consideration in declaring the result on
General Rules of Procedure 1019

any question. A member who votes ‘Abstention’ either through the

electronic vote recorder or on voting slip or in any other manner
does so only to indicate his presence in the House and his intention
to abstain from voting. He does not record his vote within the
meaning of the words ‘present and voting’. The expression ‘present
and voting’ refers to those who vote for ‘Ayes’ or for ‘Noes’ and
not to those who are merely present but not voting either in
favour or against any question before the House. This has also
been the practice in this House in the past so that whenever
members have abstained from voting, they have not been counted
for the purpose of declaring the result of a division. Even in an
election if you abstain, your vote will not be counted.246

Voting by Presiding Officers

Under the Constitution, the Chairman or the person acting as such

cannot vote on a division; he has only a casting vote which he must
exercise in the case of equality of votes.247 The Deputy Chairman, or a
member of the panel of Vice-Chairmen, who is in the Chair at the time of
voting, is also debarred from voting on a division and can have and must
exercise a casting vote in the case of equality of votes.

Casting vote by Presiding Officer/Chairman of Committee

As stated above, the Constitution debars the person acting as the

Chairman from voting in the first instance, i.e., he cannot vote on a
division as an ordinary member; he has only a casting vote which he must
exercise in the case of an equality of votes.

For the first time in Rajya Sabha when the statutory resolution
disapproving the Code of Criminal Procedure (Amendment) Ordinance,
1991, was put to vote and there was equality of votes (39 in favour
and 39 against), the Vice-Chairman exercised a casting vote to break
the tie, in favour of the resolution.248

In the case of parliamentary committees, the Rules of Procedure in

the Rajya Sabha contain differing provisions as regards the second or
casting vote by the Chairman of the Committee. For instance, the Chairman
of a Select Committee on a Bill or other person presiding over the Committee
has been given a second or casting vote,249 whereas in the case of
Committees on Subordinate Legislation, Government Assurances, Papers
Laid on the Table and House Committee, it has been specifically provided
that the Chairman of such a Committee shall not vote in the first instance
but in the case of an equality of votes on any matter, he shall have, and
exercise, a casting vote.250 The rules relating to the Committee on Petitions
and Committee of Privileges are silent on this aspect.
1020 Rajya Sabha at Work

Result of the division

As per established practice, whenever a voting takes place on any
Bill, motion, resolution, etc., in the House and after the result of the
division is announced by the Chairman, it is reflected in the Parliamentary
Bulletin Part-I with a footnote that the result is ‘subject to correction’.
Thereafter, the result announced in the House is tallied with the result
shown in the vote recording sheets and the final result of the voting is
calculated after taking into consideration the voting slips received from
the members. The final result so arrived at is conveyed to the Editing
(English) Section for incorporating in the final printed debates of the
Rajya Sabha. However, since the 227th Session (November-December 2012),
the final result of the division after scrutiny of the records is published in
the Parliamentary Bulletin Part-II on the same day for information of
members.251

Points of Order
Introduction
One of the most vexatious parliamentary practices which confronts
a Presiding Officer and which he has to encounter is a point of order raised
during the debate. The practice raises real problems for the Chair and
causes exasperation amongst members who are prepared to abide by the
rules and do not raise matters of argument or debate under the cloak of
points of order. The problem for the Chair lies in the fact that, until he
hears at least a substantial part of a member’s submission, he (the Chair)
is not in a position to rule that it is not a point of order. The Chair may,
of course rebuke a member who blatantly and frequently raises a ‘bogus’
or unwarranted point of order. But at the same time, the Chair cannot, in
general, refuse to hear points of order. However, there are some situations
in which the Chair may refuse to entertain the points straight away so that
at least in those situations the “points of order raisers” do not have things
all their own way and the time of the House is not wasted in making or
hearing submissions on points which are clearly no points of order.
What is a point of order
A point of order is a point relating to the interpretation or enforcement
of the Rules of Procedure or such articles of the Constitution as regulate
the business of the House raised in the House and submitted for the
decision of the Chair.
Any member can and should bring to the Chairman’s immediate
notice any instance of what he considers a breach of order or a transgression
of any written or unwritten law of the House which the Chair has not
General Rules of Procedure 1021

perceived, and he may also ask for the guidance and assistance of the
Chair regarding any obscurities in procedure. A member is entitled, in such
cases only, to interrupt a debate by rising and saying, “On a point of order,
Mr. Chairman” and then to lay the point in question concisely before him,
although there is often some doubt amongst members as to what exactly
constitutes a point of order, and the reply is quite frequently, “that is not
a point of order.”252
Provision in the Rajya Sabha Rules
Rule 258 of the Rules of Procedure and Conduct of Business in the
Rajya Sabha makes a provision to enable a member to raise a point of
order. It reads as follows:
(1) Any member may at any time submit a point of order for the
decision of the Chairman, but in doing so, shall confine himself
to stating the point.
(2) The Chairman shall decide all points of order which may arise,
and his decision shall be final.
How a point of order is raised
A member who has a point of order should stand up and say ‘Point
of Order’. He should not proceed to formulate it until he is identified and
permitted by the Chair.253 Thereafter, he should proceed to speak on his
point of order. While raising his point of order he should quote the specific
rule or the provision of the Constitution relating to the procedure of the
House which may have been ignored or neglected or violated. No member
should rise or speak, either standing or sitting, when the Chairman is on
his feet. The Chairman should be heard in silence and any member wanting
to speak should rise only after the Chairman has sat down and called the
member to speak.254 Matters on which the Chairman cannot give any relief
should not be made a subject of a point of order. Should a member desire
to have a clarification from a Minister or object to any statement which
a Minister might have made, he should say so in the House with the
permission of the Chairman and should not raise it in the garb of a point
of order.
Procedure after a point of order is raised
The right to raise a point of order is a valuable right of a member
and can be exercised by him at any time on a matter or any business then
under discussion. The point of order, when raised, has the effect of
suspending the proceedings before the House. On a point of order being
raised, the member who is in possession of the House at that time must
give way and resume his seat. 255 No debate is allowed on a point of order,
1022 Rajya Sabha at Work

but the Chair may, if he thinks fit, hear members before giving his decision.
It can be raised only in relation to the business before the House at the
moment; the term ‘business before the House’ means business included in
the list of business for the day.

When two or more points of order are raised on a subject-matter,

the Chair may take them one by one and give his decision.

A member wishing to raise a point of order has the right to be heard

before a decision can be given by the Chair. On his formulating a point of
order, the Chair decides whether the point raised is a point of order and,
if so, gives his decision thereon, which is final. Members cannot protest
against the Chair’s ruling, to do so is a contempt of the House and the
Chair. Rulings given by the Chair cannot be discussed in the House nor can
any clarification or explanation sought thereon.

It is perfectly in order if the Chair does not take cognizance of a

point of order raised by a member. The Chair may reserve his ruling on a
point of order at the moment and may deliver it on a later date. Similarly,
the Deputy Chairman or a member presiding over the House may reserve
a point of order for the decision of the Chairman.

Who can raise a point of order

As rule 258 provides, ‘any member’ may submit a point of order.

