732 Practice and Procedure of Parliament

CHAPTER XXVI

Motions

The term ‘motion’ in its wider sense means any proposal submitted to the
House for eliciting a decision of the House. One of the main functions of the House
is to ascertain its own will in regard to various matters, and for this purpose, every
question to be decided by the House must be proposed by a member in the form of
a motion.
The form in which a motion is put to the vote of the House is initiated by the
mover of the motion. After the motion has been moved, members speak within the
ambit of the terms of the motion and, later, unless the mover withdraws it, the House
rejects the motion or adopts it in toto or with specific amendments, if any.
A debate on a motion involves three stages, viz. the making of a motion, the
proposing of a question and the vote on the question. The mover of a motion frames
it in a form in which he wishes it ultimately to be passed by the House and on which,
a vote of the House can conveniently be taken. Following this reasoning, members
who wish the motion be passed in a different form, must move amendments after the
original motion has been proposed and such amendments must also be in the form in
which the motion as amended, can be passed by the House and must, therefore, be
relevant to the subject matter of the main motion.
Every matter is determined in the House, by means of a question put
from the Chair, on a motion made by a member and resolved in the affirmative
or negative, as the case may be. The question must repeat the terms of the
motion and must be so framed as to be capable of expressing a decision of
the House. The interval between the proposing and the putting of the question,
which is, normally, used for discussion, gives an opportunity for further
proceedings such as the moving of an amendment. An amendment may
either be used to effect an alteration to the question before the House or to
present to the House a different proposition as an alternative to the original
question. This may give rise to a subsidiary debate, with its own question
and decision, within the principal debate. At the end of the process, when the
question or the main question is put to vote, the decision of the House is
registered.
Any matter of importance can be the subject matter of a motion1.

1. P. Deb., 1-3-1950, pp. 1036-38.

For instance, the House has discussed, on motions, moved to that effect, (i) the official action
of Governors of certain States—L.S. Deb., 1-12-1967, cc. 4265-4319; 4-12-1967, cc. 4509-85;
28-2-1968, cc. 505-64; 11-4-1968, cc. 300-19; 21-8-1984, cc. 347-498; 26-11-1985, cc. 341-426;
22-5-1990, cc. 545-66 and 23-5-1990, cc. 431-51; 26-2-1997, cc. 312-13; 6-3-1997, cc. 199-201;
(ii) the conduct of individual Ministers—L.S. Deb.,
 Motions 733

Classification of Motions
Motions cover several distinct forms of proceedings in Parliament and may be
classified under the following categories: substantive motions; substitute motions;
and subsidiary motions.

Substantive Motions
A substantive motion is a self-contained independent proposal submitted for the
approval of the House and drafted in such a manner as to be capable of expressing
a decision of the House2. Motions for election of the Speaker and the Deputy Speaker,
Motion of Thanks on the Address by the President, Motion for Adjournment on a
matter of public importance, resolutions, motions for raising discussion on a matter
of general public interest, motions of confidence/no-confidence in the Council of
Ministers, resolution for removal of the Speaker/Deputy Speaker, motion declaring
the seat of a member vacant and where leave of absence is not agreed to by the
House, are examples of the substantive motions moved in Lok Sabha3.
Motions “that the policy or situation or statement or any other matter be taken
into consideration” are not, strictly speaking, substantive motions as they are not put
to the vote of the House4.
The conduct of persons in high authority can only be discussed on a substantive
motion drawn in proper terms5.
The Constitution lays down specific procedure for impeachment of the
President, and for the presentation of an address to the President by each
House of Parliament for the removal of a Judge of the Supreme Court or of
a High Court, the Comptroller and Auditor-General of India or the Chief
Election Commissioner6 . Similarly, provision has been made in the
Constitution for the removal of the Vice-President and the Deputy Chairman
of the Rajya Sabha, the Speaker and the Deputy Speaker of the Lok Sabha
by means of resolutions7.
On occasions, though rare, the House may, by a substantive motion, evolve
procedure to meet a situation not specifically provided for in the Rules8.

19-8-1968, cc. 2714-840; 18-12-1974, cc. 257-408; 4-8-1977, cc. 295-391; 5-8-1977,
cc. 260-93; 7-8-1980, cc. 296-382; (iii) the conduct of certain members who created
obstructions and showed disrespect to the President at the time of his Address to both the
Houses of Parliament assembled together—L.S. Deb., 20-2-1968, cc. 2170-75; 2-4-1971,
cc. 188-223, 239-46, 271-72.
2. Dir. 41 (2)(i).
3. Rules 7, 8, 17, 56, 170, 184, 198, 200, 241 and 328 and art. 101(4). For details re. Motion of
Confidence, see Chapter XXVIII, supra.
4. Rule 342.
5. Rule 352(v).
6. Arts. 61, 121, 124(4) and (5), 148(1) and 324(5).
7. Arts. 67, 90(c) and 94(c).
8. For instance (i) on 25 September 1951, the Lok Sabha was discussing a motion regarding the
conduct of a member, when, in the midst of discussion, the member submitted his resignation
from the membership of the Lok Sabha. The House, however, decided to continue the discussion
734 Practice and Procedure of Parliament

During the Ninth Lok Sabha, on 28 February 1991, the Speaker received a
notice of motion dated 27 February 1991, signed by Prof. Madhu Dandavate and 107
other members of the Lok Sabha for presenting an address to the President of India
for removal of Justice V. Ramaswami, Judge of the Supreme Court of India. On
finding the notice of motion in order, the Speaker admitted it on 12 March 1991 and
pursuant to section 3(2) of the Judges (Inquiry) Act, 1968, constituted a Committee
consisting of Justice P.B. Sawant, Judge of the Supreme Court of India as the Chairman
and Justice P.D. Desai, Chief Justice of the High Court at Bombay and Justice
O. Chinnappa Reddy, former Judge of the Supreme Court of India as members, for
making an investigation into the grounds on which the removal of Justice V. Ramaswami
was prayed for. While announcing the appointment of the Committee, the Speaker
observed that the motion would remain pending till the receipt of the Report of the
Inquiry Committee. Before the Committee could submit its report, the Ninth
Lok Sabha was dissolved by the President i.e. on 13 March 1991. The question
whether the motion lapsed or remained alive on the dissolution of the Lok Sabha was
raised in a petition filed before the Supreme Court. The Supreme Court held:
It is true that Purushothaman Nambudiri case (AIR 1962 SC 694) dealt
with a legislative measure and not a pending business in the nature of a
motion. But, we are persuaded to the view that neither the doctrine that
dissolution of a House passes a sponge over parliamentary slate nor the specific
provisions contained in any rule or rules framed under Article 118 of the
Constitution determine the effect of dissolution on the motion for removal of
a Judge under Article 124. The reason is that Article 124(5) and the law made
thereunder exclude the operation of Article 118 in this area9.
Accordingly, the notice of motion remained alive.
The Tenth Lok Sabha was constituted on 20 June 1991. The Justice Sawant
Committee which submitted its Report to the Speaker of the Tenth Lok Sabha in
July 1992, found that the Judge was guilty of misbehaviour. The Report was laid on

and passed a motion that the conduct of the member was such that he deserved expulsion from
the House; (ii) On 15 July 1957, the House adopted a motion authorising the Speaker to send a
person, who had impersonated a member, to a Medical Board for examination of his mental state
and to take such further action as the Speaker may think fit on receipt of the report of the Board;
(iii) On 6 August 1987, the House adopted a motion to appoint a Joint Committee of the Houses
to enquire into the Bofors Contract; and (iv) On 6 August 1992, the House adopted a motion to
appoint a Joint Committee of the Houses to enquire into irregularities in Securities and Banking
transactions; (v) On 26 April 2001, the House adopted a motion to appoint a Joint Committee of
the Houses on the Stock Market Scam and matters relating thereto; (vi) on 22 August 2003, the
House adopted a motion to appoint a Joint Committee on Pesticide Residues in and Safety
Standards for Soft Drinks, Fruit Juice and Other Beverages; (vii) On 17 August 2006, the House
adopted a motion to appoint a Joint Committee to examine the Constitutional and Legal Position
Relating to Office of Profit; (viii) On 24 February 2011, the House adopted a motion to appoint
a Joint Committee to examine prescriptions and irregularities in the allocation and pricing of
Telecom Licenses and Spectrum; and (ix) On 21 December 2011, the House adopted a motion to
appoint a Committee of both the Houses to be called the Committee for Welfare of Other Backward
Classes (OBCs).
9. See A.I.R., 1992, S.C. 320. Also see Chapter XLIII, infra.
 Motions 735

