Manipur issue world wide protest in India but that issue not allowed in rajyasabha

The Rajya Sabha on Thursday witnessed noisy scenes after the Opposition demanded that all other business be suspended for the day to take up the Manipur issue, while the government had agreed for a “Short Duration Discussion”.

The Opposition’s demand had come under Rule 267, which has emerged as a thorny issue in Parliament sessions recently. No notice given by the Opposition under Rule 267 has been accepted in recent times. In the winter session of Parliament, Rajya Sabha Chairman Jagdeep Dhankhar had said he would invoke Rule 267 “on merit”

What is Rule 267, and what happened on Thursday?

According to the Rules of Procedure and Conduct of Business in the Council of States (Rajya Sabha), under Rule 267, “Any 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 listed before the Council of that day and if the motion is carried, the rule in question shall be suspended for the time being.”

Simply put, under this rule, Rajya Sabha MPs can give a written notice to suspend all listed business and discuss an issue of importance the country is facing..

On Thursday — the first day of the monsoon session — while the Opposition wanted to discuss Manipur under this rule, Dhankhar said the government was “keen and agreeable” for discussion under Rule 176 for “Short Duration Discussion”.

Leader of the Opposition Mallikarjun Kharge then said, “We have also given notices under 267…..you have to suspend all other business and take up this…not half an hour.”

The Opposition has complained that none of its notices under Rule 267 are being taken up.

In the winter session, Dhankhar had rejected eight such notices within two days, on matters such as the border issue with China and rising prices of essential commodities. “You can trust me, if there is an occasion to invoke (rule) 267 every day, I would not hesitate to invoke it and if there is no occasion to invoke it even once during my entire tenure I would not. It (notice) will be examined on its own merits,” he had said.

In an article for The Indian Express in December 2022, TMC MP Derek O’Brien had argued that after 2016, when the House discussed demonetisation, no notice under Rule 267 had been allowed, whereas earlier, Rajya Sabha chairmen would accept such notices

The book Rajya Sabha at Work states that “The Chairman’s rulings constitute precedents which are of a binding nature”. So, let’s look at the precedents set by the previous Chairmen of Rajya Sabha in relation to Rule 267,” O’Brien wrote.

“Shankar Dayal Sharma, as Chairman of Rajya Sabha, allowed four discussions to take place under this rule between the years 1990-92. Bhairon Singh Shekhawat, during his tenure as Chairman of Rajya Sabha, enforced the rule three times in one year, 2004. From 2013-2016, Hamid Ansari as the chairman, allowed four discussions under Rule 267. These discussions… were held on a variety of subjects: The situation in Jammu & Kashmir, the Gulf War, corruption, attack on the secular fabric of the country, agrarian crisis and farmer suicides, to name a few,” he wrote.

In March this year, Congress leader P Chidambaram wrote in The Indian Express, “In the last several months, the rule has been invoked in both Houses numerous times…The Chair has rejected every motion. Conclusion: as far as India’s Parliament is concerned, there is no matter of “urgent public importance” that requires to be discussed setting aside the business of the day.”

Protest for a justice in Manipur incident