Rule 2 defines a ‘member’ to mean a member of the Rajya Sabha. In this
context, the question has been raised in the Rajya Sabha about the
competence of a Minister to raise a point of order. So far as a Minister who
is a member of the House is concerned, he has all the rights and privileges
qua member of the House, though sometimes the right of such a Minister
to raise or speak on a point of order has also been questioned but upheld
by the Chair.256

So far as a Minister who is not a member of the House is concerned,

on many occasions objection has been taken to such a Minister raising or
speaking on a point of order in the Rajya Sabha and the Chair has ruled
that such a Minister does have the right to raise a point of order or speak
on a point of order already raised by a member.

An objection was sought to be taken to a Minister (who was not a

member of the House) speaking on a point of order raised on a Bill,
on the ground that the point of order was purely relating to the rights
and privileges of the House and only members of the House could
speak thereon. This was over-ruled by the Chairman who observed,
“All Ministers are entitled to speak in either House”.257
General Rules of Procedure 1023

When a Minister who was a member of the other House wanted to

raise a point of order, objection was taken by a member that he (the
Minister) could not do so as he was not a member of the House in view
of rule 258. The Chairman referring to that rule as well as rule 2
observed:

...there is the super law of the Constitution. Article 88 reads

‘Every Minister, and the Attorney-General of India shall have the
right to speak in, and otherwise to take part in the proceedings
of the House...’ etc. The point relates to: ‘otherwise to take part
in the proceedings.’ Does it mean ‘to take part in the proceedings’—
to the same extent as any other member or to go beyond the
scope of the Rules? Now here we follow the principle that earlier
precedents weigh with the Chairman. I have been told that there
is an instance when my predecessor had ruled that an hon’ble
Minister when he is in the House, will be entitled to raise a point
of order. I think it would be wrong for us to depart from what has
been once decided in this House.258

When a Minister raised a point of order, a member objected that the

Minister concerned had no locus standi, being a Minister he could be
present in the House, otherwise he was a stranger to this House and
the right to raise a point of order emanated from the fact that a
person was a member of the House, no other circumstances permitted
him to do so. The Deputy Chairman ruled:

He (i.e., Minister) can participate in the proceedings. It is a

procedural matter. There is a constitutional provision that he can
participate in the proceedings and on that basis raise a point of
order.259

What is not a point of order or when a point of order should not be raised
The rule quoted above does not envisage or elaborate upon all the
situations when points of order can or cannot be raised by a member, or
define precisely what is a point of order and what is not. It is also not
possible to visualise all the situations in which the Chair may rule on a
point of order either upholding it or negativing it. However, from the
rulings given by the various Presiding Officers in the Rajya Sabha,
Lok Sabha and elsewhere and precedents, some situations may be indicated
when there is definitely no point of order or when a point of order cannot
be raised. Some of them are described below.
No point of order on Chair’s ruling
A member cannot raise a point of order on the Chair’s ruling.
A member raised a point of order under rule 169(ii), (viii), (ix) and
(xii) when another member rose to move a motion. It was clarified to
1024 Rajya Sabha at Work

the member that rule 169 deals with conditions of admissibility and
once the motion is admitted by the Chairman of the House there is no
scope for raising a question on the ground of admissibility. The Chairman
too agreed with the point. However, when the member insisted that
he wished to raise a point of order, the Chairman maintained:

No point of order can be raised on the Chairman’s decisions or

rulings.260

No point of order on a business not before the House

A member cannot raise a point of order on a business that is not

before the House. It can be raised only on the conduct of the proceedings
and the business that is on the anvil. It should pertain to something which
is before the House.261

In the course of discussion on a Bill, a member sought to raise a point

of order concerning a question put to the Minister during Question
Hour. The Deputy Chairman ruled it out saying that the member could
not raise a point of order on something which happened that morning;
he could raise a point of order concerning the debate that was going
on and whatever query the member had, could be raised next day
after Question Hour or the member could write a letter to the concerned
Minister.262

No point of order on a point of order

When one member was explaining his point of order, another member
rose on a point of order. Although the Chair was not permitting him
to do so, the member pressed the Chair for listening to his point of
order, for, in his opinion, his point of order was very important.
Disallowing the second member’s point of order, the Deputy Chairman
observed, “That is not the parliamentary practice. When one point of
order is raised, you cannot raise another point of order. There is no
point of order on a point of order.”263

No point of order on a matter under Chairman’s consideration

When a member raised a point of order on a matter about which he

had written to the Chairman, the Deputy Chairman observed that
since it was under the consideration of the Chairman, there was no
need to proceed with the point of order made by the member.264

No point of order to question Minister’s remark

When a member raised a point of order on some observations of the

Prime Minister on Calcutta city, the Deputy Chairman observed that
the Minister could give any reply, it might be liked or not liked by a
member. It could not be questioned.265
General Rules of Procedure 1025

No point of order during question hour and half-an-hour discussion

It is now an established practice that no point of order can be raised
during Question Hour, perhaps “because of the general desire to make
progress during the limited time available for questions.” The Presiding
Officers in the Rajya Sabha have consistently refused to allow raising of
points of order during Question Hour (unless it is extraordinary).266
However, there have been some instances when exception has been
made to this practice in view of the extraordinary point involved, as
described in Chapter-17 relating to Questions.
For the same reason a point of order cannot be raised during half-
an-hour discussion.267
No point of order during the division
When the Chair is engaged in collecting the voices in the course of
putting the question, or during the course of a division that follows the
putting of question, he will not hear a point of order; for, if he does, the
division and the consequent determination of the House on a question,
might last several hours.268
No point of order asking for procedural advice
On occasions members ask for Chair’s advice as to what procedural
remedy exists for what they consider to be an unsatisfactory situation.
This advice is generally asked on a point of order. The Chair in such cases
may interrupt the member by telling him that he should not ask for advice
by way of a point of order.
Other instances or situations
(1) A point of order is not a point of privilege.269
(2) A member shall not raise a point of order:
(a) to ask for information; or
(b) to explain his position; or
(c) when a question on any motion is being put to the House; or
(d) which may be hypothetical; or
(e) that Division Bells did not ring or were not heard.270
(3) A point of order cannot be raised in respect of an item of business
after that item has been disposed of. In other words, there can
be no point of order in vacuum.
1026 Rajya Sabha at Work

(4) No point of order can be raised on contradictory statements

alleged to have been made by Ministers or members or regarding
disqualification of a member.
(5) A point of order must refer to procedure and not to substantive
arguments on a motion, etc.
(6) Points of order relating to the same matter cannot be raised by
a member more than once.
(7) A point of order cannot be raised while the Chairman is placing
a motion before the House or delivering his ruling or making
observation or otherwise speaking.
(8) Matters on which the Chair cannot give any relief should not be
made the subject-matter of a point of order.
(9) Points of order already decided cannot be reopened.
(10) A point of order on a Bill or resolution cannot be raised unless the
motion in respect of the Bill or the resolution entered in the list
of business has been moved and placed before the House. Similarly,
a point of order regarding the admissibility of a resolution or
motion or urging that a motion or resolution should not be allowed
to be moved, can be raised only after the resolution or motion
has been moved and placed before the House.
(11) The test for judging whether a point raised is a point of order
or not is not whether the Chair can give any relief but is whether
it involves such interpretation of the rules, directions and various
provisions of the Constitution which regulate the business of the
House and whether it raises a point which the Chair alone can
decide.
(12) The Chair does not give any ruling on a point of order which
raises the question whether a Bill is constitutionally within the
legislative competence of the House or about the constitutionality
of any declaration/agreement/treaty under discussion on a
motion/resolution. It is for the House to deal with such matters.
(13) A point of order regarding arrangement of business should relate
to arrangement of items already included in the list of business
for the day; it may not be raised for inserting any new item
which is not in the list of business.
(14) A point of order may not be raised regarding proceedings of an
earlier sitting.
(15) There cannot be any point of order on rulings given by the Chair.271
General Rules of Procedure 1027

The above list of situations when points of order should not be

raised or may not be permitted to be raised, is only illustrative of the
concept of point of order. No rule or ruling, howsoever elaborate it may
be, may possibly avoid fictitious points of order or put an end to the
raising of unwarranted points of order which may subsequently turn out to
be points of disorder. The points of order tend to increase at times of
acute tension or controversies in the House. In such situations they will
continue to be one of the most irksome problems for the occupant of the
Chair.