the Table of the Lok Sabha on 17 December 1992 by the Secretary-General of the
Lok Sabha.
After the Report was laid on the Table of the House, notices were received from
several members for consideration of the motion for presentation of an Address to the
President under article 124(4) and the Report of the Committee. As this was the first
case of its kind, the following procedure was evolved by the Speaker in consultation
with the leaders of Parties and Groups in the House:
(i) Notices of only those members would be taken into account who were
signatory to the notice of motion which was given during the Ninth
Lok Sabha; and
(ii) The provisions governing discussion on motions under Rule 184 of the
Rules of Procedure and Conduct of Business be broadly followed, as far as
possible.
The following two motions were included in the names of five members in
order of priority in the List of Business for 10 May 1993:
(i) Motion for presenting an address to the President of India under clause (4)
of article 124 of the Constitution; and
(ii) Motion for considering the Report of the Inquiry Committee constituted to
investigate into the grounds on which the removal of Justice V. Ramaswami,
Judge of the Supreme Court of India, was prayed for.
Before the motions were taken up for consideration, the Speaker made the
following announcement in the House:
The matter may be dealt with in a very careful and sound manner to be
very precise, correct and just and not to repeat the points, not to bring in
extraneous points and not to complicate the issue to arrive at correct conclusions
very neatly. Only a few members may speak. The Report given by the Judges
Committee and the defence of the Judge have been made available to the
members well in time. The debate on the motion may be concluded today
itself; if need be, it may continue even beyond 6 p.m. About this, I leave it to
the judgement of the House. The mover of this Motion may move the motion
and then speak. The Judge or the lawyer of the Judge may be allowed to make
submission to the House in this matter and then withdraw. The mover of the
motion may reply to the debate; then the motion and Address to be presented
to the President of India may be put to vote. The motion and the Address to
be passed need the support of majority of the total membership of the House
and also the majority of not less than two-thirds members of the House present
and voting10.
The House agreed to the above procedure.
Somnath Chatterjee (as member), who was first in priority, moved both the
motions, which were discussed together. He also spoke on the motions. Thereafter,

10. L.S. Deb., 10-5-1993, cc. 486-87.

736 Practice and Procedure of Parliament

Kapil Sibal, the Counsel for Justice V. Ramaswami, made submissions from the Bar
of the House on behalf of Justice V. Ramaswami. After making his submissions the
Counsel withdrew. Other members were also allowed to speak. The discussion on the
motions continued on 11 May 1993. After the members had spoken, the mover of the
motions replied to the debate. The motion and the address were then put to the vote
of the House. As a result of the division (Ayes: 196 and Noes: Nil), the motion and
the Address were declared as not carried by the requisite majority in accordance with
clause (4) of article 124 of the Constitution11.
Likewise, on 20 February 2009, 57 members of Rajya Sabha gave notice of
a motion for removal of Justice Soumitra Sen, Judge, Calcutta High Court under
article 217(1)(c) read with article 124(4) of the Constitution on the grounds of
misappropriation of large sums of money in his capacity as receiver appointed by the
Calcutta High Court and misrepresentation of facts with regard to misappropriation
of money before that Court. The Chairman, Rajya Sabha, admitted the motion and
constituted an Inquiry Committee under the Judges (Inquiry) Act, 1968 for the purpose
of making an investigation into the grounds on which the removal of Justice Sen was
prayed for.
In pursuance of section 4 of the Judges (Inquiry) Act, 1968, read with rules 9
and 10 of the Judges (Inquiry) Rules, 1969, the Report of the Inquiry Committee was
simultaneously laid on the Table of Rajya Sabha and Lok Sabha on 10 November
2010.
The Inquiry Committee opined that Justice Soumitra Sen was guilty of
misbehaviour under article 124(4) read with proviso (b) to article 217(1) of the
Constitution.
The Motion for Impeachment of Justice Sen was taken up by the Rajya Sabha
on 17 August 2011. After the mover of the motion had concluded his speech, Justice
Sen addressed the Rajya Sabha. The discussion on Motion continued thereafter.
On 18 August 2011, the Rajya Sabha passed an Address for presentation to the
President praying for removal from Office of Justice Soumitra Sen of Calcutta High
Court. A message in this regard was transmitted to the Lok Sabha Secretariat on the
same day. On 19 August 2011, the message was reported in the Lok Sabha. The
Address passed by the Rajya Sabha for presenting to the President was also laid on
the Table of Lok Sabha.
After reporting of the message, the Speaker on 19 August 2011 decided to call
a meeting of the Business Advisory Committee on 23 August 2011 to fix a day for
consideration of the Address, in pursuance of rule 16(7) of the Judges (Inquiry) Rules.
In the meantime, Subhash Bhattacharyya, Advocate, Calcutta High Court and
Counsel to Justice Soumitra Sen, vide fax letter dated 19 August 2011, addressed to
Secretary-General, made, inter alia, the following requests:—

(a) Date of hearing be fixed on 5 September 2011 subject to the permission of

the Speaker;

11. L.S. Deb., 12-3-1991, cc. 116-18; 10-5-1993, cc. 485-656; 11-5-1993, cc. 513-758.
 Motions 737

(b) Justice Sen is also given a chance to reply at the end to the points/allegations
to be made by the members of the Parliament.
As the provisions of the Judges (Inquiry) Act, 1968 and rules made thereunder
contained ambiguities in regard to the procedure to be followed by the other House
in case the Motion for presenting an Address to the President for removal of a Judge
is adopted by one House and transmitted to the other, a brief discussing article 124(4)
of the Constitution and relevant provisions of the Judges (Inquiry) Act and rules made
thereunder and the procedure proposed to be followed by the Lok Sabha was sent to
the Attorney General of India seeking his opinion on the issue. The Attorney General
opined, inter-alia,—
(i) if the Address passed by the Rajya Sabha is supported by the Lok Sabha then
an Address shall be prepared by the Lok Sabha Secretariat.
(ii) the form of Address must be suitably changed to reflect the fact that the
Address adopted by the Rajya Sabha is supported by the Lok Sabha.
(iii) the passing, by Lok Sabha, of the Address supported by Rajya Sabha may
be duly intimated to the Rajya Sabha also.
These points along with the request made by Subhas Bhattacharyya were placed
for consideration of the Business Advisory Committee.
The BAC made the following decisions:—
(i) the House will take up, on 5 September 2011, at 2 P.M. – (a) the Address
supported by the Rajya Sabha, and (b) the Address to be presented to the
President, and conclude the process of removal on 6 September 2011;
(ii) the Speaker shall propose both the Addresses;
(iii) after the Speaker has proposed to the House the Address supported by the
Rajya Sabha, the Judge shall be given the opportunity of being heard for two
hours, which shall not be extended; and
(iv) the Speaker may consider from legal point of view the request of Justice
Sen, of giving him a chance to reply at the end to the points/allegations to
be made by the members of Parliament.
Fixation of date for taking up impeachment motion was published in
Bulletin-Part II dated 25 August 2011.
On the question, whether Justice Sen may also be given a chance to reply at
the end to the points/allegations to be made by the members, it was decided that the
opinion of Attorney General may be obtained on this point also.
The Attorney General opined that Justice Sen has no such right and the
Lok Sabha should not accede to his request.
The following procedure was approved to be adopted in the Lok Sabha—
(i) Speaker may propose to the House that the House do consider the Motion
and the Address supported by the Rajya Sabha and that the House Supports
the Motion and the Address supported by the Rajya Sabha;
738 Practice and Procedure of Parliament

