Lok Sabha
Secretariat
(Question
Branch)
Memorandum No.
- 1
Subject: Amendments/modifications in the
Rules of Procedure and Conduct of
Business in Lok Sabha and Directions by the Speaker, Lok Sabha
CB-I has stated that rules and directions
may be revisited and a comprehensive review may be undertaken so as to.
a. Reconcile
the variations between the actual practices and the existing rules and
directions;
b. Wherever
the matters of the House or Committees are being governed merely by precedents
and practices with no binding force-to bring such matters under rules and
directions, to the extent possible; and
c. To
delete the provisions in rules and directions which have become redundant with
the passage of time due to the changed scenario.
In
view of the above, CB-I has stated that as directed by the Hon’ble Speaker, a
thorough review of all the rules/directions pertaining to the respective Branch
may be undertaken on a priority basis and wherever a need is felt for
amendments to the rules/directions by way of omission, addition or deletion
etc., memoranda on the relevant amendments duly approved by Secretary-General
may be prepared and sent to them for being placed before the Rules Committee
for consideration. Suggestions
as forwarded by CB-I regarding
changes/modifications in the Rules/Directions received from the Members of
Parliament have also been examined.
2. Rules 32 to 55 of the Rules of Procedure
and Conduct of Business in Lok Sabha and
Directions 10 to 19 of Directions by the
Speaker Lok Sabha, regulate the
parliamentary questions and Half-an- Hour
Discussions raised on the floor of the House. Certain amendments were
made in the Rules/Directions during 15th Lok Sabha which were made
effective from 5th Session
onwards. In this regard, a copy of the Bulletin Part II dated 19.03.2010 (para
1265) is placed below for perusal please.
3. However,
with the passage of time new challenges have emerged. There has been increased
proliferation of Information Technology and electronic media leading to a need
for more transparency. A keen interest of members in functioning of the
Parliamentary System has led to a phenomenal increase in the number of notices
of questions which have grown from 3,11,728 in the 14th Lok Sabha to
4,43,578 in the 15th. Due to these changes some rules have lost
relevance whereas several new practices/conventions have been adopted which
need to be incorporated in the rules to give them binding force. Further
Members have also been seeking changes in rules to make the Questions
procedures simpler and efficient and to ensure smooth functioning of Question
Hour. All these factors have necessitated the review of rules. With this in
view the entire gamut of the Rules/Directions governing Questions have been
revisited. The Question procedure of several foreign and Indian State
legislatures have also been examined to cull out their best practices. These
have been discussed in succeeding paragraphs.
I. Shifting of Question Hour
4.
Rule
32 of the Rules of Procedure and Conduct of Business in Lok Sabha stipulates as
under:
Unless the Speaker otherwise directs, the
first hour of every sitting shall be available for the asking and answering of
questions.
Generally,
the first hour of a sitting of Lok Sabha i.e. from 11 am to 12 noon is devoted
to Questions and that hour is called the “Question Hour”.
5. In
this connection, it is submitted that the Rajya Sabha has changed the Question
Hour from 11 am to 12 noon. A copy of Parliament Bulletin Part II No. 52610
dated 26 November 2014 issued by the Rajya Sabha Secretariat is placed below
for perusal please.
6. Shri
Baijyant Jay Panda, MP vide his letter RO/201415/960 dated 4th
December 2014 has requested to consider shifting the Question Hour from 11 am
to 12 noon as has been done in Rajya Sabha. He has opined that it is subject to
disruption because Members wish to bring up Zero Hour matters during Question
Hour. Shri Baijyant Jay Panda, MP has suggested that shifting Question Hour and
Zero Hour will make both hours more efficient. Starting the day with Zero Hour
at 11 am will enable Members to bring up urgent matters immediately without
disrupting Question Hour. This will ensure that there is enough time for
Members to ask the questions that have been selected for Question Hour and for
Ministers to answer them.
7. In
this context, it may be stated that in the past also several members of Lok
Sabha had suggested for change of Question Hour to 12 noon or 2 pm. Shri
Yaswant Sinha, then MP and Member of the Rules Committee had also suggested
that Question Hour could be started from 12 noon.
8. Keeping
in view the continuous disruptions and adjournments of the House and to find
ways and means to ensure smooth functioning of the Question Hour, the Hon’ble
Speaker, Lok Sabha had convened a meeting of the leaders of political parties
on 23rd July, 2010 and
subsequently on 25 July, 2010 to ascertain their views regarding shifting of
Question Hour. The dominant view that emerged was that shifting of the Question
Hour would hardly check disruptions and may dilute the importance and
significance of Parliamentary proceedings.
9. However, the matter of shifting
of Question Hour may be placed before the Rules Committee to ascertain fresh
views in this regard.
II.
Notice period and form for parliamentary
questions
10. Dr. Shashi Tharoor, MP. in his letter dated
30.12.14 has suggested that the notice period for Parliamentary Questions, as
prescribed under Rule 33 of the Rules of Procedure and Conduct of Business in
Lok Sabha, should be changed to 15 days from 10 days. In this regard, it is
submitted that Rule 33 has already been amended vide Lok Sabha Bulletin Part
II, No. 1265 dated 19 March, 2010 to change the period of notice from 10 days
to 15 days.
11. He has further, suggested that the notice
form for a Parliamentary Question for which a member desires an oral answer
should be distinguished by labeling the form as a Starred Question and not by
an asterisk. In this regard, Rule 36 of the Rules of Procedure and Conduct of
Business in Lok Sabha stipulates as under;
A member who desires an oral answer to his
question shall distinguish it by an asterisk. If he does not distinguish it by
an asterisk, the question shall be placed on the list of questions for written
answer.
12. Therefore, the aforesaid rule requires a
member to use an asterisk to distinguish Starred Questions from Unstarred
Questions. However, it is submitted that in practice, two separate forms with
Starred or Unstarred Question imprinted on them are already being used for
tabling of notices. In this regard, it would be pertinent to mention that the
use of asterisk (*) has a historical importance. The Speaker had ruled in the
House on 5th September 1921 that in future any member who desired to
have an oral answer should place a star (*) against his question when he gave
notice of it. (L.A. Deb. dt. 5th Septmber 1921, pp. 98-99). Hence,
no change as such is required.
III.
Online submission of notices of questions;
13. Rules 34 and 332 of the Rules of Procedure
and Conduct of Business in Lok Sabha read as follows:
Rule 34:
(1)-Notice of a question shall be given in
writing to the Secretary-General and shall specify-
(a) The text of the question;
(b) The official designation of the Minister to
whom the question is addressed;
(c) The date on which answer to the question is
desired; and
(d) The order of preference, if any, for its
being placed on the list of questions, where a member tables more than one
notice of questions for the same day.
(2) Where a notice is signed by more than
one member, it shall be deemed to have been given by the first signatory only.