Generally, what happens is that when members raise points of order,

the Chair has no idea what they are going to say until they make their
submissions. In too many cases the point raised may not be a point of
order at all but an attempt either to score a debating point or to delay
the proceedings of the House.272 In fact, there may well come a time when
the Chair may have to consider that the proliferation of points of order
on a particular occasion has reached the stage where he is justified in
saying that he will hear no more.

Preparation of official proceedings

The Secretary-General causes to be prepared a full report of the

proceedings of the Rajya Sabha at each of its sittings and, as soon as
practicable, have it published in such form and manner as the Chairman
may, from time to time direct.273

Reporting of proceedings

A verbatim record of everything said in the House is reported by the

official Reporters, except certain words, phrases and expressions, if any,
ordered by the Chair to be expunged from the proceedings of the House,
or ordered by the Chair not to be recorded, when members speak without
his permission.

The work relating to the preparation of a verbatim record of the day

to day proceedings of the Rajya Sabha is handled by a team of English and
Hindi Reporters working under the charge of the of the Verbatim Reporting
Service in the Secretariat. The notes taken down in shorthand by the
Reporters are transcribed on a computer quickly so that copies of debates
become available within a few hours after the House rises for the day
except on days when the House sits for unusually long hours in which case
the later portions of the proceedings may be issued as a supplement on
the next day. The copies of debates are generally issued in two parts,
part-I containing questions, starred and unstarred and their replies and
part-II containing proceedings other than questions.
1028 Rajya Sabha at Work

Proceedings in English and Hindi/Urdu are covered by the Reporters

as they take place in the House. Arrangements exist for simultaneous
interpretation into English and Hindi of speeches made in some of the
regional languages and in such cases the text supplied by the interpreters
appears in the debates with a foot note indicating the language in which
the original speech was delivered in the House. According to the established
practice, a member wishing to speak in any language other than English
and Hindi may do so with an hour’s prior notice.
When prepared speeches or statements are read out by Ministers or
members and also when speeches are delivered with the help of copious
notes, the prepared speeches, statements, notes, etc., are to be handed
over to the Reporters after the speech has been made in the interest of
accurate transcription.274
Arrangements exist in the House for simultaneous digital and tape
recording of the entire proceedings. This helps Reporters to ensure correct
transcription and also confirm therefrom about the accuracy of the
proceedings taken by them in case of doubt.
The Reporters’ copy is treated as authentic record of proceedings. If
a dispute arises as to the correctness of the proceedings recorded by the
Reporters, these may be cross checked with the digital/tape recordings.

On an occasion, a Reporter was asked to read out from his note-book

the relevant portion of the debate when there was controversy about
what a member said was parliamentary or unparliamentay.275

An electrostat copy of every speech delivered or question put by a

member on a particular day and taken down by the Official Reporters is
ordinarily forwarded to him for confirmation the next morning and it has
to be returned duly approved to the Editor (English) within twenty-four
hours and in any case not later than 12 noon on the third day. A verbatim
record of proceedings in electronic form is also uploaded on the Rajya
Sabha website at the end of the day. Corrections received later than the
time specified above cannot be incorporated in the manuscripts of the
debates to be sent to the Press. In case of delay the version as taken down
by the Reporters is utilised.

In case of quotations, copies thereof have to be supplied by members

to the Reporters, except in case where the page, etc., of some well-known
report, which is readily available has been specifically referred to.

In case of quotations in Indian languages, slokas, etc., the quotation

followed by its meaning, if it has not already been given has to be filled
in by the member when his speech is sent to him for approval.
General Rules of Procedure 1029

The official report has to be a correct reproduction of the speeches

actually delivered by the members in the House. The copies of the speeches
that are sent to them are for the purpose of confirmation and correcting
obvious inaccuracies; and not for the purpose of improving their literary
form or altering their substance by additions or deletions. Only minor
corrections, viz., those in respect of grammatical errors, misreporting of
quotations, figures, names, etc. are permissible. Corrections, if any, are to
be made by members neatly and legibly and in ink in order to ensure their
correct incorporation in the printed proceedings.276

The official report is a record of the spoken word. It does not,

therefore, lend itself to descriptive reporting. For example, angry gestures,
loud applause or derisive laughter are not reflected in the official report
unless they are subsequently referred to by a member. Only observance of
silence by members at the end of obituary references and walk-outs are
normally indicated.

Reporting of proceedings of Committees

A verbatim record of the proceedings of a Parliamentary Committee

is kept when a witness is summoned to give evidence.277 Relevant portion
of such a proceedings is forwarded to the witness and the members
concerned for confirmation and return by a specified date. The verbatim
proceedings are treated as confidential and are not made available to
anyone without the permission of the Chairman. The witness to whom the
proceedings are sent for confirmation is informed that the proceedings
have to be kept confidential and no part thereof should be published by
him. So far as other proceedings of the Committee are concerned, a record
of the decisions of the Committee is maintained 278in the form of Minutes.

Expunction of words from proceedings of the House

If the Chairman is of opinion that a word or words has or have been

used in debate which is or are defamatory or indecent or unparliamentary
or undignified, he may in his discretion, order that such word or words be
expunged from the proceedings of the House.279 In practice, the scope of
this power has been enlarged and in some cases, the Chairman has ordered,
in his discretion, the expunction of words which he considered prejudicial
to national interest or to the maintenance of friendly relations with a
foreign State; derogatory to high dignitary including heads of friendly
foreign States, 280 offending national sentiments or the religious
susceptibilities of a section of the community; likely to discredit the Army,
not in good taste or otherwise objectionable and likely to bring the House
into disrepute. An expunction from the proceedings may be ordered,
1030 Rajya Sabha at Work

(i) by the Chairman suo motu if he holds certain words as

defamatory, indecent, unparliamentary or undignified;
(ii) when the Chairman’s attention is drawn by a member or a
Minister to objectionable words at the time they are uttered or
subsequently and if the Chairman agrees;
(iii) when the Chairman’s attention is drawn by an officer of the
Secretariat or otherwise to the objectionable words and if the
Chairman agrees;
(iv) where a member himself requests that words from his speech
may be expunged and if the Chairman agrees.
A member requested the Chairman that a supplementary question
which he had put under misunderstanding should be expunged. The
Chairman did not agree stating that the member’s explanation would
go on record.281

(v) if derogatory remarks are used by members against each other;

There were some altercations between some members during a debate.
A member rose on a point of order seeking withdrawal of some
remarks made by another member. Before the House adjourned for
the day the Deputy Chairman, inter alia, observed that she had seen
the records and those remarks would be removed.282