(ii) If the Motion and the Address at (i) are adopted, Speaker may then propose
the Address (supported by Rajya Sabha and suitably changed) to the vote
of the House;
(iii) The Address mentioned at (ii) shall be presented to the President and the
Motion referred to in (i) shall be annexed with the Address.
Entries for the List of Business were approved accordingly.
On 2 September 2011, there were reports that Justice Sen had submitted his
resignation to the President. In view of the reports, the opinion of the Attorney
General was sought as to whether the Lok Sabha should proceed with the Motion for
removal of Justice Sen in case the resignation tendered by him is accepted by the
President. The Attorney General opined that “notwithstanding the resignation, the
Lok Sabha should proceed with the motion for removal of Justice Sen”. In view of
the opinion, (i) Motion to consider and support the Motion and the Address supported
by the Rajya Sabha; and (ii) an Address by Lok Sabha for presentation to the President
praying for removal from Office of Justice Soumitra Sen of Calcutta High Court, were
included in the List of Business for 5 September 2011 for being taken up at 14.00
hours. Justice Sen and Secretary to the President were also informed about inclusion
of the Motions in the List of Business of the House.
When House met at 14.00 hours, Minister of Law informed the House about the
resignation of Soumitra Sen. Thereupon, the Speaker, after taking sense of the House,
decided not to proceed with items regarding removal of Justice Soumitra Sen.
A message was sent to the Rajya Sabha Secretariat informing them accordingly.
There have also been instances when motions were brought before the House
to give effect to the recommendations of Inquiry Committees constituted by the
Speaker. In one such instance, after disclosure by a TV channel of improper conduct
on the part of ten members of Lok Sabha, the Speaker12 requested the concerned
members not to attend the House until further decision and constituted a five-member
Committee headed by Pawan Kumar Bansal to inquire into the allegations of improper
conduct and report.
The Report of the Inquiry Committee was laid on the Table of the House on
22 December 2005. On 23 December 2005, the Leader of the House, Pranab
Mukherjee, moved the following motion under Rule 184, which was adopted by the
House:
“That this House having taken note of the Report of the Committee to
inquire into the allegations of improper conduct on the part of some members,
constituted on 12 December 2005, accepts the findings of the Committee
that the conduct of the ten members of Lok Sabha, namely, Shri Narendra
Kumar Kushwaha, Shri Annasaheb M.K. Patil, Shri Manoj Kumar,
Shri Y.G. Mahajan, Shri Pradeep Gandhi, Shri Suresh Chandel, Shri Ramsevak
Singh, Shri Lal Chandra Kol, Shri Rajaram Pal and Shri Chandra Pratap
Singh was unethical and unbecoming of members of Parliament and their
continuance as members of Lok Sabha is untenable and resolves that they
may be expelled from the membership of Lok Sabha.”
12. L.S. Deb., 12-12-2005, cc. 655-56.
 Motions 739

The amendment, for referring the matter to the Committee of Privileges,

moved by Prof. Vijay Kumar Malhotra, was negatived.
As the above motion did not concern any Ministry of the Government of India,
the usual practice of forwarding the motion to the concerned Ministry was not adhered
to.
In another instance, after a TV News Channel on 19 December 2005, showed
some members of Lok Sabha allegedly indulging in improper conduct in the matter
of implementation of Members of Parliament Local Area Development Scheme, the
Speaker13, requested the concerned members not to attend the House until the matter
was looked into and a decision taken thereon. He constituted a seven-member
Committee headed by Pawan Kumar Bansal to inquire into the alleged improper
conduct. The Report of the Committee was laid on the Table of the House on
14 March 200614.
On 18 March 2006, the Leader of the House, Pranab Mukherjee, tabled notice
of the following Motion under Rule 184, which was admitted by the Speaker:
“That this House having taken note of the Report of the Committee to
inquire into allegations of improper conduct on the part of some members in
the matter of implementation of MPLAD Scheme, laid on the Table of the
House on 14 March 2006, reprimands Sarvashri Alemao Churchill, Paras Nath
Yadav, Faggan Singh Kulaste and Ram Swaroop Koli, MPs and resolves that:
(a) the period of absence from the sittings of the House and the Committees
of the said four members on a request made by Speaker, Lok Sabha on
20 December 2005, may be deemed to be their suspension from the
membership of the House till date; and
(b) the suspension of the said four members from the membership of the
House may continue till 22 March 2006.”
The motion was moved by Pranab Mukherjee and adopted by the House on
20 March 200615. As the above motion also did not concern any Ministry of the
Government of India, the usual practice of forwarding the motion to the concerned
Ministry was not adhered to in this case also.
In the wake of arrest of a member, Babubhai K. Katara, for trying to illegally
take two persons (one woman and a boy) abroad on the passport of his wife and his
son, the Speaker, Lok Sabha, on 16 May 2007, constituted a Committee to Inquire
into Misconduct of Members of Lok Sabha. The Committee had a broad remit to look
into all aspects of the misconduct of the members.
On 20 May 2007, Speaker referred the matter to the Committee. The Committee
laid their Third Report on the Table of the House on 20 October 2008. On the same

13. Ibid., 20-12-2005, c.1.

14. Ibid., 14-3-2006, cc. 345-46.
15. L.S. Deb., 20-3-2006, cc. 10-15.
740 Practice and Procedure of Parliament

day, the Leader of the House, Pranab Mukherjee, tabled a notice of the following
motion under Rule 184, which was admitted by the Speaker:

“That this House having taken note of the Third Report of the Committee
to Inquire into Misconduct of Members of Lok Sabha accepts the findings of
the Committee that Shri Babubhai K. Katara has committed an act of grave
misconduct which has brought disrepute to and maligned the image of entire
fraternity of legislators and resolves that he may be expelled from the
membership of the Fourteenth Lok Sabha.”
The Motion was moved and adopted on 21 October 2008.
In the meantime, a case relating to allegations against a member (Rajesh Kumar
Manjhi) for having misused official Air Journeys, was referred by the Speaker to the
Inquiry Committee. The Committee, in their First Report, which was laid on the Table
of the House on 23 August 2007, recommended that the member be suspended for
30 sittings of the House for misuse by him of his official Air Journeys and wilfully
suppressing truth from the Committee and giving false evidence before the Committee.
On 29 August 2007, the Leader of the House, Pranab Mukherjee, tabled notice
of the following motion under Rule 184, which was admitted by the Speaker:
“That this House while agreeing with the findings, conclusions and
recommendations of the Committee to Inquire into Misconduct of Members of
Lok Sabha, in their First Report, laid on the Table of the House on 23 August 2007,
reprimands Shri Rajesh Kumar Manjhi for his misconduct and for having committed
contempt of the Committee as well as the House, resolves that:
(i) Shri Rajesh Kumar Manjhi may be suspended from the membership of the
House for thirty sittings of the House; and
(ii) He may be restrained from taking his spouse or companion on official tours
till the conclusion of the Fourteenth Lok Sabha.”

The motion was moved and adopted on 30 August 200716.

A motion may also be moved to give effect to the recommendations of the
Committee of Privileges. On 4 August 2005, Dr. Subhash C. Kashyap, former
Secretary-General, Lok Sabha, during an interview on a TV Channel made certain
comments on the decision of the Speaker disallowing the notice of adjournment
tabled by a member, Kumari Mamta Banerjee.
Hannan Mollah, a member tabled a notice of question of privilege against
Dr. Kashyap on 8 August 2005, which was referred by the Speaker to the Committee
of Privileges. The Committee of Privileges tabled its Report on 19 May 2006. Based
on the recommendations of the Committee, the Leader of the House, Pranab Mukherjee,

16. L.S. Deb., 30-8-2007, cc. 310-11. Also see, Chapter XII-Conduct of Members.
 Motions 741

moved the following motion for admonishing Dr. Kashyap, which was adopted on
23 May 200617 :
“That this House having taken note of the Third Report of the Committee
of Privileges, laid on the Table of the House on 19 May 2006, agrees with
the findings and conclusions of the Committee and resolves that Dr. Subhash
C. Kashyap, former Secretary-General, Lok Sabha has committed a gross
breach of privilege and contempt of the House by imputing motives to the
Speaker, Lok Sabha in discharge of his duties and casting reflections on his
impartiality and admonishes him for his grave misconduct.”
In order to avoid repetition of debate, a motion can be discussed together
with motion for modification of Statutory Rules if the subject matter to be discussed
is same18.
A substantive motion requires notice and can be moved only by the member
who has given the notice. Where, however, a motion stands in the name of a Minister
it may be moved by another Minister19, but the mover has to mention that he is
moving it on behalf of the Minister in whose name the motion stands20. The moving
of a motion in a form different from the terms of the notice is out of order, if the effect
of such alteration in any way goes beyond the scope of the notice.
Except for the motion for election of the Speaker or the Deputy Speaker and
the Motion of Thanks on the Address by the President, no substantive motion requires
to be seconded.
The mover of a motion has the right of reply21.
When leave to the moving of a motion of no-confidence in the Council of
Ministers has been granted, no substantive motion on policy matters is to be brought
by the Government till the disposal of the motion of no-confidence22.