Rule 332:
(1) Every notice required by these rules shall
be given in writing addressed to the Secretary-General and signed by the member
giving notice, and shall be left at the Parliamentary Notice Office which shall
be kept open for this purpose between the hours to be notified from time to
time on every day except Sunday or a public holiday.
(2) Notices left at the Parliamentary Notice Office
after the hours notified under sub-rule(1) shall be treated as given on the
next day.
14. Needless
to say, the communication has now become quicker, easier and convenient due to
Information Technology. If the notices
of questions are allowed to receive online, the same will facilitate the member to table their notices of
questions quickly and conveniently even at a very short time and from far away
or remote locations which, otherwise, may not be possible in the normal
course. Shri M. K. Raghavan, MP and Shri
Jayadev Galla, MP have also suggested that the notices of Starred and Unstarred
questions may be allowed to be made online.
15. In
this regard, it is submitted that the Committee on Paperless Office is seized
of the matter. National Informatics Centre has also been asked to work to
facilitate online submission of notices of questions by the Members of Lok
Sabha.
IV.
Reducing the number of questions in the
Starred List from 20 to 15.
16. Rule 37 of the Rules of Procedure and Conduct
of Business in Lok Sabha stipulates as under:
(1) Not more than one question
distinguished by an asterisk by the same member and not more than twenty
questions in all shall be placed on the list of questions for oral answer
on any one day:
Provided
that when a question is postponed or transferred from one list of questions for
oral answer to another, more than one question may stand in the name of one
member and the total number of questions may exceed by such postponed or
transferred question.
(2)
Unless the Speaker otherwise directs, where a member has given more than one
notice of questions distinguished by an asterisk for same day, the member’s
question for the list of questions for oral answer shall be selected in the
order indicated by the member and if no such order is indicated, any of these
questions shall be placed on the list of questions for oral answer in the order
in which notices are received in point of time.
17. Inclusion
of 20 Questions in Starred list was relevant earlier as the question of absent
members were not taken up and the Question Hour would collapse if some of the
Members in whose names Questions stood in Starred list were absent. However,
following the amendment in Rule 48(3) vide
Lok Sabha Bulletin, Part II, dated 19.03.2010, para 1265, all the questions
printed in the Starred List are taken up for oral answers even if the member(s)
in whose name(s) the question appears in
the List is/are absent. Further, it has been observed that on an average only 5
questions are answered during the course of a Question Hour with the maximum of
nine coming only once on 05 December 2014 during the 3rd Session of
16th Lok Sabha.
18. The
number of questions taken up for discussion during the recently concluded 4th
Session and 3rd Session of 16th Lok Sabha is given in the
Annexure. It may be seen that out of 620 questions in the Starred List, only
135 questions and out of 440, only 103 questions could be taken up for discussions
during the Question Hour of the 4th and 3rd session of 16th
Lok Sabha respectively, which works out on an average of approximately 5
questions per sitting. Preparing replies
for the Starred Questions involves a lot of labour and expenditure which goes
waste. Further names of a number of members clubbed to Starred Questions are
deleted which otherwise would have appeared in the Unstarred list. Since only
around 5 questions in the Starred List are covered during the Question Hour, it
is proposed that the number of questions being placed in the Starred List may
be reduced from 20 to a reasonable limit of 15.
19. In
this context, it may be mentioned that the Rajya Sabha has recently reduced the
number of Starred Questions from 20 to 15 vide their Bulletin Part II
No. 52621 dated 27.11.2014. In view of
the foregoing, Rule 37(1) may be suitably amended reducing the number of
questions in the Starred List from 20 to 15.
V. Admissibility
of questions
20. Rule
41 of the Rules of Procedure and Conduct of Business in Lok Sabha regulates the
admissibility of questions. Further, the right to ask a question is governed by
the conditions laid down under the rule 41(2). A number of Members of Lok Sabha
including Shri Sharad Tripathi has requested for simplification of procedure
including rules for admission of questions.
21. Shri
Bhatruhari Mahtab, MP has given suggestions for modification of various
provisions of Rule 41(2) which have
been examined in the succeeding paras.
(a) Suggestion to modify Sub-Rule 41(2)(viii) as under;
|
Rule 41(2) (viii)
it
shall not relate to a matter which is not primarily the concern of the
Government of India.
|
Change
suggested by Ho’ble MP
it shall not relate to a
matter which is not primarily the concern of the Government of India subject
to the matter shall not jeopardize public interest.
REASON: Some
subjects like maintaining of law and order situation is the primary
responsibility of the State Government. The Union Government do not furnish
satisfactory reply on such subjects stating that “the State Government is primary
responsible for the subject”. However, it is also the responsibility of the
Union Government to protect the interests of public.
|
21.1 In
this regard, it is stated that as
per Constitution of India, there are certain items which falls within the
exclusive jurisdiction of the State. Therefore, it does not seem to be
appropriate to raise questions on the subjects/items which fall in the State
List. State Legislatures are the appropriate forum for such matters. Moreover,
Minister would not be in a position to reply supplementary questions raised by
the Members concerning the States in the absence of information available with
him/her. In case, the suggestion of Hon’ble Member is accepted, it would amount
to encroachment of the domains of State subjects. Hence, the suggestion may not
be accepted.
(b) Suggestion
to modify Sub-Rule 41(2) (xiii);
|
Rule 41(2) (xiii)
It shall not repeat in substance
questions already answered or to which an answer has been refused;
|
Change
suggested by Ho’ble MP
It
shall not repeat in substance questions already answered or to which an
answer has been refused subject to the Ministry has furnished complete and
satisfactory reply to the earlier question(s);
REASON : It is observed that the Questions
of the Hon’ble Members are disallowed on the basis of previously answered
Question(s) while the Ministry has furnished incomplete and unsatisfactory
reply in such answered questions.
|
Shri
A. Sampath, MP has also stated that answer to questions of both Starred and
Unstarred should have more clarification and comprehensive to the points raised
in the questions. Not giving proper replies to the questions raised loses the
supremacy of the Parliament.
21.2 In
this connection, it is submitted that admissibility or otherwise of the questions is
not examined and decided merely on the basis of the questions but the same is
considered on the basis of the replies given by the Government to questions raised in the past on the same
subject/issue. In case the replies given to the questions raised on the same
subject appear incomplete or unsatisfactory, the questions could be admitted
for subsequent date.
21.3 In
this context, it may be relevant to refer to Direction 13 A of Directions by
the Speaker, Lok Sabha which reads as under:
(1)
Answers to questions given in the House
shall be complete and, as far as possible, each part thereof shall be answered
separately.
(2)
On the attention being drawn to an answer,
if the Speaker is satisfied that it does not fulfill this condition, the
Speaker may direct the Minister to give a complete answer.
Thus, provisions of Direction 13 A could be
invoked by the Members if the answers given to questions are incomplete.