(vi) even when an expression is withdrawn by the member who

used it;
A member had made certain remarks which he, upon the Chairman’s
direction, withdrew. However, when the uncorrected proceedings did
not contain the words but contained his statement that he had
withdrawn them, the member raised the matter in the House the
next day and contended that there was a distinction between
‘withdrawal’ and ‘expunction’, and stated that when he obeyed the
Chair and withdrew the remarks, the same could not be expunged.
The Chairman, inter alia, observed, “My right to expunge remarks is
discretionary and is not confined only to those cases when an
honourable member disobeys my direction. A remark may be withdrawn
and yet it may be of such a character that it may attract my powers
under rule 261,”283

When a member speaks without being called upon to speak, or despite

being asked to resume his seat continues to speak, or speaks without the
permission of the Chair, the Chair may direct that remarks of such a
member may not form part of the record.284 Likewise, if a member continues
to interrupt the speech of another member or Minister, the Chair may
direct that interruptions be not recorded.285
General Rules of Procedure 1031

When a member defied the Chair and wanted to speak, the Chairman
ordered that whatever the member said would be “off the record”. A
point of order was raised that the Chairman had no such power to
order that a part of the proceedings should not go on record. But the
Chair ruled that he had this power under rule 259 (regarding Chairman’s
power to preserve order and enforce decisions).286

On an occasion when several members rose at the same time to ask

supplementaries and raise points of order and did not resume their
seats in spite of the Chairman asking them to do so, he stood up and
observed, “If an honourable member speaks when I am standing, my
instructions to the Reporters are to completely black out what he
says. This is a standing instruction.”287 After a couple of days a member
requested the Chairman to reconsider his ruling in view of the fact
that the rules did not say that when Mr. Chairman stood up, if somebody
said something, automatically it got expunged. The Chairman then
clarified that he had said it for that day only and he would give special
directions every time.288

The Chairman can order expunction on a subsequent day and not

only while he is presiding.
A member withdrew objectionable remarks made by him while the
Chairman was in the Chair. Subsequently, he directed the Vice-Chairman
to expunge the remarks from the proceedings. The next day, the
member raised the matter on the floor of the House contending, inter
alia, that the Chairman could not order such expunction from his
Chamber; he could do so only while he was in the Chair. The Chairman
observed that the Chairman could exercise it and place was not the
thing; it was not necessary that he should be sitting in the Chair in
the House to direct expunction.289

Some derogatory references made against the Comptroller and Auditor-

General of India during a short duration discussion on his report on
21 and 25 July 1989, were ordered to be expunged by the Chairman
on the last day of the 151st Session (18 August 1989) on a representation
made by a former member of the Rajya Sabha. Members were informed
of expunctions through a paragraph in the Bulletin.290

Certain remarks made by a member in respect of the Lok Sabha

Secretariat on 30 April 1992, which had gone unnoticed were expunged
subsequently and the member concerned was informed accordingly.291

The decision of the person presiding about expunction of words or

directing that nothing would go on record is final and no appeal lies to the
Chairman.
Soon after Question Hour a member questioned the right of the Chair
to say; ‘nothing will go into the proceedings’ with reference to an
earlier direction given by one of the Vice-Chairmen, adding that it
1032 Rajya Sabha at Work

could not be done so long as the rules were not violated and the
Constitution was not disrespected. He objected to some of the
proceedings being thus expunged by the Vice-Chairman. Responding to
this the Chairman observed:

I must stand by the ruling given by the Vice-Chairman who was in

the Chair. It is as good a ruling as given by me. If I were to begin
revising those rulings, then the work will never be finished and
there will be lot of trouble.292

On more than one occasion the matter of the Chair directing that
“nothing would go on record” has been raised on the floor of the House.
For instance, on 6 August 1980, there was a somewhat lengthy discussion
on this issue. A member contended that under rule 260 the Secretary-
General was to cause to be prepared full report of the proceedings. There
was no specific rule that “The Chairman may direct that nothing shall be
recorded.” The Deputy Chairman observed that under rule 266 (residuary
power) the Chair had got the power to regulate proceedings of the House.293

Again on 27 August 1988, during Question Hour when the Chairman

ruled that except the supplementaries nothing said in the House would go
on record, members raised objection to the removal of expressions of
members from the record. The Chairman observed:

This is a well-established practice. Otherwise you will need as many

reporters as the number of members here... My ruling is very clear
that nothing which is spoken will go on record. What is on record is
not expunged.294

The Rules Committee also gave a thought to the issue. The Chairman
(of the Rajya Sabha who is also the Chairman of the Committee) explained
that the Chair was exercising this power under rule 259 and if the members
so desired, a specific rule on the subject might be incorporated in the
rules.295

Indication in proceedings regarding expunctions

The portions of the proceedings of the House so expunged are

indicated by asterisks and an explanatory footnote is inserted in the
proceedings as follows: “Expunged as ordered by the Chair.”296 If the
expunction is ordered on a subsequent day, the expunged portion is indicated
only in the printed debates by an asterisk. If the Chair has directed that
nothing would go on record in respect of a member’s speech, the proceeding
bears a footnote “Not recorded.”

Expunction of words and remarks is ordered from the speeches of not

only members but also from the speeches of Ministers.
General Rules of Procedure 1033

On 16 July 1996 in the debate on the resolution seeking extension of

President’s Rule in Jammu & Kashmir, the Minister of Home Affairs,
Shri Indrajit Gupta, made a comment on the conduct of the polling
officers in the Lok Sabha elections which had just taken place in
Jammu & Kashmir. The Home Minister’s comment was strongly objected
to by many members whereupon Vice-Chairman (Ms. Saroj Khaparde)
ordered expunction of the Home Minister’s remarks and the explicit
references to that remark.

On 29 July 1998, the then Home Minister, Shri Lal K. Advani, made a
comment in regard to certain actions of the Maharashtra Govt. in
relation to a case which was sub judice. As per the guidelines to be
followed by members while speaking in the House one of the
self-imposed restrictions on the freedom of speech in Parliament is
that discussions on matters pending adjudication before courts of law
should be avoided on the floor of the House, so that courts function
uninfluenced by anything said outside the ambit of trial in dealing
with such matters. When some members drew the attention of the
Deputy Chairman who was in the Chair to the Home Minister’s comment
on a matter which was sub judice, the Deputy Chairman expunged the
objectionable remarks of the Home Minister.

Expunction and subsequent restoration

On 5 August 1993, immediately after the Question Hour, Shri Yashwant
Sinha, with the prior permission of Chairman, made a Zero Hour submission
on the question of suspension by Russia of the Indo-Russian Cryogenic
rocket engine deal, and in that, made certain references to the then
Finance Minister, Dr. Manmohan Singh, which were expunged by the Deputy
Chairman, Dr. (Smt.) Najma Heptulla, who was in the Chair. The Deputy
Chairman at that time observed that the remarks were irrelevant. The
next day, on 6 August 1993 when Shri Yashwant Sinha found that his remarks
about the Finance Minister stood expunged in the “Uncorrected/Not for
Publication” debate of 5 August 1993, he had, by a letter addressed to the
Chairman, pleaded for restoration of his remarks since the remarks could
not be considered unparliamentary. When Shri Yashwant Sinha’s request
made to the Chairman was referred to the Deputy Chairman, the Deputy
Chairman, on reconsideration restored the expunged remarks.
Expunction from Committee proceedings
If in the opinion of the Chairman of the Committee, a minute of
dissent contains words, phrases, or expressions which are unparliamentary,
irrelevant or otherwise inappropriate, he may order them to be expunged
from the minute of dissent.297 The Chairman has also the power to order
expunction in like circumstances or to review all decisions regarding
expunction from minutes of dissent and his decision is final.298
1034 Rajya Sabha at Work

Admission of strangers to Rajya Sabha Galleries, etc.