Substitute Motions
Motions moved in substitution of a motion for taking into consideration a
matter or policy or a situation or a statement or any other matter are called substitute
motions. Such motions, though drafted in such a way as to be capable of expressing
an opinion by themselves, are not strictly speaking, substantive motions inasmuch as
they depend upon the original motions23. Amendments to substitute motions are not
permissible.
After the original motion that the policy or situation, etc. be taken into
consideration has been placed before the House and the mover of the motion has

17. Ibid., 23-5-2006, cc. 405-06.

18. L.S. Deb., 4-12-2012 and 5-12-2012.
19. H.P. Deb., (II), 4-12-1952, cc. 1595-96; L.S. Deb., 28-7-1977, c. 230.
20. L.S. Deb., 15-12-1958, c. 4996; 28-7-1977, c. 230.
21. Rule 358(3).
22. L.S. Deb., 25-7-1966, c. 230; 26-7-1966, c. 457; 27-7-1966, c. 779.
23. Dir. 41(2) (ii).
For form of the motions, original and substitute, see for instance, L.S. Deb., 19-12-1959, cc. 1509,
1816-17; 10-8-1972, cc. 156-60; 18-9-1981, cc. 373-75; 6-4-1987, cc. 433-34.
742 Practice and Procedure of Parliament

concluded his speech, the House proceeds to discuss the matter. No further question
is put thereon on conclusion of the debate. However, before the discussion commences,
a member can move a substitute motion which, while conforming to the subject
matter of the original motion, is so drawn up as to express an opinion of the House.
The substitute motion, being in the nature of an amendment to the original motion,
is also placed before the House and is discussed along with the original motion. At
the end of the debate, the substitute motion only is put to the vote of the House24.
Prior to 1954, the practice was to allow amendments which sought to
add words at the end of the original motion. On conclusion of the debate, both
the original motion and the amendments were put to vote of the House. This
practice was changed in January 1954, on the consideration that a motion in
the form of a situation, or a statement, or any matter be taken into consideration
was only a device to discuss a subject without asking the House to record its
decision and so it was not necessary to put it to vote on conclusion of the
debate; that only alternative or substitute motions precisely inviting a decision
of the House might be put to vote of the House on conclusion of the discussion25.
Members who are absent at the time of moving of substitute motions may not
be permitted to move their motions later in the day.
However, on 8 August 1966, when the adjourned debate on the
Government motion re. economic situation was resumed, a member was
permitted to move his substitute motion on submission made by him that he
could not move his motion earlier on 26 July 1966, because of his suspension
from the service of the House26.
Substitute motions are put to the vote of the House in the following order:—
• motions expressing disapproval of the policy or action of Government referred
to in the original motion;
• motions making suggestions; and
• motions expressing approval of the policy or action of Government referred
to in the original motion27.
However, the Speaker may, in his discretion, give priority to a motion expressing
approval of Government’s policy or action in the light of consensus in the House28.
Where any of the substantive motions moved in substitution of a motion for
taking into consideration a matter or policy or a situation or a statement or any other
matter is not put to the vote of the House by the Speaker, and any such other
substantive motion in substitution of the original motion is passed by the House, the
one not put to the House is deemed to have been negatived by the House or barred,
as the case may be29.

24. Rule 342.

25. Min. (RC), 23-12-1953.
26. L.S. Deb., 8-8-1966, c. 3341.
27. Dir. 45(1) and L.S. Deb., 18-8-1965, cc. 746-64; 7-12-1965, cc. 6111-21.
28. L.S. Deb., 19-2-1958, cc. 1136-42: 20-2-1958, cc. 1816-17.
29. Dir. 45(2) read with Rule 342.
 Motions 743

Subsidiary Motions
Subsidiary motions depend upon or relate to other motions or emerge from
some proceedings in the House. By themselves they have no meaning and are not
capable of stating the decision of the House without reference to the original motion
or proceedings of the House30.
Subsidiary motions are further divided into three categories: ancillary motions;
superseding motions; and amendments.
Ancillary Motions : Ancillary motions are motions which are recognised by the
practice of the House as the regular way of proceeding with various kinds of business,
e.g. motions made in connection with various stages of a Bill, such as, that the Bill
“be taken into consideration” or that the Bill “be referred to a Select or Joint
Committee”, or that the Bill “be passed”31.
Superseding Motions : Superseding motions are motions which, though
independent in form, are moved in the course of the debate on another question and
seek to supersede that question. Such motions can be moved by any member who
rises to speak on the question before the House.
Thus, in relation to the motion for taking into consideration a Bill, a superseding
motion may ask for recommittal of the Bill to the Select or Joint Committee or its
recirculation to elicit further opinion thereon, or for adjournment of the debate on the
Bill32. Where the Speaker is of the opinion that the superseding motion is of a dilatory
character inasmuch as no unforeseen or new circumstance has arisen to warrant
recirculation or recommittal of the Bill, he is empowered to put the question upon it
forthwith or even decline to propose the question33. However, when a superseding
motion is moved and the Speaker does not hold it to be dilatory, the motion is
proposed by him as a new question superseding the original question and has to be
disposed of before the debate upon the original question can be resumed. But the
debate upon such a motion must be strictly relevant to the reasons in support of the
motion.
Amendments
An amendment is a subsidiary motion moved in the course of the debate upon
another motion which interposes a new cycle of debate and decision between the
proposal and decision on the main motion and question34. An amendment may relate
to a clause of a Bill, resolution or motion or to an amendment to a clause of a Bill,

30. Dir. 41(2) (iii).

31. The motions are intimately connected with the procedure for Bills and as such are described in
detail in Chapter XXII—‘Legislation’.
32. The motion for adjournment of the debate should be on substantive grounds and not merely to
enable another item of business to come forward.—L.A. Deb., 20-3-1924, p. 2041. Thin attendance
in the House is not sufficient ground for the Speaker to accept the motion for adjournment of the
debate—L.A. Deb., 1-4-1937, p. 2515.
33. Rule 341; L.A. Deb., 10-3-1924, p. 1377; L.S. Deb., 11-4-1955, cc. 4846-47; 25-7-1955, c. 8407;
10-8-1955, cc. 9824-26: 18-2-1956, cc. 282-84; 20-2-1956, cc. 402-17.
34. May, P. 397.
744 Practice and Procedure of Parliament

resolution or motion.
The object of an amendment is either to modify a question before the House
with a view to increasing its acceptability or to present to the House a different
proposition as an alternative to the original question35.
A substitute motion also aims at bringing before the House a different proposition
as an alternative to the original question, but is distinct from an amendment inasmuch
as it replaces the entire motion. Unlike a substitute motion, an amendment modifies
or substitutes only a part of the original motion and does not change all the words of
the question before the House though it may bring a different proposition before the
House. A substitute motion, if adopted, supersedes the original question which is then
not put to the vote of the House but if an amendment is adopted, the original question
is put, as amended.
Substitute motions to a substantive motion are not admissible; only amendments
can be moved. Amendments to substitute motions are not permissible.
However, when a substantive motion regarding appointment of a Joint
Committee to enquire into issues arising from the Report of the Swedish
National Audit Bureau on Bofors Contract was admitted and discussed on
29 and 30 July and 3, 4 and 6 August 1987, substitute motions to the
substantive motion were admitted and circulated to members as amendments.
When an amendment is moved but not put to the vote of the House by the
Speaker and the original motion is passed by the House, the amendment is deemed
to have been negatived by the House36.
Form of Amendment
Amendments may be divided into three classes: amendments for omission of
certain words, figures or marks; amendments for substitution of certain words, figures
or marks; and amendments for addition or insertion of certain words, figures or
marks.
When the proposed amendment is to omit certain words, figures or marks, the
Speaker puts the question, “That in the original motion, the words, figures or marks
(here the words, figures or marks proposed to be omitted) be omitted”. When the
proposed amendment is for substitution, the Speaker says: “That in the original motion
for (here the words, figures or marks proposed to be dropped,) substitute (here the
words, figures or marks sought to be substituted)”. When the amendment proposes to
insert or add certain words, figures or marks, the Speaker says: “That in the original
motion, after (here the word or words or figures or marks after which the proposed
word or words or figures or marks are sought to be inserted) insert,” or “That in the
original motion, add at the end...,” as the case may be. If any of the amendments is
adopted, the question is put as amended; otherwise the question is put as originally
given.

35. Ibid.
36. Dir. 43.
 Motions 745

Notice of Amendment
Notice of an amendment to a motion, like any other notice, has to be given in
writing addressed to the Secretary-General, signed by the member giving notice and
handed in at the Parliamentary Notice Office within the notified hours.
Notices are required to be given on the standard printed forms. The practice of
giving notices on scraps of paper or written in pencil has been deprecated by the
Speaker37.
Notice of an amendment to a motion is to be given one day before the day on
which the motion is to be considered, unless the Speaker allows the amendment to be
moved without such notice38. An amendment of which adequate notice has not been
given may be allowed to be moved when adequate notice of an identical motion has
been given by another member and that member declines to move his amendment39.
The Speaker may also waive the condition of notice of amendments with the
concurrence of the House40. Amendments tabled by Ministers may, with the Speaker’s
permission, be moved even without notice but if public interest is in any way affected,
consideration may be postponed to the following day with a view to enabling members
to consider the implication of the amendments41. The Speaker may also waive the
requirement of notice if the amendment is acceptable both to the mover and the
Government42. Last minute amendments may also be admitted, if agreed to and accepted
by the mover of the motion43.

