Frequent disruptions and adjournments have eroded the productivity of Parliament. Discuss the role of the presiding officer's discretion under rules like Rule 267 in either mitigating or aggravating this trend.

Parliamentary productivity — the share of scheduled hours actually used for business — has fallen sharply as sloganeering and adjournments displace debate. Rule 267 of the Rules of Procedure of the Council of States, which allows a member to move suspension of listed business only with the Chairman's consent [1], sits at the centre of this contest between order and voice.

The productivity erosion

• Sitting days have shrunk from over 100 a year in the early Lok Sabhas to roughly half that today; the NCRWC recommended fixing a minimum of 120 days for Lok Sabha and 100 for Rajya Sabha [2].
• Recent sessions have seen both Houses function for only a fraction of scheduled time, with washouts recurring session after session [3].
• On 31 July 2026 the Rajya Sabha was adjourned for the day within minutes of assembling, amid Opposition protests over alleged Ram Temple land-fund irregularities and police action on protesters [4].

Discretion as a mitigating force

• Refusing omnibus Rule 267 notices protects listed legislative business and Question Hour, the sharpest accountability tool.
• The Chair can channel demands into Rule 176 short-duration discussions, calling-attention motions or Zero Hour — debate without collapsing the agenda [1].
• A neutral Chair, insulated by the Vice-President's ex-officio status under Article 89, can broker cross-party consensus on time allocation.

Discretion as an aggravating force

• Blanket rejection of notices leaves the Opposition with disruption as its only remaining instrument — as when the Chairman ruled that no further Rule 267 notices would be entertained [4].
• Discretion exercised without recorded reasons invites charges of partisanship, weakening the Chair's moral authority to restore order.
• Suspension of members as a first resort deepens confrontation rather than resolving it.

Rule 267 is thus neither villain nor remedy; outcomes turn on how transparently the Chair uses it. Publishing reasons for admissibility, guaranteeing scheduled Opposition-set debate days, and adopting the NCRWC's minimum-sittings norm would convert discretion into predictability — restoring Parliament's deliberative role as the Constitution's central forum of accountability.