21.4 However,
despite the aforesaid provision,
it has been observed that responses to Parliamentary Questions are not complete
and are often evasive. In the past also,
several Members have made complaints in this regard. Presently, the Ministries are empowered to
make correction of any inaccuracies in the replies under direction 16. Further, under direction 114 A, a Minister
can make a statement in the House to correct a mistake or inaccuracy in the
information given by him during a debate.
Under direction 115(1), a Member may also point out any mistake or
inaccuracy in the statements, however, this does not specifically relate to
replies to the questions. In this
regard, it is, further submitted that the Secretariat does not have any
institutional mechanism to monitor the quality of replies furnished by the
Ministries. It is felt that this has
affected the efficacy of this instrument in obtaining accurate information from
the executive.
21.5 It
is not out of context to mention that a structural mechanism in the shape of a
committee i.e. Questions and
Reference Committee exists in the State of Uttar Pradesh to oversee and monitor
the replies given to Questions in the House. (Rule 269 A and B of Rules of Procedure and
Conduct of Business of the U. P. Legislative Assembly) With
a Parliamentary Committee in place, the executive would be more cautious while
furnishing replies. The accountability of executive would be then more
fine-tuned. In view of the foregoing, Committee may consider to set up a
Parliamentary Committee to monitor and oversee the quality of replies furnished
by the Ministries/Departments of the Government of India with reference to
parliamentary questions.
(c) Suggestion
to modify Sub-Rule 41(2) (xv):
|
Rule 41(2) (xv):
It
shall not ask for information on matters of past history;
|
It
shall not ordinarily ask for information on matters taken place, occurred or
happened five years before the current financial year;
REASON : It is observed that the Questions
of the Members are disallowed stating that the matter is of past history
while it was happened 2-3 years back.
|
21.6. In
this connection, it may be stated that as per the practice, questions seeking
information pertaining to the past 3 years are always admitted unless the same
is disallowed on other conditions of admissibility of questions. Issues
relating to facts, events, place etc.
which are now parts of history are normally disallowed.
(d) Suggestion to delete Sub-Rule 41(2) (xvi)
Sub-Rule
41(2) (xvi) stipulates as under:
It shall not ask for information set forth in accessible
documents or in ordinary works of reference:
21.7 Shri
Bhatruhari Mahtab, MP has stated that some questions are disallowed on the
basis of being accessible document. Thus accountability of the Government to
the Legislature is denied on the pretext of accessible document. Hence, the
Sub-rule stated above may be deleted to make Executive accountable to the
Legislature.
21.8. In
this regard, it is submitted that normally, when the information sought by the
Members is available in accessible documents, then such questions, if
admitted, would be a wastage of scarce
and valuable time and resources available with the House and the Members, as
the information sought would only be repetition of what which is already
available in accessible documents. Disallowance of such questions would
facilitate accommodation of other questions which have otherwise gone in Excess
of 230.
22. In
the light of the provisions under the Right to information Act, 2005 and
experience gained over the last few years, a need has been felt to
change/modify some of the conditions of admissibility of questions and include
new ones as proposed below:
|
Existing conditions
|
Proposed amendments
|
|
41(2) (iv)
it shall not contain arguments,
inferences, ironical expressions, imputations, epithets or defamatory
statements;
|
it
shall not contain allegations,
arguments, inferences, ironical or offensive expressions, imputations,
epithets or defamatory statements;
|
|
41(2)(xxi)
it
shall not seek information about matters which are in their nature secret,
such as composition of Cabinet Committees, Cabinet discussions, or advice
given to the President in relation to any matter in respect of which there is
a constitutional, statutory or conventional obligation not to disclose
information;
|
it
shall not seek information about matters which are in their nature secret or sensitive;
(Rule 50 A of the Tamil Nadu Legislative
Assembly Rules states that a Minister to whom a question or a
supplementary question is put may decline to answer it on the ground that to
answer it would be against public interest)
|
Further,
the following new conditions of admissibility of questions may be included in
Rule 41(2):
|
New
inclusion
|
|
Reference
|
|
it
shall not refer to any assurance or announcement made by the Minister in the
public meetings or private institutions;
|
Rule
47 (xxiii) of the Rules of Procedure
And Conduct Of Business in Himachal Pradesh Legislative Assembly.
|
|
it
shall not seek merely to give information or to suggest its own answer or
convey a particular point of view.
|
Rule
78(2) (xxiii) of Rules
Of Procedure And Conduct Of Business in Gujarat Legislative Assembly.
Rule
83 (12) of Rules Of Procedure And Conduct Of Business in Bihar Legislative
Assembly.
|
|
it
shall be specific and confined to one issue only and shall not be too wide
dealing with several subjects having no connection with one another.
|
Rule
83(8) of Bihar Legislative Assembly
Rule
36(2)(f) of Kerala Legislative Assembly
Rule
47(2)(a) of Karnataka Legislative Assembly
|
|
it
shall not contain extracts from news paper. Further it shall not seek
response of the Government to the news items. However, the attention may be
drawn to subject matter of the news items;
|
Rule
42 (4) of the Tamil Nadu Legislative Assembly Rules.
Rule
83 (10) of Rules Of Procedure And Conduct Of Business in Bihar Legislative
Assembly.
|
|
it
shall not ordinarily seek information for more than last three years;
|
Rule
47 (xxvi) of the Rules of Procedure
And Conduct Of Business in Himachal Pradesh Legislative Assembly.
|
|
it
shall not seek information on a subject to which assurance has been given in
the same session;
|
Rule
83 (21) of the Rules of Procedure and
Conduct Of Business in Bihar Legislative Assembly.
Rule
47 (xix) of the Rules of Procedure
and Conduct Of Business in Himachal Pradesh Legislative Assembly.
Rule
43 (17) of the Rules of Procedure and
Conduct Of Business in Mizoram Legislative Assembly.
|
VI. Rule
43 : Speaker to decide admissibility
23. Rule
43 stipulates as under;
43.
(1) The Speaker shall decide whether a question, or a part thereof, is or is
not admissible under these rules and may disallow any question, or a part
thereof, when in the opinion of the Speaker, it is an abuse of the right of
questioning or is calculated to obstruct or prejudicially affect the procedure
of the House or is in contravention of these rules.
(2)
Subject to the provisions of rule 38, the Speaker may direct that a question be
placed on the list of questions for answer on a date later than that specified
by a member in the notice if the Speaker is of the opinion that a longer period
is necessary to decide whether the question is or is not admissible.
Thus, Rule 43 vests the Hon’ble Speaker
with the power to decide the admissibility of the notices of Questions.
However, the rule does not empower the Speaker to suitably amend the notices if
they are in contravention of rules in order to make them compliant to rules of
admissibility.