Mode of Moving Amendments

Amendments are moved in the interval between the proposing and the putting
of the question before the House, that is, during the time which is normally used for
discussion. An amendment may be moved after the question has been proposed by the
Speaker, and it can be moved only by the member in whose name it stands on the list
of amendments44. Where an amendment stands jointly in the names of more than one
member and has been moved by one of them, the others cannot move it again but may
be permitted to speak in support of it45. A member who has given notice of an

37. L.A. Deb., 9-4-1934, p. 3423.

38. Rule 345.
39. L.A. Deb., 1-12-1938, p. 3680.
40. H.P. Deb., 11-7-1952, c. 3611; L.S. Deb., 23-11-1956, cc. 2688-96; 12-2-1964, cc. 305-09;
25-4-1966, cc. 12863-885.
41. L.A. Deb., 26-3-1931, pp. 2711-15.
42. L.S. Deb., 31-3-1956, cc. 3980-81.
43. Ibid., 27-5-1957, cc. 2158-59; 29-8-1957, cc. 10793-94; 5-9-1957, c. 12145.
44. Ibid., 24-7-1956, cc. 672-73. The Chair has not allowed the moving of any amendments at a later
stage of discussion when the motion and the amendments moved thereto are already under
discussion.—L.S. Deb., 31-7-1975, c. 99.
On an occasion, a member was allowed to modify the text of his amendment to a motion, already
circulated at the time of moving it in the House.—L.S. Deb., 11-11-1970, c. 303.
45. L.S. Deb., 28-5-1956, cc. 9769-70.
746 Practice and Procedure of Parliament

amendment is not entitled, on that account, to precedence over a member who rises
to speak on the question46.

Admissibility of Amendments
In order that an amendment to a motion may be admissible, it must satisfy the
following conditions:
An amendment should be relevant to, and within the scope of the motion
to which it is proposed. It should not introduce new or foreign matter or widen
the scope of the motion47.
An amendment which has merely the effect of a negative vote is not
admissible48. On the same principle, amendments purporting to omit a clause
of a Bill are out of order and are not circulated49. An amendment which in
effect would constitute a direct negation of the original motion has been held
to be out of order50, as also one which is contradictory to the text of the
motion51. Likewise, an amendment which is substantially the same as the
original motion is also out of order52.
An amendment on a question should not be inconsistent with a previous decision
on the same question53. Hence, an amendment is out of order if it is inconsistent with
the words in the motion which have been already agreed upon, or with an amendment
already agreed to, or if it is substantially the same as another already negatived.
In addition to these conditions, the general conditions of admissibility of
amendments as in the case of Bills, namely, that an amendment should not be
unintelligible, vague and indefinite54, meaningless or frivolous, and that it should be
in the form in which it can be put to vote of the House by the Speaker, apply mutatis
mutandis in the case of amendments to motions also.

Amendments to Proposed Amendments

An amendment to an amendment is also admissible. In such cases, the question
by the Speaker deals with the first amendment as if it were a distinct question, and
with the second as if it were an ordinary amendment. The original question is, for a
time, laid aside, and the amendment becomes, as it were, a substantive question itself.
An amendment to a proposed amendment, however, cannot be moved if it intends to

46. H.P. Deb., (II), 28-11-1952, c. 1370.

47. Rule 344 (1); L.A. Deb., 27-5-1924, p. 2293; H.P. Deb., (II), 17-4-1953, c. 4463; 24-11-1953,
cc. 612-14.
48. Rule 344(2).
49. L.A. Deb., 16-2-1946, p. 1153; L.S. Deb., 24-12-1970, c. 287.
50. L.S. Deb., 24-4-1959, c. 13891; 19-8-1968, cc. 2736, 2825-26.
51. L.S. Deb., 31-8-1956, cc. 5050-52.
52. L.A. Deb., 16-2-1928, p. 393; 6-4-1934, c. 3293; and L.S. Deb., 2-12-1960, c. 3684.
53. Rule 344 (3).
54. L.A. Deb., 5-12-1932, p. 2930.
 Motions 747

leave out all the words of such proposed amendment. In such a case, the amendment
to a proposed amendment can be admitted only as an independent amendment to the
original question and can be moved only after the first amendment has been negatived
or withdrawn.

Selection of Amendments
The Speaker has the power to select the amendments to be proposed in respect
of any motion and may, if he thinks fit, call upon any member who has given notice
of an amendment to give such explanation of the object of the amendment as may
enable him to form a judgment upon it55.
Where a particular amendment is selected by the Speaker, the decision has to
be accepted by the House56, unless there is unanimity in the House relating to any
other amendment57.

Scope of Debate on an Amendment

The debate on an amendment which presents to the House a different proposition
as an alternative to the original motion is not restricted to the amendment but includes
the purpose both of the amendment and of the motion, because both matters are under
the consideration of the House and it may accept either of the two propositions. If the
amendment is intended only to modify the question by leaving out or adding words,
the debate is restricted to the desirability of the omission or addition of those words.
Similarly, if it be intended to leave out certain words only and substitute other words,
then both the original and the proposed words are equally under consideration.

Repetition and Withdrawal of Motions

The general rule regarding motions is that a motion must not raise a question
substantially identical with one on which the House has already given a decision in
the same session58. However, if the House wants to revise its decision taken earlier
in the same session, this rule has to be suspended59.
A member who has made a motion can withdraw it only by leave of the House60.
The leave is signified not upon question but by the Speaker taking the pleasure of the
House. If any dissentient voice is heard or a member rises to continue the debate, the
Speaker forthwith puts the original motion61. A motion which is not pressed for a

55. Rule 346.

56. L.A. Deb., 8-9-1922, p. 286.
57. P. Deb., 5-10-1951, cc. 4324-25; see also L.S. Deb., 5-8-1957, cc. 7035-36; 30-11-1959, cc. 2452-53.
58. Rule 338. L.S. Deb., 8-12-1955, cc. 1749-1814; 15-12-1958, cc. 4999-5001.
59. L.S. Deb., 15-4-1964, c. 11238; 25-11-1966, cc. 5681-94; 7-8-1969, cc. 259-60; 28-8-1970,
cc. 245-47, 336-38; 16-3-1973, cc. 267-71; 4-9-1974, cc. 64-86; 26-7-1966, c. 459; 22-7-1966,
c. 777.
60. Rule 339. L.S. Deb., 14-7-1967, cc. 12017-32.
61. L.S. Deb., 19-7-1957, c. 1276.
748 Practice and Procedure of Parliament

division by the mover is deemed to have been withdrawn by leave of the House and
it is not necessary in that case to take the pleasure of the House62.
Only the mover of the motion can ask for withdrawal of his motion. A motion
may be withdrawn after it has been put to the House and a division has been called,
but the mover must ask for its withdrawal before the actual division takes place63. In
asking for leave to withdraw his motion, the member is not entitled to make a speech64.
The right of a member to withdraw a motion is not absolute and unrestricted.
Thus, a clause of a Bill cannot be withdrawn; the Bill is introduced as a whole and
a member cannot withdraw a clause after having placed the whole Bill before the
House. If a clause is to be omitted from a Bill, it has to be put to vote of the House
and negatived65. Further, if an amendment has been proposed to a motion, the original
motion cannot be withdrawn until the amendment has been disposed of66.
If it is found in the course of the discussion that an amendment which has been
allowed to be moved is out of order, the Speaker has the right to withdraw the
amendment from further consideration of the House67.

Motion for Discussion on a Matter of General Public Interest

Save insofar as is otherwise provided in the Constitution or in the Rules, no
discussion on a matter of general public interest can take place in the House except
on a motion made with the consent of the Speaker68. Even after admitting the motion,
the Speaker can disallow a part of it if it comes to his notice that that point violates
any of the conditions of admissibility69.
Notice of such a motion, like any other notice, is given in writing addressed to
the Secretary-General70. No period for notice of such motions has been prescribed.
Notices can be tabled from the date following the date of issue of summons for a
session. Notices of motions regarding statements to be made in the House by Ministers
or statements, reports and papers to be laid on the Table are entertained from
10.00 hours on the day the List of Business wherein the item has been included is
circulated to members. In case that day happens to be Saturday, Sunday or a public
holiday, the notices are entertained from 10.00 hours on the next working day71. In
case a Supplementary List of Business is circulated in the House in regard to a