The admission of strangers during the sittings of the Rajya Sabha to
those portions of the House which are not reserved for the exclusive use
of members is regulated in accordance with the orders made by the
Chairman,299 when the House is sitting, the Chamber is reserved for the
exclusive use of members and no strangers are permitted therein. If any
stranger comes and sits in the House knowing that he is not qualified for
membership thereof, he shall be liable to a penalty of five hundred rupees
for each day he so sits, to be recovered as a debt to the Union.300 The
other portions of the House where strangers may be permitted to go under
specified conditions are the Inner/Outer Lobbies, the Galleries and the
Central Hall. The Chamber, the Lobby and the Galleries constitute the
inner precincts of the House.
Any officer of the secretarial staff of the other House is entitled to
admission to the Chamber during any sitting of the House.301 In parliamentary
vocabulary, therefore, all persons who are not either members or officers
of the House are termed strangers.302 Admission of strangers to the various
galleries is regulated in accordance with the directions of the Chairman.
The Chairman may, whenever he thinks fit, order the withdrawal of
strangers from any part of the House.303 The following instructions in Hindi
and English are written overleaf of Visitor’s Card/Pass:
1. Admission is subject to accommodation being available.
2. This pass is liable to be cancelled without notice and without
assigning any reason therefor.
3. The person (in whose name this pass has been issued) shall be
responsible for its safe custody and proper use. This pass must be
returned or get revalidated to the Centralised Pass Issue Cell
(CPIC) Branch, Rajya Sabha after the period for which it is issued,
is over.
4. After witnessing the proceedings of the House, the visitors should
come out of the Parliament House Complex immediately after the
time is over or security staff advice to do so, whichever is earlier.
5. In case visitors are found roaming in non-permitted areas, they
shall be liable to be sent out of the Parliament House Complex
immediately.
6. Visitors are required to maintain silence. Demonstration, applause,
shouting and distribution of leaflets are prohibited. Movement of
any kind is to be avoided as much as possible.
General Rules of Procedure 1035

7. This pass should be shown on demand by security staff on duty.

8. Any visitor may be asked to withdraw at any time from the
gallery without assigning any reason therefor, even though holding
a visitor’s card, which may otherwise be valid.
9. Visitors are not permitted to take any objectionable items (like
sticks, umbrellas, handbags, attaché cases, books etc.) and
electronic items (like mobile phones, cameras, CD, pen drive,
radio, i-pod/i-pad, laptop etc.) inside the building. They must
declare and deposit such articles at the Token Cabin.
10. No fire-arms is permitted inside the Parliament House Complex.
In case of possession of firearms, the same should be left outside
the Parliament House Complex.
11. Visitors carrying cash or valuable in their handbags should invariably
ask for lockers.
12. Children below ten years of age are not allowed inside the Gallery.
13. Any infringement will render the persons concerned liable to action
being taken against them.
14. Smoking is strictly prohibited in the Parliament House Complex.
15. Interaction or interview with media is not allowed.
16. Please co-operate with security staff on duty in maintaining
discipline and decorum of the Parliament House Complex.
17. In case of any need, contact the nearest security personnel and
extend co-operation to them.
18. Photocopy/scanning/tampering of the pass for any purpose is
strictly prohibited.
19. This entry permit must be deposited with the Security Assistant
on duty at the exit gate after completion of visit.
20. The loss of this pass should be reported immediately to CPIC,
Rajya Sabha and Communication Control Room.
A member may go inside the Galleries but it is not desirable that he
should remain in the Visitor’s Gallery for any length of time.
On an occasion a member raised a point of order whether it was open
to a member of the House to go to a Visitors’ Gallery and watch the
proceedings from there. The Deputy Chairman observed that although
members might visit various Galleries it was not in order for a member
to retain a seat in the Gallery to the exclusion of, or on behalf, a
holder of a card for that Gallery.304
1036 Rajya Sabha at Work

Rajya Sabha Galleries

The Visitors’ Galleries of the Rajya Sabha Chamber are: Public Gallery,
Distinguished Visitors’ Gallery, Press Gallery and Gallery for members of
the Lok Sabha. There is also an Official Gallery (situated on the right side
of the Chairman’s seat) and the Special Box (situated on the left side of
the Chairman’s seat).

The Public Gallery is generally for the use of the public. A member
can apply for issue of Visitors’ Cards only for persons who are personally
known to him and are his personal friends or relations or in select cases
for those who have been introduced to him by persons who are personally
known to the members. Cards for admission to this Gallery are issued on
applications made. The following paragraph is issued in this regard in the
Bulletin:

Special attention of members is invited to the following certificate

which is given by them while applying for visitors’ cards for the Galleries
of the Rajya Sabha:

“The above named visitor is my relation/friend known to me

personally and I take full responsibility for him/her.”

Members are requested kindly to ensure that the visitors for whom
they apply for visitors’ cards are known to them personally.

Members are also requested to ensure that the particulars required in

the application forms are duly filled in. It will not be possible to issue
visitors’ cards if all the particulars required therein have not been
furnished.

Members are further requested that the application form for visitors’
cards must be delivered in the Notice Office before 3.00 p.m. on the
day previous to the date of the sitting of the House for which cards
are applied.

Members are also requested not to make requests for the same day
visitors’ cards in view of the present security environment in the
country.305

The Distinguished Visitors’ Gallery is intended for eminent men, former

Members of Parliament, Ministers in States, etc., foreign diplomats and
Chairman’s family members.

The Press Gallery is meant for accredited correspondents whom passes

are issued by the Secretary-General in accordance with the general orders
of the Chairman.
General Rules of Procedure 1037

The Lok Sabha Gallery is meant for the exclusive use of the members
of the Lok Sabha to enable them to watch the proceedings of the Rajya
Sabha.
The Official Gallery is intended only for officers of the Government
of India whose presence is required in connection with the business before
the House.
The Special Box is reserved for the family and guests of the President,
heads of foreign States and foreign Parliamentary Delegations, etc.
Lobby
The Rajya Sabha Lobby comprises the Inner Lobby (also called the
Division Lobby) and the Outer Lobby. The Lobby is intended for the use of
sitting and former Members of Parliament.
Central Hall
The Central Hall is primarily meant for use of Members of Parliament.
Former Members of Parliament are admitted in the Central Hall on the
basis of photo identity cards issued to them by the respective Secretariats.
Certain press correspondents holding press passes are also admitted to the
Central Hall on production of passes.
Central Hall passes are recommended by the Rajya Sabha Notice
Office in favour of persons on the specific and written requests from
members. The following categories of persons only are entitled to avail of
Central Hall entry facility:
1. Sitting MLAs/MLCs;
2. Chief Ministers/Ministers in States;
3. Former Ministers in the States;
4. Spouse, son(s)/daughter(s) of sitting MPs.306
Requisite forms are available for the purpose in the Notice Office.
During the President’s Address in the Central Hall, applications for
entry to the Visitors’ Galleries of the Central Hall are required to be made
in the prescribed form. The seating capacity in the galleries of the Central
Hall for the guests of members of the Rajya Sabha is very limited. Cards
are therefore, issued on “first-come-first served” basis.307