24. In this regard, it is submitted that the
Rule 44(2) & Rules of Procedure in Tamil Nadu Assembly provides – where the
form or the subject-matter of a question is, in the opinion of the Speaker, in
contravention of the rules, he may amend the question to secure its compliance
with the rules and inform the member concerned accordingly.
25. It has been observed that in several
instances, the questions tabled by the Members are not in conformity with the
rules and the Constitution. However, if the said questions are amended, these
can be brought in line with the rules and therefore, admitted without affecting
the thrust of the question. The practice has been followed in the Lok Sabha
Secretariat also. But there is no
specific rule authorising the same. If approved, we may adopt the rule
prevailed in Tamil Nadu Legislative Assembly, as mentioned above.
26. Therefore,
it is suggested that the following sub-Rule may be added to Rule 43:
Rule 43 (3) - “where the form or the
subject-matter of a question is, in the opinion of the Speaker, in
contravention of the rules, he/she may amend the question to secure its
compliance with the rules and inform the member concerned accordingly”.
VII. Rule 44: Speaker
to decide if a question is to be treated as starred or unstarred:
27. Rule
44 of the Rules of Procedure and Conduct of Business in Lok Sabha stipulate as
under:
If in
the opinion of the Speaker any question put down for oral answer is of such a
nature that a written reply would be more appropriate, the Speaker may direct
that such question be placed on the list of questions for written answer:
Provided
that the Speaker may, if thinks fit, call upon the member who has given notice
of a question for oral answer to state in brief his reasons for desiring an
oral answer and, after considering the same, may direct that the question be
included in the list of questions for written answer.
28. In this connection, it is stated that at
present, the Proviso of the aforesaid rule is not in use in practice. It is
therefore, suggested that Proviso of the Rule 44 may be deleted.
VIII. Number
of questions in the Unstarred List
29. So far as the number of Unstarred Questions
is concerned, Rule 45 provides as under:
(1) Questions
which have been admitted and not included in the list of questions for oral
answer shall be included in the list of questions for written answer, in
accordance with the orders of the Speaker.
(2) In
the list of questions for written answer on any one day, not more than four
questions by the same member if she or he has one question in the list of
questions for oral answer, and not more than five questions if that member has
none in the list of questions for oral answer, and not more than 230 questions
in all, shall be included:
Provided
that these limits may be exceeded by the number of questions transferred or
postponed from one list of questions for written answer to another:
Provided
further that te overall limit of 230 questions in the list of questions for
written answer on any day may exceed by the number of questions pertaining to a
State or States under President’s Rule subject to the maximum limit of 25.
Thus, presently, normally a maximum of 230
questions are listed in the Unstarred List.
30.
Shri Bhatruhari Mahtab, MP has suggested no restriction on questions of a Member
and not more than 350 questions in all for a sitting of the House. He has
opined that the total Members who participate in Questions are around 300 and
the total strength of the Lok Sabha is 545. It is, therefore, essential that
the limit of Unstarred questions may be enhanced from 230 to 350 to ensure
admission of at least one question of a Member in a sitting of the House. Shri Sharad Tripathi, MP has also stated that out
of 1200-1400 questions raised by MPs, around 1000 questions become Unstarred
and there is limit of 230 questions for giving reply and thus, around 750
questions go unanswered. Hence, only 25 percent of questions raised by MPs get
written reply which does not look justifiable in any manner for a parliamentary
democracy.
31. In this connection, it
is stated that the present limit of 230 questions for inclusion in the
Unstarred List was prescribed in September, 1981 on the recommendations of the
Rules Committee besides the provision for including further 25 questions in the
Unstarred List of Questions for a day enabling a member to raise matters in the
House concerning the States which are under the President Rule.
32. The disposal of notices of Starred and
Unstarred Questions from 9th to 15th Sessions of 15th
Lok Sabha and 2nd to 4th Session of 16th Lok
Sabha may be indicated as shown in the table below:
|
Session
|
No. of sittings
|
Total notices
|
Average no. of notices per sitting
|
admitted
|
disallowed
|
clubbed
|
Lapsed and excess of 230
|
Average no. of notices lapsed per sitting
|
|
SQ
|
USQ
|
|
4th
(16th Lok Sabha)
|
31
|
51540
|
1662
|
620
|
4110
|
17371
|
4412
|
6216
|
200
|
|
3rd (16th Lok Sabha)
|
22
|
30889
|
1404
|
440
|
5058
|
14606
|
4648
|
6137
|
278
|
|
2nd
(16th Lok Sabha)
|
28
(No Q hour for one sitting)
|
20841
|
772
|
540
|
5339
|
9989
|
2967
|
2006
|
74
|
|
1st (16th Lok Sabha)
|
No Question Hour
|
|
15th (15th Lok Sabha)
|
21
|
26726
|
1273
|
420
|
4683
|
9655
|
4282
|
7686
|
366
|
|
14th
(15th Lok Sabha)
|
16
|
23320
|
1458
|
300
|
3450
|
10508
|
3742
|
5320
|
333
|
|
13th (15th Lok Sabha)
|
34
(No Q hour for two sittings)
|
46562
|
1455
|
600
|
6883
|
22092
|
6999
|
9987
|
312
|
|
12th (15th Lok Sabha)
|
20
|
28880
|
1444
|
400
|
4599
|
12913
|
4326
|
6642
|
332
|
|
11th (15th Lok Sabha)
|
20
|
31556
|
1578
|
404
|
4600
|
15146
|
4593
|
6812
|
341
|
It may be seen from the above
that the number of notices received has been very high during the last few
sessions despite the imposition of maximum limit of 10 on the number of notices
that can be tabled by a Member for any one day.
33. In this context, it may be relevant to
submit that the number of Members tabling notices of questions has increased
from 202 in 15th session of 15th Lok Sabha to around 290
in 4th session of 16th Lok Sabha. This effectively means that the names of many
Members may not appear in the final list of questions even once in the present
situation.
34. Further, the table in para-32 above
clearly indicates that a large number of admitted questions were excluded from
the final list on the ground of being in ‘excess of 230’ which do not serve any
useful purpose as the same are not liable to be answered by the
Ministries/Departments of the Government of India and hence, the same are
complete waste of precious time of the Members as well as the resources of the
Secretariat. Taking into consideration the high receipt of notices of
questions, increase in number of participant Members, and large number of
admitted questions going in ‘excess of 230’, the number of questions in the
Unstarred List needs to be suitably increased from the present limit of 230.