62. Dir. 44.

63. P. Deb., 20-4-1950, p. 3079.
64. L.A. Deb., 20-9-1927, p. 4659.
65. L.S. Deb., 9-2-1960, cc. 180-221; 10-2-1960, cc. 337-428; 11-2-1960, cc. 537-87; 6-12-1961,
cc. 3651-52; 24-2-1970, cc. 276-87; 4-5-1987, cc 433-34.
66. Rule 339. See, for instance, L.S. Deb., 30-4-1954, cc. 6217-24; 2-8-1957, cc. 3814-19; 19-7-1957,
c. 1276.
67. L.A. Deb., 2-12-1933, pp. 2506-08 and 2538.
68. Rule 184.
69. Rule 186. Also see L.S. Deb., 4-8-1977, cc. 296-315.
70. Rule 185.
71. Bn. (II), 13-11-1987, para 1950.
 Motions 749

statement, the notices in respect of that statement, received within 15 minutes of

circulation of the List of Business, are deemed to have been received at the same
point of time and their inter se priority determined by ballot. In case an announcement
is made by the Chair about a statement to be made by a Minister in the House, the
notices in respect of that statement are entertained from the time the announcement
is made by the Chair and the notices received within 15 minutes of announcement by
the Chair are deemed to have been received at the same point of time and that their
inter se priority determined by ballot. In case a statement is made without being listed
in the List of Business or Supplementary List of Business, the notices in respect of
that statement are entertained from the time the statement is actually made in the
House and the notices received within 15 minutes of the completion of the statement
by the Minister are deemed to have been received at the same point of time and their
inter se priority determined by ballot. All notices are to be delivered in the Parliamentary
Notice Office and not handed over at the Table of the House and only the time of the
receipt of the notice in the Parliamentary Notice Office is taken into account.
The following particulars are required to be given in a notice:
place and date; address of the member giving notice; member’s signature
and division number; and text of the motion in precise language.
Further, a notice of motion by a private member is required to be
accompanied by a list of points for discussion on the proposed motion and
a brief explanatory memorandum so as to enable the Speaker to decide the
admissibility of the motion.
A notice signed by more than one member is deemed to have been tabled by
the first signatory only.
Forms of Motion
No particular form has been prescribed for motion for raising discussion on a
matter of general public interest. It may be in the form of a declaration of opinion or
a recommendation; or it may be in a form so as to record approval or disapproval by
the House of an act or policy of Government or express concern or commend, urge
or request an action or take note of a document or to consider a policy, statement or
situation. Usually, the notices are tabled in two forms: under the first form the House
takes note of a document laid on the Table while under the second the House considers
a policy or situation or statement or any other matter.
The first form of motion is generally used in respect of a motion which seeks
to discuss a report, a statement, etc. laid on the Table. It has now become an established
practice that no discussion on a report can take place unless it has been laid on the
Table72. The motion in this form is a non-committal substantive motion, and is submitted

72. Reports of the Estimates Committee and the Committee on Public Undertakings are not discussed
in the House. A motion with reference to any specific recommendation contained in any of the
Reports may, however, be considered. A Report of the Public Accounts Committee was discussed
on 22 August 1966, as it pertained to a specific issue. The scope of debate was limited only to
observations of the Committee on that issue. No new accusations, fresh blame or other issues were
raised during the debate—L.S. Deb., 22-8-1966, cc. 6076-77.
750 Practice and Procedure of Parliament

to the vote of the House at the end of discussion73, and amendments can be moved
thereto, approving or disapproving the report, etc.74.
However, if this form of motion is used by a private member in order to ‘take
note’ of a policy of the Government with special reference to one particular aspect
of that policy, an amendment by another member seeking approval of the policy in
general is inadmissible75.
The second form of motion is generally used when a policy or situation or
statement or any other matter is to be taken into consideration. The motion in this
form is not submitted to the vote of the House and at the close of the debate no further
question is put. However, if a member has moved a substantive motion in substitution
of the original motion duly approved by the Speaker, the vote of the House thereon
is taken76.
A substitute motion cannot be moved after the discussion on the original motion
has commenced77. It has been held that the mover of a motion for taking into
consideration a policy or situation or statement, etc., can himself move a substitute
motion without withdrawing the original motion78.

Censure Motion
In view of the constitutional provisions regarding the collective responsibility
of the Council of Ministers to the Lok Sabha [article 75(3)], a motion of no-confidence
can be moved only against the Council of Ministers as a whole and not against any
individual Minister. However, there is nothing in the Rules either for or against a
censure motion being moved against a single Minister under Rules relating to motions
in general.
On 4 August 1977, when a censure motion moved by a member against
a single Minister seeking to record the House’s “indignation against and
disapproval of the conduct” of the Minister for his “acts of commission and
omission” came up before the House, several members questioned, on points
of order, the admissibility of the motion inasmuch as: (i) there was no provision
in the Rules for censure motion against an individual Minister; (ii) there was

The House has adopted a motion directing the Public Accounts Committee to consider a matter
referred to in one of their Reports and submit their Report within a specified time—L.S. Deb.,
2-8-1966, cc. 1941-56.
Motions regarding areas of divergence between the Public Accounts Committee and the Government
have been moved and discussed in the House—L.S. Deb., 28-11-1967, cc. 3318-68.
Motions regarding working or annual reports of Public Undertakings, which are under examination
by the Committee on Public Undertakings, are not admitted as the discussion in the House might
prejudice examination of the Undertaking by the Committee.
73. L.S. Deb., 12-3-1965, cc. 4062-63; 12-8-1967, cc. 19253-54; 30-7-1985, cc. 276-77.
74. Ibid., 3-9-1959, cc. 6135-36.
75. Ibid., 29-8-1960, cc. 5540-41.
76. Rule 342.
77. L.S. Deb., 21-12-1959, cc. 6292-93.
78. Ibid., 19-2-1958, cc. 1509-13.
 Motions 751

a separate procedure for a motion of no-confidence; (iii) the censure motion

was inadmissible even under Rule 184 as it raised three different matters,
sought to revive discussion on a matter already discussed and one of the
matters raised was also subject of an inquiry. The Speaker ruled that he did
not find any Rule either for or against such a motion being admitted and,
therefore, going by precedent, he had admitted it. As for the motion mentioning
three issues, the Speaker held that they were actually three illustrations relating
to the same issue. The portion relating to an incident which was subject of
inquiry in a criminal case, was, however, ruled out by the Speaker79.
Censure motion can thus be moved against the Council of Ministers or an
individual Minister or a group of Ministers for their failure to act or not to act or for
their policy, and may express regret, indignation or surprise of the House at the failure
of the Minister or Ministers. The motion should however be specific and self-
explanatory so as to record the reasons for the censure, precisely and briefly80. The
Speaker’s decision whether the motion is in order or not for any reason is final81.
No leave of the House is required to move a censure motion. It is in the
discretion of the Government to find time and to fix a date for its discussion. Such
a motion is governed by the rules applicable to motions in general and it is admitted
as a No-Day-Yet-Named Motion and published in the Bulletin82.

79. L.S. Deb., 4-8-1977, cc. 295-391.

80. Some of the forms of the censure motions discussed in the Lok Sabha are as under:—
(i) That this House resolves that Lalit Narain Mishra, a member of this House and a member
of Cabinet, be removed from the membership of this House for committing serious
improprieties and malpractices as could be seen from the Report of the Commission of
Enquiry into the Affairs of Bharat Sevak Samaj and in particular, as reported in the said
Commission Reports in Volume 11 page 97, paragraphs 29.94, 29.95, 29.96; page 98 paragraph
29.100; page 103 paragraphs 29.128, 29.129; page 110 paragraphs 29.146, 29.147; page
126 paragraph (xxi) and page 127 paragraph 29.194.–L.S. Deb., 18-12-1974, cc. 257-408.
(ii) That having considered the acts of commission and omission on the part of the Home
Minister with respect to the following matters, namely:
(a) that he has been misusing the floor of the House to make baseless and irresponsible
statements as instanced, among others, by his allegation on 13 July 1977 replying to
the debate on Demands for Grants for the Home Ministry that there was a preparation
and thinking (Vichar) on the part of the previous Government to shoot the political
leaders in detention, and
(b) that he, misusing his official position, meddled with the affairs of independent
constitutional bodies as evidenced, among others, by his conduct in withdrawing from
the files of the Election Commission a letter dated 5 May 1977, he had written in his
capacity as the leader of the B.L.D.,
this House hereby records its indignation against and disapproval of the conduct of the Home
Minister.—L.S. Deb., 4-8-1977, cc. 295-391; 5-8-1977, cc. 260-83.
81. L.S. Deb., 19-8-1968, cc. 2714-2840; 4-8-1977, cc. 295-391; 5-8-1977, cc. 260-83.
82. Rule 189. See, for instance, Bn. (II), 29-7-1977, para 249.
The following procedure was followed when notices of censure motions were received against an
individual Minister:
752 Practice and Procedure of Parliament