Suspension of rules
A member may, with the consent of the Chairman, move that any
rule may be suspended in its application to a motion related to the business
1038 Rajya Sabha at Work

listed before the Council for that day and if the motion is carried the rule
in question is suspended for the time being. If a provision already exists
for suspension of a rule under a particular Chapter of rules, the general
rule relating to suspension of rules does not apply.308 As observed by the
Chairman on an occasion, ‘’It is with my consent that Question Hour can
be suspended. I am not giving consent...without my consent, no rule can
be suspended.”309
Although it is in the discretion of the Chairman to give his consent
to the moving of a motion for suspension of a rule, the discretion is
exercised with utmost care and caution and after taking all factors into
consideration. Every request for suspension is judged on its merits before
the Chairman gives his consent. On occasions the Chairman has refused
consent for moving of a motion, especially in relation to Question Hour.310
On an occasion a general motion was moved for suspension of Question
Hour, Calling Attention and Private Members’ Business during a session.311

Residuary powers of the Chairman

The Chairman has the power to deal with all matters which are not
specifically or adequately provided for in the rules. All matters not
specifically provided for in the rules and all questions relating to the
detailed working of the rules are regulated in such manner as the Chairman
may, from time to time, direct.312 In exercise of these powers the Chairman
has issued directions from time to time in respect of such matters as
questions, committees, special mentions, removal of Bills from Register,
etc. Under the inherent powers the Chairman may order expunction of
words from the proceedings of the House on grounds not provided for in
the rule relating to expunction.
Maiden speeches delivered by members are not governed by any
specific rule of the Rules of Procedure and Conduct of Business. Therefore,
there was no time-limit for such maiden speeches. However on 25 August
2010 the Chairman issued a direction prescribing that a maiden speech of
a member should not impinge on time management for the scheduled
business of the day and should not exceed 15-20 minutes.313

NOTES AND REFERENCES

1. Bn. (II), 6.2.1996 (No. 35512).

2. R. 223(1).
3. R. 223(2).
4. Bn. (II) 12.11.2015 (No. 54605).
5. 7 Rpt., COR (presented on 14.2.1995).
6. Bn. (I), 30.5.1995.
General Rules of Procedure 1039

7. Sectional Manual of Office Procedure (SMOP), Council Branch (Table Office, Notice
Office & Lobby Office) Rajya Sabha Secretariat, September 2010, p. 67.
8. R. 39.
9. R. 60(2).
10. R. 154.
11. Rs. 160(2) and 232.
12. R. 62(3).
13. R. 95(1).
14. Bn. (II), 6.2.1996 (No. 35513); R 180C(1).
15. Rs. 113 and 123.
16. Bn. (II), 19.2.1996 (No. 35527); R 180(1).
17. 13th Rpt. of Committee on Rules presented on 25 November 2014 and adopted by the
House on 26 November 2014.
18. Rs. 180A-180E.
19. R. 224(1).
20. R. 3(1).
21. R. 7(1).
22. R. 29(1).
23. Rs. 95(2) and 160(3).
24. R. 224(2).
25. R. 227.
26. R. 225.
27. 4 Rpt., COP, para. 3.
28. R. 226.
29. Art. 3.
30. Art. 274(1).
31. Art. 117(3).
32. R. 234.
33. R.S. Deb., 24.12.1980, c. 256-66 and 18.3.1981, c. 283-90.
34. Rs. 235-40.
35. R. 238(i).
36. Art. 105(1).
37. R. 47(2)(xix).
38. R. 169(viii).
39. R. 157(v).
40. R.S. Deb., 25.11.1986, c. 183-84.
41. Ibid., 7.12.1970, c. 98-116.
42. Ibid., 22.7.2003, pp. 330-43.
43. Ibid., 27.2.2006, p. 240 (The ruling was given in Hindi).
44. Ibid., 12.12.1994, c. 324-26.
45. Ibid., 8.5.1986, c. 281.
46. Page Committee Report, paras. 26-28 and 30.
47. R.S. Deb., 18.11.1964, c. 330-31; and 15.3.1988, c. 218-22.
48. Ibid., 15.3.1988, c. 221 and 226.
49. Art. 88.
50. R.S. Deb., 19.2.2014, pp. 333-35.
51. Art. 105(1) and (2).
52. R. 238(v).
53. Bn. (I), 4.12.1967.
54. Ibid., 22.11.1967.
55. Ibid., 30.3.1977.
56. Ibid., 13.3.1969, 5.3.1970 and 27.4.1981.
57. Ibid., 12.5.1986.
58. Ibid., 24.11.1970, 24.2.1970, 16.2.1968, 20.11.1967 and 20.3.1967.
59. Ibid., 11.5.1968.
1040 Rajya Sabha at Work

60. Bn. (I), 30.3.1973.

61. Ibid., 21.12.1964.
62. Ibid., 8.6.1967.
63. Ibid., 22.7.1969.
64. R.S. Deb., 7.12.1987, c. 309.
65. R. 238A.
66. Ibid., Proviso.
67. R.S. Deb., 30.5.1967, c.1410-11; 5.6.1967, c.2208-16; 6.6.1967, c. 2439-43 and
19.6.1967, c. 4656-58.
68. Digest, pp. 604-05.
69. For procedure regarding Personal Explanation, see infra.
70. R.S. Deb., 8.3.1978, c. 122.
71. R. 241, and R.S. Deb., 3.4.1989, c. 127-28.
72. R.S. Deb., 22.11.1962, c. 2161-62.
73. Ibid., 11.3.1969, c. 3151.
74. Ibid., 30.3.1988, c. 66-67.
75. Abraham & Hawtrey, A Parliamentary Dictionary, p. 144.
76. R.S. Deb., 31.8.1973, c. 84.
77. Ibid., 31.7.1980, c. 160.
78. An Encyclopaedia of Parliament, p. 560.
79. R.S. Deb., 25.11.1955, c. 569; see also R.S. Deb., 29.2.1956, c. 1078.
80. Ibid., 1.8.1991, c. 270-74.
81. Ibid., 3.12.1985, c. 190-91.
82. Ibid., 8.8.1977, c. 8-9.
83. Bn. (I), 4.12.1978.
84. R.S. Deb., 23.5.1990, c. 187-97.
85. Bn. (I), 21.2.1986.
86. Ibid., 16.12.1969.
87. Ibid., 4.8.1983.
88. Ibid., 15.12.1977 and 16.12.1977.
89. R.S. Deb., 20.11.1980, c. 223.
90. Ibid., 21.11.1962, c. 1944.
91. Ibid., 19.8.1963, c. 644-45.
92. Bn. (I), 29.8.1973 (by Shri L.N. Mishra); 18.2.1975 (by Shri Chandrajit Yadav); 14.8.1978
(by Shri Biju Patnaik); 16.8.1978 (by Shri George Fernandes); 27.3.1979 (by Shri Ravindra
Verma); 13.12.1985 (by Shri Natwar Singh); 5.8.1980 (by Shri C.M. Stephen); 17.11.1980
(by Shri C.P.N. Singh); 30.8.1990 (by Shrimati Maneka Gandhi); 28.8.1991 (by
Shri Paban Singh Ghatowar).
93. R.S. Deb., 30.8.1990, c. 152-57.
94. R. 242(1).
95. R. 242(2).
96. R. 242(3).
97. Ibid., Proviso.
98. R. 244(1).
99. R. 244(2).
100. Abraham & Hawtrey, A Parliamentary Dictionary, p. 58.
101. R.S. Deb., 24.7.1952, c. 1948.
102. Ibid., 16.3.1954, c. 2877-78.
103. Ibid., 31.8.1956, c. 2969-70.
104. Ibid., 8.12.1967, c. 3222.
105. R. 245(1).
106. R. 245(2).
107. R.S. Deb., 4.5.1954, c. 5068-70.
108. R. 246.
109. R. 247.
General Rules of Procedure 1041