35. However, in this context, it would be
pertinent to submit that inclusion of more number of questions in the Unstarred
List also implies that it would have a cascading effect not only on various
Branches involved in the question work but also on Ministries involved in
entire process of collecting information and tabling them on the floor of the
House in reply to parliamentary questions. It has been observed that in number
of cases, Ministries are unable to provide requisite information with reference
to reply of the questions and hence, they have to give assurances in reply to
the questions. Increase in the number of listed questions may consequently lead
to an increase in number of assurances. The number of assurances given during
the last few Sessions is as under:-
|
Lok Sabha
|
Session
|
Number of Assurances
|
|
15
|
10
|
868
|
|
11
|
519
|
|
12
|
464
|
|
13
|
603
|
|
14
|
287
|
|
15
|
430
|
|
16
|
2
|
583
|
|
|
3
|
593
|
|
|
4
|
614
|
|
|
5
|
285
|
|
|
6
|
147 (as per MPA website)
|
36. As stated at para 19 above, Rajya Sabha
has already reduced the number of Starred Questions from 20 to 15. But the
number of Unstarred Questions has been increased by 05 from 155 to 160 so that
the number of Starred and Unstarred Questions taken together remains unchanged
i.e. 175.
37. In view of the foregoing, it is proposed
that the number of Unstarred questions may be raised from 230 to 260. As a
result of which, the total number of admitted questions for oral and written
answers taken together would be 275 instead of 250 at present. Further, the
questions relating to States under the President Rule may remain same as 25.
IX. Short
Notice Question
38. Rule 54(1) of the Rules of Procedure and Conduct of Business in
Lok Sabha stipulates as under:
“A question relating to a matter
of public importance may be asked with notice shorter than ten clear days and
the Speaker, if, is of the opinion that the question is of an urgent character,
may direct that an enquiry may be made from the Minister concerned, if such
Minister is in a position to reply and if so, on what date.”
39. It
may be stated that following the amendment in Rule 33 vide
Lok Sabha Bulletin Part II dated 19.03.2010, the period of notice for tabling
the question should not be less than 15 clear days. Prior to amendment
of the said Rule, the period of notice
period for tabling questions was not less than ten and not more than 21
clear days. In view of the above, the period of notice for receipt of short
notices of questions may be changed from less than 10 days to 15 days.
40. Shri
Bhatruhari Mahtab, MP has suggested that if the Speaker is of opinion
that the question is of urgent character he may direct the Minister concerned
to answer the SNQ on the day as decided by the Speaker. He has stated that the
Short Notice Questions are disallowed due to non-availability of the Minister
concerned even on the matters which need immediate attention of the House.
Hence, it shall be made mandatory for the Minister concerned to reply such SNQs
if the Speaker admits them to ensure accountability of the Executive to the
Legislature. The
aforesaid suggestion implies that in
case, SNQ is admitted keeping in
view its urgency and public importance, the same should invariably be replied
by the Minister concerned for which consent of the Minister should not be the
necessary condition as presently stipulated in the Rule.
41. In
this regard, it is submitted that under the extant rule 54(2) and (3), consent
of the Minister is essential to list SNQ despite the importance and urgency of
the matter. This has affected the efficacy of this instrument and very few SNQs
have been listed since 14th Lok Sabha which may be seen from the
table below:
|
Lok Sabha
|
No. of Sessions
|
No. of Notices received
|
No. of Questions listed as SNQ
|
|
14th LS
|
14
|
291
|
2
|
|
15th LS
|
14
|
144
|
0
|
|
16th LS
|
5
|
31
|
0
|
It may be seen that SNQ is fast losing its significance and
may completely fall into disuse. The declined number of notices clearly
indicates that Members are losing interest in this instrument.
42. In view of the aforesaid, it is suggested that the following
provision may be added to Rule 54 (2) :-
“(2)
If the Minister concerned agrees to reply, such question shall be answered on a
day to be indicated by the Minister and shall be called immediately after the
questions which have appeared on the list of questions for oral answer have
been disposed of.
Provided
that if the Minister does not respond to the query or conveys inability to
reply to the SNQ but the Speaker is of the opinion that urgency is involved in
the matter raised, the Question may be admitted as a Short Notice Question.”
X.
Half-an-Hour
Discussions:
43. Rule 55 (1) and (2) of the Rules of Procedure and Conduct of
Business in Lok Sabha stipulates as under:
“55.
(1) The Speaker may allot half an hour on three sittings in a week, for raising
discussion on a matter of sufficient public importance which has been the
subject of a recent question, oral or written, and the answer to which needs
elucidation on a matter of fact.
(2) A member wishing
to raise a matter shall give notice in writing to the Secretary-General three
days in advance of the day on which the matter is desired to be raised, and
shall shortly specify the point or points such member wishes to raise:
Provided
that the notice shall be accompanied by an explanatory note stating the reasons
for raising discussion on the matter in question:
Provided
further that if a notice is signed by more than one member it shall be deemed
to have been given by the first signatory only:
Provided
further that the Speaker may with the consent of the Minister concerned waive
the requirement concerning the period of notice.
(3)
The Speaker shall decide whether the matter is of sufficient public importance
to be put down for discussion, and may not admit a notice which, in the opinion
of the Speaker seeks to revise the policy of Government.
(4)
If more than two notices have been received and admitted by the Speaker, the
Secretary-General shall hold a ballot with a view to draw two notices and the
notices shall be put down in the order in which they were received in point of
time:
Provided
that if any matter put down for discussion on a particular day is not disposed
of on that day it shall not be set down for any other day, unless the member so
desires, in which case it shall be included in the ballot for the next
available day. Discussion on matter arising out of answer to question.
(5)
There shall be no formal motion before the House nor voting. The member who has
given notice may make a short statement and the [members who have previously
intimated to the Speaker may ask a question for the purpose of further
elucidating any matter of fact. Thereafter, the Minister shall reply shortly]:
Provided
that not more than four members who have previously intimated to the
Secretary-General may be permitted to ask a question each for the purpose of
further elucidating any matter of fact.
Explanation.—A
member wishing to ask a question shall make such request in writing before the
commencement of the sitting at which the discussion is to take place. If such
requests are received from more than four members, a ballot shall be held to
determine the names of first four members who may be permitted to ask a
question each.”
44. It
may be seen that if the Member in whose name the half-an-hour is listed is not
present in the House, the same is not taken up and it would be considered for
another date only if Member so desire in which case it would be included in the
ballot for subsequent dates. In this regard it is submitted that Rule 48
regarding ‘Starred Questions of absent Members’ has been amended to ensure that
the Starred Questions in name of absent Members are also asked and the Hon’ble
Speaker may direct any Member to raise the Question.
45. It
is, therefore proposed that on the analogy of starred question of absent
Members as explained above, the matter put down for half-an-hour discussion
will not be set down for any other day and
the next available Member in the ballot may initiate half an hour
discussion by making a short statement.
46. Shri
Bhatruhari Mahtab, MP has suggested modification in the period of notice for
half-an-hour discussion. He has opined that the three
days time to give notice for raising Half-an-Hour Discussion is insufficient as
a Member has to perform/discharge his/her other Parliamentary duties during the
Session period. At the same time, he/she has to take care of the
responsibilities towards his/her constituency. The suggestion proposed by him is as under :-
“A Member wishing to raise a discussion has
to give notice in writing to the Secretary-General normally within ten days
(excluding Saturday and Sunday) of the answering of the question and at least
three days in advance of the day on which he desires to raise the matter.”