A censure motion seeking to drop a Minister from the Council of Ministers is

inadmissible as the Council of Ministers is collectively responsible to the Lok Sabha.
During the Third Session (7LS), Jyotirmoy Bosu tabled notice of
following censure motion:
“The House note with deep agony the statement made by Law Minister
today (28.7.1980) in reply to Calling Attention on Justice Srivastava and
recommend, since he has violated Article 121 of the Constitution, which he
is oath bound to abide by, he should be dropped from the Council of Ministers
and be censured as a M.P.”
As the provisions of article 121 of Constitution were not attracted and
as Council of Ministers is collectively responsible to the Lok Sabha [article
75(3)], the notice was disallowed.
During the Fifth Session (13 LS), several members tabled notices of
motion under rule 184 seeking removal of three Ministers from the Council
of Ministers on the ground that charges had been framed against them by a
trial Court in a criminal case. On 11 December 2000, the Speaker disallowed
the notices on the ground that the matter was sub judice and was not of a
recent occurrence and also against the principle of collective responsibility.
On the same day, 45 other members tabled identical notices of motion
under rule 184 seeking resignation of the concerned Ministers on the ground
of propriety as the Ministers had been charge-sheeted by a Court in a criminal
case. All the notices were disallowed by the Speaker as issue of propriety
was not governed under any rule of the Rules of Procedure and therefore, it
could not be discussed on the floor of the House.
As members insisted on having a discussion under rule 184, it was
decided at a meeting of Leaders of Parties to discuss the matter under rule
184 on a mutually agreed upon text. Accordingly, the following motion was
discussed on 13 and 14 December 2000 and negatived:
“That this House calls upon the Prime Minister to drop three Ministers
from his Government, namely, Shri Lal Krishna Advani, Dr. Murali Manohar
Joshi and Kumari Uma Bharti against whom prima facie charges have been
found to exist for their involvement in the demolition of the Babri Masjid on
6th December 1992 and disapproves the stand of the Prime Minister seeking
to exonerate the concerned Ministers.”
A censure motion relating to matters under examination by a Financial Committee
is not admitted and the member advised to furnish the pertinent information to the
Committee83.

The member concerned was requested to make the notice specific, if it was not so. The notices
were sent to the concerned Minister and the Prime Minister for their comments. The admissibility
of the notices was decided in the light of comments received. The motion, as admitted, was
published in Bulletin-Part (II) as No-Day-Yet-Named Motion and placed before the BAC for
selection and allotment of time therefor.
83. L.S. Deb., 15-7-1982, cc. 241-44.
 Motions 753

Censure motions relating to statements of Ministers in the nature of political

comments/criticism made outside the House have been held to be inadmissible84.

Conditions of Admissibility
In order that a motion for discussion of a matter of general public interest may
be admissible, it should raise substantially one definite issue; contain no arguments,
inferences, ironical expressions, imputations or defamatory statements; avoid reference
to the conduct or character of persons except in their public capacity85; be restricted
to a matter of recent occurrence; raise no question of privilege86; revive no discussion
of a matter which has been discussed in the same session; anticipate no discussion of
a matter which is likely to be discussed in the same session; and not relate to any
matter which is under adjudication by court of law having jurisdiction in any part of
India87.
Likewise, no motion which seeks to raise discussion on a matter pending before
a statutory tribunal or statutory authority performing judicial or quasi-judicial functions
or a commission or court of inquiry is ordinarily permitted to be moved although the
Speaker may, in his discretion, allow such matter being raised as it concerned with
the procedure or subject or stage of enquiry, if he is satisfied that it is not likely to
prejudice the consideration of such matter by the judicial authority concerned88. If a
motion on such a matter is admitted for discussion, the Speaker at the commencement

84. During the 6th Session (8LS), C. Madhav Reddy tabled a notice of censure motion against the
Minister of State for Public Enterprises (K.K. Tewari) re. statements made by him during his
official tour to Andhra Pradesh against the State Government. The notice was disallowed as it was
based on statements made by the Minister outside the House at party meetings and seemed to be
in the nature of political comments/criticism.
During the 9th Session (8LS), C. Madhav Reddy tabled a notice of censure motion against the
Minister of Home Affairs (Sardar Buta Singh) alleging that the Minister, during election campaign
in Andhra Pradesh, made objectionable remarks against the State Government. The notice was sent
to the Minister for his comments. The Minister denied the Press remarks attributed to him. The
notice was not admitted on grounds that the notice: (i) lacked factual basis; and
(ii) related to statements which were not made on the floor of the House but during election
campaign in Andhra Pradesh which was normal political activity.
85. Conduct of Governor of a State can be discussed in the House on a motion only to the extent
whether the Governor has acted in his discretion or on the advice of the Union.
86. On 15 December 1987, (9th Session - 8LS), a member gave a notice of a question of privilege
against another member for making allegation on the floor of the House against the Minister of
State in the Ministry of Commerce by making an untrue statement deliberately to mislead the
House regarding ‘cornering of licences by Bachchan Brothers in Kandla Free Trade Zone’ during
the discussion on “No-confidence Motion” on 10 December 1987. On 1 March 1988
(10th Session), the Speaker gave his ruling that no prima facie case of breach of privilege was
involved in the matter and withheld his consent to the raising of the matter in the House as a
question of privilege. Later on, another member tabled a notice under rule 184 regarding reference
of the matter for investigation to the Committee of Privileges. The motion was admitted, discussed
and adopted by the House on 5 May 1988. The matter was referred to the Committee of Privileges.
87. Rule 186.
For practice re. discussion on matters which are sub judice, see Chapter XLIII–Parliament and
Judiciary, under the appropriate heading.
88. Rule 188.
754 Practice and Procedure of Parliament

of the discussion observes that members should not cast reflection on the conduct of
the Judge holding the enquiry and that discussion should take place on limited aspects
only89.
Apart from the conditions mentioned above, a motion is inadmissible if it—
lacks factual basis or is based on unconfirmed Press reports; relates to an
individual officer, and does not involve public interest or the responsibility
of the Government, requiring their explanation; seeks to discuss the annual
administrative report on the working of a Ministry, which has already been
adequately discussed in the House; seeks to discuss a matter for the discussion
of which there is a specific provision under the Constitution or in the rules;
seeks to discuss a report, which has not been laid on the Table90; seeks to
discuss the report of a Committee appointed by a State Government; and
seeks to discuss a paper or document laid on the Table by a private member.
Likewise, motions seeking disapproval of Proclamations under article 356 or
recommending to the President revocation of Proclamation91 or regarding conduct of
the Speaker or members of a State Legislature or happenings therein, or regarding
conduct of a Chief Minister of a State or regarding leakage of Budget proposals
without a prima facie case, or seeking reference of a matter to Supreme Court under
article 143 of the Constitution or seeking to impose a ban on R.S.S. and its activities,
or seeking discussion on a matter which may raise issues of classified nature impacting
on national security92, or requires ratification of any treaty or agreement entered into
with a foreign country by the Government unless the treaty itself contains such a
provision93 have been held to be inadmissible. Motion regarding conduct of a Governor
of a State can be discussed94.
A motion or a part thereof may be disallowed by the Speaker if in his opinion
it is an abuse of the right of moving a motion or is calculated to obstruct or prejudicially
affect the procedure of the House or is in contravention of the Rules95. The Speaker
has the inherent power to rule out a motion at any time before it is voted upon on
the ground that it involves an abuse of the forms and procedure of the House96.

89. See for instance, L.S. Deb., 7-4-1966, c. 10030.

90. A motion regarding the Report of the Sarkaria Commission on Centre-State Relations, which was
not laid on the Table of the House and placed in Parliament Library only, was admitted as the
Report had become public document—Bn. (II), 1-3-1988, para 2134.
91. L.S. Deb., 6-5-1965, cc. 13525-26; 6-4-1992, cc. 517-54.
92. During Eleventh Session of Fourteenth Lok Sabha, notices of motion regarding ‘adverse impact
of atomic radiation from US warship USS Nimitz’ were not admitted as the Ministry of Defence
in their reply had, inter alia, stated that ‘the discussion in the House on the subject may raise
issues of classified nature impacting on national security’.
93. Ruling by the Speaker in regard to notices of motion on adverse impact of atomic radiation from
US Warship USS Nimitz.—L.S. Deb., 17-8-2007, cc. 474-75.
94. L.S. Deb., 1-12-1967, cc. 4265-319; 4-12-1967, cc. 4509-585; 28-2-1968, cc. 505-64; 11-4-1968,
cc. 300-19; 21-8-1984, cc. 347-493; 26-11-1985, cc. 341-426; 24-4-1989, cc. 294-385;
25-4-1989, cc. 492-638; 26-4-1989, cc. 343-91; 22-5-1990, cc. 545-66; 23-5-1990. cc. 431-49.
95. Rule 187.
96. L.A. Deb., 11-4-1929, pp. 2989-91; L.S. Deb., 23-3-1968, cc. 2693-710.
 Motions 755

A part-discussed adjournment motion was converted into a motion under

Rule 184 with the consent of the mover and the House97.