110. R.S. Deb., 22.9.1954, c. 2989-91.

111. R. 256(2).
112. R. 248.
113. R. 249.
114. Ibid., 1st Proviso.
115. R.S. Deb., 24.9.1954, c. 3282-87.
116. Ibid., 14.3.1972, c. 98-100 (also f.n. on c. 100); and 14.4.1972, c. 84.
117. Ibid., 12.11.1986, c. 163-65.
118. Ibid., 20.9.1963, c. 4972-97.
119. Ibid., 21.3.1967, c. 266-71.
120. R. 249, 2nd Proviso.
121. R.S. Deb., 9.3.1984, c. 239-41.
122. Ibid., 19.7.1978, c. 239-302.
123. Bn. (I), 27.7.1978.
124. R.S. Deb., 31.7.1978, c. 106-34; 1.8.1978, c. 176-231 and 2.8.1978, c. 159-92.
125. Ibid., 3.8.1978, c. 216.
126. Ibid., 3.4.1989, c. 20, 53 and 4.4.1989, c. 38-39.
127. Ibid., 13.8.1974, c. 5-8.
128. Ibid., 27.8.1974, c. 21-34 and 232-54.
129. Bn. (I), 11.9.1974.
130. R.S. Deb., 4.12.1974, c. 206-36.
131. Ibid., 5.12.1974, c. 174-75 and 6.12.1974, c. 158-59.
132. Ibid., 9.12.1974, c. 125-27.
133. Ibid., 10.12.1974, c. 139-143 and 1.12.1974, c. 122-23.
134. Ibid., 20.3.1987, c. 259-66.
135. Ibid., 8.1.1976, c. 6.
136. Ibid., 16.3.1981, c. 168-72.
137. Ibid., 19.12.1953, c. 2894.
138. Ibid., 4.4.1989, c. 52-53.
139. Ibid., 8.3.1978, c. 119-34
140. Ibid., 21.4.1953, c. 3460.
141. Ibid., 25.2.1966, c. 1320-23.
142. Ibid., 18.12.1970, c. 108-14.
143. See Chapter 4.
144. R.S. Deb., 7.5.1959, c. 2205-06.
145. Ibid., 23.1.1976, c. 151-52.
146. Ibid., 9.3.1984, c. 289.
147. Ibid., 15.5.1956, c. 2170-85.
148. Ibid., 11.9.1956, c. 4078-82.
149. Ibid., 22.4.1974, c. 92.
150. R. 250.
151. R.S. Deb., 7.5.1959, c. 2196-2201.
152. Bn. (II), 5.2.1996 (No. 35502).
153. Kaul & Shakdher, p. 1033.
154. Ibid., p. 1034.
155. Supplementary LoB, 20.3.1995.
156. Bn. (II), 8.8.1960 and 10.8.1960.
157. R.S. Deb., 30.8.1960, c. 2720.
158. Ibid., 24.7.1980, c. 84; Bn. (I) of that date and F. No. 35/9/80-L.
159. Ibid., 22.11.1962, c. 2161-62.
160. Ibid., 21.3.1967, c. 371-73.
161. Ibid., 6.4.1967, c. 2560-79; see also R.S. Deb., 26.7.1996.
162. Ibid., 31.3.1969, c. 6388.
163. C.S. Deb., 27.4.1953, c. 4106.
164. Ibid., 25.11.1952, c. 192-93.
1042 Rajya Sabha at Work

165. R.S. Deb., 19.9.1955, c. 3499-3500.

166. Bn. (I), 26.2.1992.
167. Bn. (II), 9.4.1992 (No. 32975).
168. Ibid., 30.7.1992.
169. Bn. (I), 26.8.1994.
170. Ibid., 8.3.1996.
171. Bn. (II), 11.12.2002.
172. Ibid., 19.12.2012.
173. R.S. Deb., 31.3.1967, c. 1663-79.
174. Ibid., 22.11.1962, c. 2161-62; see also R.S. Deb., 22.2.1966, c. 933-34.
175. F. No. RS. 4/2005-T and R.S. Deb. 27.7.2005. pp. 193-97.
176. F. No. RS. 4/2009-T and R.S. Deb. 9.12.2009, pp. 259-263.
177. F. No. RS. 4/2013-T.
178. R.S. Deb., 28.11.1958, c. 600-02.
179. Ibid., 28.2.1963, c. 1176, 1216-18.
180. Ibid., 22.2.1965, c. 492-95, 604-09; 26.2.1965, c. 1337-38; and 2.3.1965, c. 1496-97.
181. Ibid., 26.2.1991, c. 182.
182. R. 251.
183. R.S. Deb., 18.6.1980, c. 210.
184. Ibid., 24.2.1987, c. 228.
185. Ibid., 22.2.1966, c. 846.
186. Ibid., 31.7.1991, c. 372-73; 1.8.1991, c. 256-96, c. 344-51; 2.8.1991, c. 290-318;
6.8.1991, c. 173-84; 7.8.1991, c. 274-84; 6.9.1991, c. 353-55; 9.9.1991, c. 252-84;
26.11.2007, pp. 226-30; 29.11.2007, pp. 246-47; 22.10.2008, pp. 213; 23.10.2008,
pp. 224-32; 31.7.2009, pp. 208-210; 6.8.2009, pp. 248-260; 4.12.2009, pp. 234-65;
7.12.2009, pp. 224-33; 24.2.2010, pp. 138-39; 25.2.2010, pp. 285-89; 4.3.2010,
pp. 249-51; 28.4.2010, pp. 307-13; 29.4.2010, pp. 332; 3.5.2010, pp. 335-39; 6.5.2010,
pp. 309-17; 15.4.2010, pp. 198-259; 19.4.2010, pp. 258-78; 4.8.2010, pp. 346-49;
6.8.2010, pp. 267-93; 26.8.2010, pp. 223-27; 31.8.2010, pp. 301-05; 21.12.2011,
pp. 329-34 and 27.12.2011, pp. 3-23.
187. Ibid., 27.11.1991, c. 339-48; and 29.11.1991, c. 153-71, 243-47.
188. Ibid., 3.11.1988, c. 289-378 and 4.11.1988, c. 328-40.
189. Ibid., 27.11.1991, c. 339-48; 24.2.2010, pp. 138-39; 25.2.2010, pp. 285-89; 4.3.2010,
pp. 249-51; 28.4.2010, pp. 307-13; 29.4.2010, pp. 332; 3.5.2010, pp. 335-39 and
6.5.2010, pp. 309-317.
190. Ibid., 16.8.1993, c. 272-73.
191. Ibid., 28.4.1987, c. 184.
192. Ibid., 26.2.1992.
193. Ibid., 27.2.1992.
194. Ibid., 28.2.1992, c. 247-71.
195. Ibid., 3.3.1992, c. 259-64.
196. Bn. (I), 27.8.1993.
197. R.S. Deb., 4.8.1993, c. 333-34; and 18.8.1993, c. 417-23.
198. Ibid., 26.11.1985, c. 240-41; and 10.12.1985, c. 179-333.
199. Bn. (I), 28.4.1989.
200. Ibid., 24.7.1991, 25.7.1991 and 26.7.1991.
201. R.S. Deb., 30.7.1985, c. 249.
202. Bn. (II), 8.7.1991 (No. 32369).
203. BAC mts., 1.8.1991; Bn. (II), 2.8.1991.
204. R.S. Deb., 1.8.1991, c. 357.
205. Ibid., 4.12.1967, c. 2347; 13.12.1967, c. 3909.; 17.8.2011, pp. 1-17 and 278-317; and
27.8.2011, pp. 8-134.
206. Bn. (I), 28.5.1998, 26.2.2001, 7.12.2005,11.12.2008, 17.8.2011 and 27.8.2011.
207. Ibid., 8.8.2001, 9.8.2001, 18.12.2001, 19.12.2001, 31.7.2003, 4.8.2005, 8.8.2005,
27.2.2006 and 11.3.2006.
General Rules of Procedure 1043

