The Fountain: Memorandum Number 1

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 15^th Lok Sabha which were made effective from 5^th 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 14^th Lok Sabha to 4,43,578 in the 15^th. 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 4^th 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 23^rd 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 5^th 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. 5^th 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 3^rd Session of 16^th Lok Sabha.

18. The number of questions taken up for discussion during the recently concluded 4^th Session and 3^rd Session of 16^th 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 4^th and 3^rd session of 16^th 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.

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 9^th to 15^th Sessions of 15^th Lok Sabha and 2^nd to 4^th Session of 16^th 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
Session	No. of sittings	Total notices	Average no. of notices per sitting	SQ	USQ	disallowed	clubbed	Lapsed and excess of 230	Average no. of notices lapsed per sitting
4^th(16^th Lok Sabha)	31	51540	1662	620	4110	17371	4412	6216	200
3^rd (16^th Lok Sabha)	22	30889	1404	440	5058	14606	4648	6137	278
2^nd (16^th Lok Sabha)	28 (No Q hour for one sitting)	20841	772	540	5339	9989	2967	2006	74
1^st (16^th Lok Sabha)	No Question Hour
15^th (15^th Lok Sabha)	21	26726	1273	420	4683	9655	4282	7686	366
14^th (15^th Lok Sabha)	16	23320	1458	300	3450	10508	3742	5320	333
13^th (15^th Lok Sabha)	34 (No Q hour for two sittings)	46562	1455	600	6883	22092	6999	9987	312
12^th (15^th Lok Sabha)	20	28880	1444	400	4599	12913	4326	6642	332
11^th (15^th 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 15^th session of 15^th Lok Sabha to around 290 in 4^th session of 16^th 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 14^th 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
14^th LS	14	291	2
15^th LS	14	144	0
16^th 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 14^th and 15^th 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.

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.

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.

(Inclusion of proviso 3)

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

[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.]

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.

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.

(3) Rule along with proviso may be delete.

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.

The Fountain

Friday, August 12, 2016

Memorandum Number 1

Blog Archive

My Blog List