Admission of Notice and Allotment of Time

The notice of a motion for discussing a report which has been laid on the Table
in pursuance of provision in a Statute is normally admitted by the Speaker. If
Government is not willing to move a motion for consideration of a report on which
it has taken certain decisions, any member may give notice to move a motion to that
effect98. The admissibility of other notices is decided by the Speaker on the merits of
each case and, in appropriate cases, after taking into consideration the facts and
comments, if any, received from the Minister concerned; a motion once admitted by
the Speaker and included in the List of Business is not changed99.
If several members table notices of similar motion and any one of the notices
is admitted, the names of the other members giving notice of similar motion are
bracketed on the admitted notice, the names of members inter se being arranged in
the order in which the notices are received in point of time. The names of members
from whom notices of similar motion may be received after a motion has been
admitted and published in the Bulletin, are not bracketed on the admitted notice100.

No-Day-Yet-Named Motions
If the Speaker admits notice of a motion and no date is fixed for its discussion,
it is called a ‘No-Day-Yet-Named Motion’, and a copy of the admitted motion is
forwarded to the Minister concerned with the subject-matter of the motion. Where
notices of a Government motion and a private member’s motion are received on the
same subject, Government motion is admitted and private member’s motion is
disallowed. If a private member’s motion is admitted and thereafter notice of a
Government motion on the same subject is received, Government motion is also

97. On 24 July 1997, during the Fifth Session of the Eleventh Lok Sabha, the Leader of the Opposition
(Atal Bihari Vajpayee) moved an Adjournment Motion regarding the serious situation arising out
of passive attitude of Central Government over developments in Bihar. After some discussion, the
Adjournment Motion was converted into a motion under Rule 184 with the consent of the mover
and the House. Vajpayee tabled the notice of an amendment to bring the motion in conformity
with the form prescribed for motions under Rule 184. The amendment was moved on 28 July and
was adopted on 29 July 1997. The motion was negatived.—L.S. Deb., 24-7-1997, cc. 419-62;
28-7-1997, cc. 252-84; 29-7-1997, c. 466.
98. L.S. Deb., 30-11-1959, c. 2441.
99. Ibid., 10-3-1969, cc. 213-16.
100. During the Third Session of the Thirteenth Lok Sabha, a member Bir Singh Mahato tabled notices
under Rule 184 on following subjects:–
(i) Rising illiteracy in the country;
(ii) Continuous brain drain in various fields;
(iii) Loss of lives, crops and property due to floods; and
(iv) Incidents of atrocities on women.
The above notices were disallowed as notices on similar subjects had already been admitted and
published vide Bn. (II), 17-2-2000 (Motion Nos. 46, 52, 59 & 61 respectively).
756 Practice and Procedure of Parliament

admitted. If it is decided to have a discussion on that subject by way of a motion, the

Government motion gets precedence over private member’s motion, as ‘No-Day-
Yet-Named Motions’ are discussed in Government time.
Admitted notices of such motions may be placed before the Business Advisory
Committee for selecting the motions for discussion in the House according to the
urgency and importance of the subject-matter thereof and allotting time for the same.
In a number of cases, the Business Advisory Committee also fixes date and time for
discussion of motion101.
Unless the Speaker otherwise directs, No-Day-Yet-Named Motions and Short
Duration Discussions102 are arranged in such a way that no member moves or raises
more than two of these during a session103.

Discussion on the Motion

On being called by the Speaker, the member in whose name the motion stands
in the List of Business formally moves the motion and makes his speech. Thereafter,
the Speaker places the motion before the House. Amendments or substitute motions,
if any, are then moved by members and discussion follows. After the members and
the Minister concerned have participated in the debate, the mover of the motion may
speak again by way of reply. The amendments and substitute motions, if any, are put
to the vote of the House and disposed of, after which the main motion may be put
to vote.

101. Prior to 1960, the question as to which of the admitted motions should be brought before the
House for discussion was left to the Government. Members were not satisfied with such a procedure
and the matter was raised in the Business Advisory Committee at its sitting held on 14 November
I960, which then appointed a sub-Committee to select such motions. Min. (BAC-2LS) 14-12-
1960; Min. (SC of BAC), 22-11-1960, 29-11-1960, 6-12-1960 and 13-12-1960.
Since 1971, the Business Advisory Committee itself has been selecting such motions for discussion
in the House.
The BAC at its sitting held on 16 March 1988, selected a motion re. reference of an allegation
made by a member against the Minister of State in the Ministry of Commerce for having made
an untrue statement on the floor of the House regarding ‘cornering of licenses by Bachchan
Brothers in Kandla Free Trade Zone,’ to the Committee of Privileges for investigation and report,
for discussion on 24 March 1988. The motion was not included in the List of Business as the
member was not well. The Committee, at its sitting held on 30 March 1988, decided to postpone
the discussion on the motion until he recovered from illness and was able to participate in the
discussion. The Committee, at its sitting held on 21 April 1988, fixed the motion for discussion
on 2 May after the passing of Finance Bill, 1988. On 2 May 1988, at its sitting, the Committee,
on the request of several members, fixed the discussion on the motion for 5 May 1988. The motion
was discussed on 5 May 1988 and adopted.
Min. (BAC-8LS) 16-3-1988, 30-3-1988, 21-4-1988 and 2-5-1988; L.S. Deb., 5-5-1988, cc. 421-58.
102. Rule 193.
103. Dir. 113C.
 Motions 757

However, the member in whose name the motion has been listed may decline
to move the same104.
If the motion is adopted by the House, it is transmitted to the Minister concerned.
Generally, motions in the form of ‘take note’ are adopted by the House. There have,
however, been instances when such motions were negatived by the House105.
There may be combined discussion on a motion and a statutory resolution
approving the Proclamation under article 356 issued by the President in relation to a
State106, or a motion and a statutory resolution seeking disapproval of an Ordinance107.

Motions of Confidence
Though there is no specific rule in the Rules of Procedure relating to Motions
of Confidence in the Council of Ministers, over the years, this new procedure has
evolved as a result of the changing political composition of the Parliament. This
practice has been followed in recent times whenever no single political party is in a
position to command the majority of the House. In these cases, the procedure followed
is that a one-line (notice of a) motion under Rule 184 “that this House expresses its
Confidence in the Council of Ministers” is moved by the Prime Minister on the
direction of the President108.

104. The following motion was included in the List of Business for 20 March 1997 in the name of
Jaswant Singh:
“That taking serious note of the constitutional crisis in the State of Uttar Pradesh evidenced
amongst others by widespread lawlessness described by the Union Home Minister as bordering
on ‘chaos, anarchy and destruction,’ the rejection of this assessment of the Central Government
by the Governor and his clarification that ‘he had spoken to the Prime Minister,’ therefore, this
House do now resolve that the Governor of Uttar Pradesh be recalled forthwith.”
When Jaswant Singh was called by the Chair to move the motion, he stated that the objective
political situation was different from that obtaining at the time he had given notice of the motion
and as he did not wish to cause any further contention between high functionaries of the Republic,
he was not moving the motion.
105. L.S. Deb., 27-8-1962, c. 4362; 12-8-1967, c. 19253; 11-8-1983, c. 458.
106. Combined discussions were held on the motion regarding non-rejection of the reports of the
Governors of Haryana and Uttar Pradesh recommending issue of Proclamations under article 356
of the Constitution and the statutory resolutions approving the Proclamations issued by the President
in relation to the respective States. L.S. Deb., 21-11-1967, cc. 1727, 1738; 18-4-1968, cc. 1448,
1568.
Combined discussion was held on motion regarding ‘deteriorating law and order situation in the
State of Bihar under President’s rule and also on the situation arising out of the Chief Secretary
of the State proceeding on long leave’ and the statutory resolution approving the Proclamation
issued by the President in relation to the State of Bihar. L.S. Deb., 2-8-2005, cc. 414-592.
107. Statutory resolution by a Private Member seeking disapproval of the Essential Services Maintenance
Ordinance, 1960, and a Government Motion under rule 342 regarding situation arising out of the
Central Government employees’ strike were discussed together.
L.S. Deb., 8-8-1960, cc. 1391-1536; 9-8-1960, cc. 1662-1800.
108. See Chapter XXVIII—‘Motions of Confidence and No-confidence in the Council of Ministers.’
Also see, G.C. Malhotra: Cabinet Responsibility to Legislature: Motions of Confidence and No-
confidence in Lok Sabha and State Legislatures, (Lok Sabha Secretariat, New Delhi, 2004).