47. In this connection, attention is drawn to
rule Rule 55(1) which states that the Speaker may allot half an hour on three
sittings in a week, for raising discussion on matter of sufficient public
importance which has been the subject of a recent question. However, it has not
been elaborated as to which question should be treated as recent one. However,
way back in 1960, it was clarified that notice to raise half-an-hour discussion
should normally be given immediately after or within three days of the date on
which the question in respect of which facts are sought to be elucidated, have
been answered in the House. [Bulletin, (II), 4.2.1960, para. 3305]. If a notice falls short of this requirement
it will be deemed to have been given for the next available date.
(Bulletin-Part II, dated 9.11.11981, Para No.1256).
48. Thus, it is felt
that the existing provisions of the rules and the practice seem to be adequate
to take care of the interest of the Members. Increasing the number of days for
tabling notice for discussion may result in loss of some of the days meant for
discussion as only three days in a week are listed for discussion.
XI. Direction
10: consolidation of questions on same or allied subject:
49. Direction 10 by Speaker stipulates as under:
“Where
a large number of notices of questions are received from several members on the
same or allied subject, the Speaker may direct that all the notices be
consolidated into a single notice if, in the opinion of the Speaker, it is
desirable to have a single self-contained question covering all the important
points raised by members:
[Provided
that in the case of such a consolidated question being placed on the list of
questions for oral answer, the names of not more than two members, determined
in the order of precedence, shall be shown against such question and the
notices of such members as are in excess shall be disallowed:
Provided
further that in the case of such a consolidated question being placed on the
list of questions for written answer the names of all the members concerned
shall be bracketed and shown in the order of precedence.]”
50. Shri
Bhatruhari Mahtab, MP has suggested the following amendment – “if a consolidated question being placed in
the list of questions for oral answer, the names of all the Members determined
in the order of precedence, shall be shown against such question.” He has
requested that the notice of a Member may not be
disallowed only on the basis that the Member did not secure first or second
priority in the ballot.
Shri Jaydev Galla, MP has also suggested
that 5 or 6 or appropriate number
of supplementary questions to a main question may be fixed by the Hon’ble
Speaker or the Rules Committee. For this, if any Member wishes to raise a
supplementary question, he should be asked to submit his request at the Notice
Office before 10.30 a.m. and, on the basis of priority, such Member should be
given opportunity to raise supplementary question. Each Member should not be
allowed to put more than two supplementary questions in a day.
51. In this
context, it may be relevant to state that as per rule 50(1), the Member in
whose name a question is listed for oral answer or any other member, when
called by the Speaker, may ask a supplementary question for the purpose of
further elucidating any matter of fact regarding which an answer has been
given. Therefore, if the suggestion of the Member is accepted, then as per rule
all those Members whose names are listed against the starred question would be
entitled to ask a supplementary question. At times a large number of Members
may find their names listed against the starred question and in such a
situation, it would be difficult to deny them the opportunity to ask a
supplementary as per rule. In fact, practice followed in Lok Sabha in this
regard is more accommodative, as compared in Rajya Sabha where only one name is
allowed against the questions in the Starred List.
52. Further, the Speaker has the discretion to call a Member, other than
those listed, to ask a supplementary. Such discretion is normally exercised on
the strength of written request submitted by Members or one who contacts the
eye of Speaker. It is felt that the existing system which has withstood the
test of time may continue and accordingly, members may ask supplementary
question at the discretion of the Speaker as for the provision of the rule 50(1).
XII. Direction 10A regarding admissibility of
Questions:
53. Direction 10(A) (ii) states that a question
may be disallowed in case it relates to a matter of day-to-day administration
or tends to further the interest of an individual or a few individuals.
54. Shri
Bhatruhari Mahtab, MP has stated that many questions of the Members are
disallowed under Direction 10(A) (ii) stating that the matter is
administrative. However, such matters are entirely connected with the public
interests and within the jurisdiction of the Union Government. He has addded
that Rajya Sabha Secretariat has also been allowing admission of
such Questions.
55. In
this regard, it is stated that generally, the notices of questions which relate
to matter of day-to-day administration or serve the interest of an individual
or few individuals are disallowed. However, notices of question, which attract
this Direction at times, are considered for admission if they serve a large public
interest.
XIII. Limit
of number of questions tabled by Members from 10 to 5:
56. Direction 10B of the Directions by the
Speaker Lok Sabha stipulates as under:
“A member shall be allowed to give not more
than ten notices of questions both for oral and written answers, in all for any
day. Notices received in excess of ten from a member for a day shall be kept
for subsequent day(s) concerning that Minister(s) during the period of that
Session only. Members who intend to give notices for the entire Session may do
so by indicating their inter-se preference. In case, no such preferences are
indicated, notices of questions in excess of ten per day shall be considered
for subsequent day(s) on the basis of point of time of their receipt. However,
the existing overall limit of five admitted questions per day per Member shall
continue.”
Thus, the aforesaid Direction limits 10
notices of questions to be given by the Members for any day. Further, it has
also been provided that Members who intend to give notices for the entire Session
may do so by indicating their inter se preference.
57. Shri Bhatruhari
Mahtab, MP has suggested that there should be no restriction on questions of a
Member for a sitting of the House. In this regard,
it is submitted that despite the said provision, there is unprecedented
increase in the number of notices of questions being tabled by the members. As
already mentioned, the number of notices of questions tabled by the Members has
risen from 3,11,228 to 4,43,578 during the 14th and 15th
Lok Sabha respectively. Further, the number of participating Members has also
increased over the years which is around 290 at present which effectively means
that even if the number of Unstarred Questions is increased to 260 as proposed
in the foregoing paras, only one notice from a Member would find place on the
list. As already mentioned, the number of questions going in ‘excess of 230’
has increased enormously. Against this background, it would be prudent to limit
the number of notices being tabled by the members to a reasonable number. As
per Rule 45, not more than 5 questions of a member, including one for oral
answers, can be included in the list of Unstarred questions. It is, therefore,
suggested that the number of notices of questions being tabled by the Member
may be limited to 5 per sitting.
58. In
this connection, it may also be informed that in Uttar Pradesh and Uttarakhand
Legislative Assemblies, a Member may give notice of only five questions in a
day. In case any Member gives notice of more than five questions on any day his
first five notices may be taken up the rest of the notices shall be deemed
rejected. Similarly, in Kerala Legislative Assembly, a member may give notice
of only seven questions in a day.
59. It
has also been noticed that the Members are tabling many times the number of
notices that they are allowed to under the extant rule/provision (i.e.
