Opinion: Parliament's Weapons of Mass Disruption
NDTV
The parliament gridlock over Manipur is a subject of concern. Prime Minister Narendra Modi has vowed that the guilty will not be spared. Home Minister Amit Shah wrote to opposition leaders and declared in parliament that the government is ready to discuss the sensitive border state of Manipur. Yet the opposition is intransigently demanding a statement from the PM, when the issue comes under the Home Ministry.
In Lok Sabha, instead of resorting to adjournment motions, the opposition could have sought a short duration discussion without a vote under Rule 193 or a detailed debate with a vote under Rule 184. Another option was a motion to consider a policy situation or any other matter under Rule 342.
In Rajya Sabha, the logjam was about the opposition insisting on Rule 267 that allows suspension of the day's business to debate Manipur. A former Lok Sabha Secretary General observed that Rule 267 is being "used wrongly" as a substitute for an adjournment motion. Except Rule 167, there is nothing in the Rajya Sabha rulebook that enables a discussion on an urgent and serious matter like Manipur.[1] Given their comparative numerical advantage in Rajya Sabha, why did opposition not opt for Rule 167, which enables a detailed discussion with voting?
