Adjournment motion may be on its way out in Council

Legislature secretariat likely to get provision for it deleted from Rules of Procedure

Opposition parties will lose an opportunity to raise emergent issues or embarrass a ruling party on controversial issues in the Legislative Council, if the recommendation of its secretariat to do away with the provision to allow adjournment motion is accepted by the rules committee of the Council.

A member, usually belonging to the Opposition, moves an adjournment motion on issues that put the government in a tight spot or censure the government. Making efforts to move an adjournment motion with a political motive has become a daily affair when the House is in session. A lot of time is consumed by members talking at length to explain why the motion should be accepted and eventually the Chair sets aside the motion. 

The provision for an adjournment motion does not exist in the Council of any other state and is not there in the Rajya Sabha also. The Council (Upper House) broadly functions on the lines of the Rajya Sabha.

The relevance of the adjournment motion - which has been debated over the years - is now back in the picture, with preparations being made by the Legislature secretariat to get it deleted from the Rules of Procedure and Conduct of Business in the Council.

Officials in the secretariat said Rule 59 – ‘Chairman’s consent necessary to make motion’ - also does not exist in the Council in any other state. They said the rule should be strictly confined to the Legislative Assembly and that efforts would be made to get it deleted this time at least.

Major anomalies

The secretariat has identified three major anomalies, including the adjournment motion in the Rules book, which will be referred to the Rules Committee for effecting rectifications.
The rule reads - ‘Subject to the provisions of these rules, a motion for an adjournment of the business of the Council for the purpose of discussion of a definite matter of urgent public importance may be made with the consent of the Chairman.’

It thereby allows for the Council to bring down a government by voting it out – an authority the Council does not enjoy. As a result, no government has been voted out till date, making the rule null and void.

Officials said though there was a move to delete this rule in 2006, due to a disagreement among the members of the Rules Committee, it had stayed. Even now divergent views exist.

Council Chairman D H Shankaramurthy said he personally felt that the rule should stay.
 “Though there is a feeling that the provision is being misused, in a democratic system it should be provided for. Else, the Opposition will not have a suitable platform to discuss emergent issues,” he added.

Former council chairman K H Srinivas said the provision was redundant and constitutionally invalid. Former council chairman B K Chandrashekar said it would be best for the provision to be removed.

“I have always taken the position that the Upper House should not be a photo copy of the Lower House. It is a reflective chamber. Deletion of the provision is not a very popular view among the MLCs. But, it is better to do away with the provision,” he said, adding there can be a substitute provision in place of the adjournment motion.

However, Congress leader and former member of the House, H K Patil disagrees. “I had opposed the deletion and had forced the continuance of the motion, because I believe that top most priority can be given to emergent subjects. Though at times it has been misused, it has been very useful,” he added.