Direction 10). All the notices that are in excess of 10 are considered for the
subsequent date/dates. This not only creates problem of handling them but is
also detrimental to the interest of the Members seeking information on
fresh/current issues. Many such questions in excess of 10 considered for the
consequent dates are disallowed after examination for being covered by the
replies on the similar subjects on previous dates. It is, therefore, proposed
that questions of Members in excess of 5 per sitting may be treated as lapsed.
60. In view of the foregoing, a suitable
amendment in Direction 10 B may be made limiting the number of notices of
questions being tabled by the Member to 5 and treating the question in excess
of 5 per sitting as lapsed.
61. Summing up:
In view of the issues/points which have
been identified and discussed above, the following matters/proposals for
consideration of the Rules Committee may be made:-
|
SL No.
|
MATTERS/PROPOSALS
|
ANNEXURE
|
|
1
|
Rule 32 regulating the time of Question
Hour;
|
For
consideration in the Committee (Ref. paras 4-9)
|
|
2
|
Amendments in Rules 34 and
332 regarding online submission of notices of questions;
|
Ref. Paras
13-15
|
|
3
|
Amendment to Rule 37(1) reducing the
number of questions in the Starred List from 20 to 15;
|
Annexure I
(Ref. paras 16-19)
|
|
4
|
Amendments to Rule 41(2) regarding
various conditions governing admissibility of questions and inclusion of new
conditions thereto;
|
Annexure II
(Ref. paras 20-22)
|
|
5
|
Inclusion of para in Rule
43 regarding amendments in questions;
|
Annexure III
(Ref. paras 23-26)
|
|
6
|
Amendment to Rule 44
deleting proviso;
|
Annexure IV
(Ref. paras 27 and 28)
|
|
7
|
Amendment to Rule 45(2) increasing the
number of questions in the Unstarred List from 230 to 260;
|
Annexure V
(Ref. paras 29-37)
|
|
8
|
Amendment to Rule 54(1) regulating the notice
period for raising a matter of public importance on a short notice from 10 to
15 days;
|
Annexure VI
(Ref. paras 38 and 39)
|
|
9
|
Modification in Rule Rule 54 (2)
regarding admissibility of Short Notice questions;
|
Annexure VII
(Ref. paras 40-42) along with
the deletion of Rule 54(3) and renumbering of 53(3A)
|
|
10
|
Amendment to Direction 10B reducing the
limit of number of questions tabled by Members from 10 to 5 and also number
of questions in excess of 5 per sitting to be treated as lapsed;
|
Annexure VIII
(Ref. paras 56-60)
|
|
11
|
Creation of a structural mechanism in the
shape of a Parliamentary Committee to oversee and monitor the quality of
replies given to Questions in the House.
|
(Ref. paras 21.5)
|
The
Committee may consider.
ANNEXURE-
I
(see
para 16-19 of the Memorandum)
|
Existing
Provision
|
Proposed
Amendment
|
|
Limit
of number of Starred Questions
Rule
37(1)
Not more than one question
distinguished by [an] asterisk by the same member and not more than twenty questions in all shall
be placed on the list of questions for oral answer on any one day.
Provided that when a question
is postponed or transferred from one list of questions for oral answer to
another, more than one question may stand in the name of one member and the
total number of questions may exceed by such postponed or transferred
question.
|
Limit
of number of Starred Questions
Rule
37(1)
Not more than one question
distinguished by [an] asterisk by the same member and not more than fifteen questions in all shall be placed on
the list of questions for oral answer on any one day.
Provided that when a question
is postponed or transferred from one list of questions for oral answer to
another, more than one question may stand in the name of one member and the
total number of questions may exceed by such postponed or transferred
question.
|
ANNEXURE-
II
(see para20-22 of the Memorandum)
|
Existing
conditions
|
Proposed
amendments
|
|
41(2)
(iv)
it
shall not contain arguments, inferences, ironical expressions, imputations,
epithets or defamatory statements;
|
it
shall not contain allegations, arguments, inferences, ironical or
offensive expressions, imputations, epithets or defamatory statements;
|
|
41(2)(xxi)
it
shall not seek information about matters which are in their nature secret,
such as composition of Cabinet Committees, Cabinet discussions, or advice
given to the President in relation to any matter in respect of which there is
a constitutional, statutory or conventional obligation not to disclose
information;
|
it
shall not seek information about matters which are in their nature secret or
sensitive;
|
PROPOSED INCLUSIONS IN RULE 41(2)
|
Proposal
|
Reference
|
|
it shall not refer to any assurance or announcement made by
the Minister in the public meetings or private institutions;
|
Rule 47 (xxiii) of the Rules of Procedure And Conduct Of Business in
Himachal Pradesh Legislative Assembly.
|
|
it shall not seek merely to give information or to suggest its
own answer or convey a particular point of view.
|
Rule 78(2) (xxiii) of
Rules Of Procedure And Conduct Of Business in Gujarat Legislative
Assembly.
Rule 83 (12) of Rules Of Procedure And
Conduct Of Business in Bihar Legislative Assembly.
|
|
it shall be specific and confined to one issue only and shall
not be too wide dealing with several subjects having no connection with one
another.
|
Rule 83(8) of Bihar Legislative Assembly
Rule 36(2)(f) of Kerala Legislative Assembly
Rule 47(2)(a) of Karnataka Legislative Assembly
|
|
it shall not contain extracts from news paper. Further it
shall not seek response of the Government to the news items. However, the
attention may be drawn to subject matter of the news items;
|
Rule 42 (4) of the Tamil Nadu Legislative Assembly Rules.
Rule 83 (10) of Rules Of Procedure And Conduct Of Business in
Bihar Legislative Assembly.
|
|
it shall not ordinarily seek information for more than last
three years;
|
Rule 47 (xxvi) of the Rules of Procedure And Conduct Of Business in
Himachal Pradesh Legislative Assembly.
|
|
it shall not seek information on a subject to which assurance
has been given in the same session;
|
Rule 83 (21) of the Rules of
Procedure and Conduct Of Business in Bihar Legislative Assembly.
Rule 47 (xix) of the Rules of
Procedure and Conduct Of Business in Himachal Pradesh Legislative
Assembly.
Rule 43 (17) of the Rules of
Procedure and Conduct Of Business in Mizoram Legislative
Assembly.
|
ANNEXURE III
(see
para 23-26 of the Memorandum)
|
Existing Rule
|
Proposed amendment
|
|
Rule 43.
(1) The Speaker shall decide whether a question,
or a part thereof, is or is not admissible under these rules and may disallow
any question, or a part thereof, when in the opinion of the Speaker, it is an
abuse of the right of questioning or is calculated to obstruct or
prejudicially affect the procedure of the House or is in contravention of
these rules.
