Which parliamentary devices are restricted for sub-judice matters?

Questions, Resolutions, Motions, and general discussion in speeches are all prohibited on matters currently under adjudication by courts of law. This restriction applies during specific phases of judicial proceedings: from chargesheet to judgment in criminal cases, from issue framing to judgment in civil suits, and from admission to final orders in writ petitions.

Understanding the purpose: The sub-judice rule embodies the separation of powers principle by preventing legislative proceedings from appearing to influence judicial decision-making. Courts must be seen to decide cases on legal merits alone, without parliamentary pressure or commentary. The timing specifications recognize that different types of legal proceedings have different "active consideration" phases - the restriction applies only when cases are actively being adjudicated, not merely filed or in preliminary stages. Importantly, the restriction is narrowly focused on specific issues before courts, not entire subject areas, balancing respect for judicial independence with parliamentary freedom to discuss broader policy matters. This careful calibration preserves both institutions' legitimate spheres of authority.

Key citations:

• Rule 47(2)(xix) prohibits questions that "ask for information on a matter which is under adjudication by a court of law having jurisdiction in any part of India" - directly restricting the primary information-seeking parliamentary device.
• Rule 157(v) extends the prohibition to resolutions, which "shall not relate to any matter which is under adjudication by a court of law having jurisdiction in any part of India" - covering formal parliamentary expressions of opinion.
• Rule 169(viii) similarly restricts motions on such matters - preventing formal proposals for House action on sub-judice matters.
• Rule 238(i) broadens the restriction to general debate, prohibiting members from referring to "any matter of fact on which a judicial decision is pending" - ensuring comprehensive coverage across parliamentary formats.
• Committee of Presiding Officers report (1967, Section 3.8) provided crucial timing specifications, clarifying that the restriction applies to specific phases: criminal cases (chargesheet to judgment), civil suits (issue framing to judgment), and writ petitions (admission to orders) - creating practical guidance for applying the general principle.