208. Bn. (I), 21.1.1985.

209. Ibid., 9.7.1992.
210. Ibid., 13.8.1985 and 14.8.1985.
211. Ibid., 20.8.1985.
212. Ibid., 18.12.1992 and 21.12.1985.
213. Ibid., 26.2.2013 and 15.3.2013.
214. R.S. Deb., 18.3.1980, c. 150-60.
215. Bn. (I), 16.2.2006, 3.3.2008, 13.2.2009 and 26.2.2013.
216. Bn. (II), 28.9.2004.
217. See Arts. 61(4), 67(b), 90(c), 94(c) 124(4), 148(1), 217(1)(b), 249(1), 312(1), 352(6)
and 368, under which special majority votes are required for deciding matters mentioned
therein.
218. Art. 100(1).
219. An Encyclopaedia of Parliament, p. 212.
220. R. 252(1).
221. R. 252(2).
222. R. 252(3).
223. R.S. Deb., 28.7.1988, c. 299-300.
224. R. 252(4)(a).
225. R. 252(4)(b).
226. R. 252(4)(c).
227. Abraham & Hawtrey, A Parliamentary Dictionary, p. 166.
228. Bn. (I), 24.3.1995.
229. R.S. Deb., 30.1.1980, c. 347-48.
230. Ibid., 13.10.1989, c. 290-94.
231. Bn. (II), 22.5.1996 (No. 35674).
232. R.S. Deb., 7.10.1982, c. 220-22.
233. For detailed functioning of the system, see the brochure on the subject brought out
by the Rajya Sabha Secretariat on 2 December 1994.
234. R. 253(3).
235. R. 253(4).
236. R. 253(5).
237. R.S. Deb., 15.12.1961, c. 2501-27.
238. Ibid., 13.10.1989, c. 301.
239. R. 254(1).
240. R. 254(2).
241. R. 254(3).
242. R. 254(4).
243. R. 254(5).
244. R. 254(6).
245. R.S. Deb., 17.9.1981, c. 612.
246. Ibid., 13.10.1989, c. 178-79.
247. Art. 100(1).
248. R.S. Deb., 5.8.1991, c. 180-82.
249. R. 77.
250. Rs. 207(2), 212D(2), 212K(2), 212S(2).
251. Bn. (I) and Bn. (II), 7.12.2012, 17.12.2012, 19.12.2012 and 20.12.2012.
252. An Encyclopaedia of Parliament, p. 565.
253. R.S. Deb., 27.2.1982, c. 3-11 and 22.8.1990, c. 228.
254. Rs. 236 and 243
255. Handbook for Members, p. 65.
256. R.S. Deb., 1.3.1979, c. 259-61; and 30.5.1990, c. 268-77.
257. Ibid., 2.5.1963, c. 1828.
258. Ibid., 25.1.1980, c. 52-56, see also R.S. Deb., 15.12.1980, c. 207-15.
259. Ibid., 23.12.1980, c. 49-78.
1044 Rajya Sabha at Work

260. R.S. Deb., 18.12.2000, pp. 18-19.

261. Ibid., 8.9.1961, c. 3911-16.
262. Ibid., 14.3.1985, c. 265-69.
263. Ibid., 21.8.1984, c. 196; see also R.S. Deb., 1.3.1979, c. 259-61.
264. Ibid., 15.11.1971, c. 223-41.
265. Ibid., 21.3.1985, c. 154.
266. Ibid., 5.12.1967, c. 2459; 13.2.1968, c. 61; 19.1.1976, c. 21; 1.3.1978, c. 17; 4.5.1984,
c. 16-17, 193-94 and 5.9.1990, c. 11.
267. Ibid., 9.3.1979, c. 226-27.
268. Hansard, 23.3.1964, c. 172.
269. L.S.R. 376(5).
270. Ibid., 376(6).
271. Kaul & Shakdher, pp. 980-84.
272. Hansard, 26.3.1952, c. 786.
273. R. 260
274. Handbook for Members, pp. 82-83.
275. R.S. Deb., 25.11.1966, c. 2964.
276. Bn. (II), 22.5.1996 (No. 35680).
277. R. 85(5).
278. R. 89.
279. R. 261.
280. R.S. Deb., 22.8.1961, c. 1242-43.
281. Ibid., 21.11.1962, c. 1944.
282. Ibid., 27.3.1985, c. 364, 405.
283. Ibid., 11.6.1971, c. 141-45.
284. Ibid., 8.12.1971, c. 3 and 15.4.1987, c. 210-11.
285. Ibid., 13.11.1987, c. 207-08.
286. Ibid., 14.5.1974, c. 135-40.
287. Ibid., 23.7.1980, c. 14-16.
288. Ibid., 25.7.1980, c. 119-20.
289. Ibid., 11.6.1971, c. 141-45.
290. Bn. (II), 18.8.1989.
291. F. No. 41/1/92-L.
292. R.S. Deb., 1.7.1980, c. 125-26.
293. Ibid., 6.8.1980, c. 275-88.
294. Ibid., 27.4.1988, c. 10-12.
295. 1 Rpt. COR, p. 9.
296. R. 262.
297. R. 90(7)(i).
298. R. 90(7)(ii).
299. R. 264.
300. Art. 104.
301. R. 263.
302. Abraham & Hawtrey, A Parliamentary Dictionary, p. 208.
303. R. 265.
304. R.S. Deb., 27.4.1955, c. 6279 and 6300.
305. Bn. (II), 9.2.1995.
306. Ibid., 9.2.1955.
307. Ibid., 7.2.1995 (No. 34929).
308. R. 267.
309. R.S. Deb., 22.5.1990, c. 1-2.
310. See Chapter 17.
311. Ibid.
312. R. 266.
313. Bn. (II), 25.8.2010.