(2) Subject to the provisions of
rule 38, the Speaker may direct that a question be placed on the list of
questions for answer on a date later than that specified by a member in the
notice if the Speaker is of the opinion that a longer period is necessary to
decide whether the question is or is not admissible.
|
(Inclusion of proviso 3)
No Change
No Change
Inclusion of sub rule 3 of Rule
43
(3) where the form or the subject-matter of a
question is, in the opinion of the Speaker, in contravention of the rules,
he/she may amend the question to secure its compliance with the rules and
inform the member concerned accordingly.
|
ANNEXURE
IV
(see
para 27 & 28 of the Memorandum)
|
Existing Rule
|
Proposed amendment
|
|
If
in the opinion of the Speaker any question put down for oral answer is of
such a nature that a written reply would be more appropriate, the Speaker may
direct that such question be placed on the list of questions for written
answer:
[Provided that the Speaker may, if
he thinks for, call upon the member who has given notice of a question for
oral answer to state in brief his reasons for desiring an oral answer and,
after considering the same, may direct that the question be included in the
list of questions for written answer.]
|
If
in the opinion of the Speaker any question put down for oral answer is of
such a nature that a written reply would be more appropriate, the Speaker may
direct that such question be placed on the list of questions for written
answer.
Proviso may be
deleted
|
ANNEXURE V
(see
para 29-37 of the Memorandum)
|
Existing Rule
|
Proposed
Amendment
|
|
Limit of Number
of Unstarred Questions
Rule 45.(2)
In
the list of questions for written answer on any one day, not more than four
questions by the same member if he has one question in the list of questions
for oral answer, and not more than 230
questions in all, shall be included:
Provided that these limits may be exceeded
by the number of questions transferred or postponed from one list of
questions for written answer to another:
Provided further that
the overall limit of 230 questions
in the list of questions for written answer on any one day may exceed by the
number of questions pertaining to a State or States under President’s Rule
subject to the maximum limit of 25.
|
In
the list of questions for written answer on any one day, not more than four
questions by the same member if he has one question in the list of questions
for oral answer, and not more than 260 questions in all, shall
be included:
Provided that these limits may be exceeded
by the number of questions transferred or postponed from one list of
questions for written answer to another:
Provided further that
the overall limit of 260 questions in the list
of questions for written answer on any one day may exceed by the number of
questions pertaining to a State or States under President’s Rule subject to
the maximum limit of 25.
|
ANNEXURE VI
(see
para 38-39 of the Memorandum)
|
Existing Rule
|
Proposed
Amendment
|
|
Short
Notice Questions
Rule 54.(1)
A
question relating to a matter of public importance may be asked with notice
shorter than ten clear days
and if the Speaker is of opinion that the question is of an urgent character
he may direct that an enquiry may be made from the Minister concerned if he
is in a position to reply, if so, on what date.
|
Rule 54.(1)
A
question relating to a matter of public importance may be asked with notice
shorter than fifteen clear days and if the Speaker is of opinion
that the question is of an urgent character he/she may direct that an enquiry may be made from the
Minister concerned if he/she
is in a position to reply, if so, on what date.
|
ANNEXURE VII
(see
para 40-42 of the Memorandum)
|
Existing Rule
|
Proposed
Amendment
|
|
Short
Notice Questions
54.
(1) A question relating to a matter of public importance may be asked with
notice shorter than ten clear days and the Speaker, if, is of the opinion
that the question is of an urgent character, may direct that an enquiry may
be made from the Minister concerned if such Minister is in a position to
reply and, if so, on what date.
(2) If the Minister concerned agrees
to reply, such question shall be answered on a day to be indicated by the
Minister and shall be called immediately after the questions which have
appeared on the list of questions for oral answer have been disposed of.
(3) If the Minister is unable to answer the
question at short notice and the Speaker is of the opinion that the question
is of sufficient public importance to be orally answered in the House, the
Speaker may direct that the question be placed as the first question on the
list of questions for the day on which it would be due for answer under rule
33:
Provided that not more than one
such question shall be accorded first priority on the list of questions for
any one day.
(3A) Where a notice of a short
notice question is signed by more than one member, it shall be deemed to have
been given by the first signatory only.
(4) Where two or more members give
short notice questions on the same subject and one of the questions is
accepted for answer at short notice, names of not more than four members,
other than the one whose notice has been admitted, as determined by ballot,
shall be shown against the admitted question: Provided that the Speaker may
direct that all the notices be consolidated into a single notice, if in the
opinion of the Speaker, it is desirable to have a single self-contained
question covering all the important points raised by members, and the
Minister shall then give reply to the consolidated question: Provided further
that in the case of consolidated question, names of not more than four
members, other than the one whose notice has been admitted, as determined by
ballot, shall be shown against the question.
(5) Where a member desires an
oral answer to a question at a shorter notice, such Member shall briefly
state the reasons for asking the question with short notice. Where no reasons
have been assigned in the notice of the question, the question shall be
returned to the member.
(6) The member who has given
notice of the question shall be in one’s own seat to ask the question by
reference to its number on the list of questions when called by the Speaker
and the Minister concerned shall give a reply immediately: 26 Provided that
when a question is shown in the names of more than one member the Speaker
shall call the name of the first member or, in the absence of that member,
any other name.
(7) In other respects, the
procedure for short notice questions shall be the same as for ordinary
questions for oral answer with such modifications as the Speaker may consider
necessary or convenient.
|
No
Change
(2) If the Minister concerned agrees to reply, such question shall
be answered on a day to be indicated by the Minister and shall be called
immediately after the questions which have appeared on the list of questions
for oral answer have been disposed of.
Provided that if the Minister does
not respond to the query or conveys inability to reply to the SNQ but the
Speaker is of the opinion that urgency is involved in the matter raised, the
Question may be admitted as a SNQ.
(3)
Rule along with proviso may be delete.
No Change
No Change
No Change
No Change
|
ANNEXURE VIII
(see
para 56-60 of the Memorandum)
|
Existing
Provision
|
Proposed Amendment
|
|
Limit
of Notices of Questions
Direction
10(B)
A
member shall be allowed to give not more than ten notices of questions both for oral and written
answers, in all for any day. Notices received in excess of ten from a member
for a day shall be kept for subsequent day(s) concerning that Minister(s)
during the period of that Session only. Members who intend to give notices
for the entire Session may do so by indicating their inter-se preference. In
case, no such preferences are indicated, notices of questions in excess of
ten per day shall be considered for subsequent day(s) on the basis of point
of time of their receipt. However, the existing overall limit of five
admitted questions per day per Member shall continue.
|
A
member shall be allowed to give not more than five notices of questions both for oral and written
answers, in all for any day. Notices received in excess of five from a member on any day shall be deemed lapsed.
Members who intend to give notices for the entire Session may do so by
indicating their inter-se preference of dates. In case, no such
preferences are indicated, only five notices of
questions per day shall be considered for the first available date and
the rest shall be deemed lapsed. However, the existing overall
limit of five admitted questions per day per Member shall continue.
|
