If at any point during a sitting the Quorum (one-tenth of the total membership) is not met, the Presiding Officer's duty is to either adjourn the House or suspend the meeting until there is a Quorum. Any business transacted without the required Quorum is considered invalid. A common misconception is that the Presiding Officer has the discretion to *allow* the proceedings to continue if the matter is urgent or minor. However, the rule is absolute: the Presiding Officer *must* adjourn or suspend the House; they have no discretion to proceed without Quorum.

Without Rules of Procedure, several critical functions would be severely compromised:

• •Legislative Effectiveness: Bills would be passed arbitrarily without proper debate, scrutiny (e.g., through committees), or voting stages, leading to poorly conceived and ineffective laws.
• •Government Accountability: Mechanisms like Question Hour, Adjournment Motions, and debates on specific issues would cease to exist, making it impossible to hold the executive accountable for its actions and policies.
• •Minority Rights: The opposition and smaller parties would have no guaranteed time or platform to raise issues, challenge the government, or propose amendments, effectively stifling dissent and turning Parliament into a rubber stamp.
• •Orderly Decision-Making: There would be no clear process for introducing motions, conducting votes, or resolving disputes, making any collective decision-making impossible.

Article 118 ensures parliamentary autonomy by allowing each House to adapt its internal working to its specific needs, traditions, and evolving challenges without external interference. This flexibility is crucial for efficient self-governance. The key distinction is that rules made under Article 118 are *subordinate* to the Constitution. They cannot contravene or override any constitutional provision. Constitutional provisions (like Article 100 for quorum, Article 105 for privileges, or Article 122 preventing courts from inquiring into parliamentary proceedings) are supreme and form the foundational framework. The Rules of Procedure *detail* how these constitutional mandates are implemented and expanded upon, but they cannot alter the fundamental constitutional structure or principles.

Critics argue that while the Rules of Procedure are comprehensive, their effectiveness is often undermined by a lack of political will, partisan enforcement, and the weaponization of rules.

• •Criticisms: Rules are often selectively applied, leading to allegations of bias by the Presiding Officer. Frequent suspensions of opposition members (as seen in 2026) are seen as stifling dissent rather than promoting decorum. The spirit of debate is lost due to constant disruptions, and the rules fail to adequately penalize such behavior consistently. There's also a perception that the government often bypasses detailed scrutiny by rushing bills.
• •Balanced Reforms:
• •Consensus on Enforcement: All parties could agree on a code of conduct and commit to respecting the Presiding Officer's decisions, reducing partisan friction.
• •Review of Suspension Rules: Introduce graded penalties for disorderly conduct instead of immediate, lengthy suspensions, ensuring proportionality.
• •Enhanced Pre-legislative Scrutiny: Mandate referring more bills to parliamentary committees, allowing for detailed examination and broader consultation, reducing the need for disruptive protests.
• •Guaranteed Opposition Time: Formally allocate more time for opposition-initiated debates and motions, ensuring their voice is heard and reducing the incentive for disruption.
• •Technology Integration: Use technology for better time management and record-keeping, enhancing transparency.

If at any point during a sitting the Quorum (one-tenth of the total membership) is not met, the Presiding Officer's duty is to either adjourn the House or suspend the meeting until there is a Quorum. Any business transacted without the required Quorum is considered invalid. A common misconception is that the Presiding Officer has the discretion to *allow* the proceedings to continue if the matter is urgent or minor. However, the rule is absolute: the Presiding Officer *must* adjourn or suspend the House; they have no discretion to proceed without Quorum.

Without Rules of Procedure, several critical functions would be severely compromised:

• •Legislative Effectiveness: Bills would be passed arbitrarily without proper debate, scrutiny (e.g., through committees), or voting stages, leading to poorly conceived and ineffective laws.
• •Government Accountability: Mechanisms like Question Hour, Adjournment Motions, and debates on specific issues would cease to exist, making it impossible to hold the executive accountable for its actions and policies.
• •Minority Rights: The opposition and smaller parties would have no guaranteed time or platform to raise issues, challenge the government, or propose amendments, effectively stifling dissent and turning Parliament into a rubber stamp.
• •Orderly Decision-Making: There would be no clear process for introducing motions, conducting votes, or resolving disputes, making any collective decision-making impossible.

Article 118 ensures parliamentary autonomy by allowing each House to adapt its internal working to its specific needs, traditions, and evolving challenges without external interference. This flexibility is crucial for efficient self-governance. The key distinction is that rules made under Article 118 are *subordinate* to the Constitution. They cannot contravene or override any constitutional provision. Constitutional provisions (like Article 100 for quorum, Article 105 for privileges, or Article 122 preventing courts from inquiring into parliamentary proceedings) are supreme and form the foundational framework. The Rules of Procedure *detail* how these constitutional mandates are implemented and expanded upon, but they cannot alter the fundamental constitutional structure or principles.

Critics argue that while the Rules of Procedure are comprehensive, their effectiveness is often undermined by a lack of political will, partisan enforcement, and the weaponization of rules.

• •Criticisms: Rules are often selectively applied, leading to allegations of bias by the Presiding Officer. Frequent suspensions of opposition members (as seen in 2026) are seen as stifling dissent rather than promoting decorum. The spirit of debate is lost due to constant disruptions, and the rules fail to adequately penalize such behavior consistently. There's also a perception that the government often bypasses detailed scrutiny by rushing bills.
• •Balanced Reforms:
• •Consensus on Enforcement: All parties could agree on a code of conduct and commit to respecting the Presiding Officer's decisions, reducing partisan friction.
• •Review of Suspension Rules: Introduce graded penalties for disorderly conduct instead of immediate, lengthy suspensions, ensuring proportionality.
• •Enhanced Pre-legislative Scrutiny: Mandate referring more bills to parliamentary committees, allowing for detailed examination and broader consultation, reducing the need for disruptive protests.
• •Guaranteed Opposition Time: Formally allocate more time for opposition-initiated debates and motions, ensuring their voice is heard and reducing the incentive for disruption.
• •Technology Integration: Use technology for better time management and record-keeping, enhancing transparency.