The Budget Session of Parliament is currently underway, and it has reached an impasse that both the ruling party and the opposition appear unable to resolve. Such a situation is in no way appropriate for India’s parliamentary democracy, because the entire governance system of the country functions through Parliament. After Independence, the measures adopted to strengthen our parliamentary system placed the independence and neutrality of the Speaker of the Lok Sabha at the very center.
Since the Lok Sabha is the highest institution comprising representatives directly elected by the people of India, the Constitution’s framers developed a system to ensure that the emotions and expressions of every member seated in the House could find a voice. For this purpose, the office of the Speaker was created and empowered to function in complete neutrality—independent of the ruling majority—so that the Speaker could deal impartially with members of all political parties. To safeguard this neutrality, the Speaker was vested with independent authority within the House, provided with a separate secretariat, and designated as the custodian of the Parliament complex.
It is not without reason that a tradition was established to elect the Speaker of the Lok Sabha by consensus. Every member of the House, regardless of whether they belong to the treasury benches or the opposition, enjoys equal rights. Therefore, the Speaker was equipped with powers that enable him or her to grant every member full freedom of expression under parliamentary rules, allowing them to speak without fear or intimidation while exercising their constitutional privileges.
However, what we are witnessing today is that the Leader of the Opposition in the Lok Sabha, Mr. Rahul Gandhi, was repeatedly denied permission to speak by Speaker Mr. Om Birla, citing various procedural rules. This triggered a strong reaction from the entire opposition, which has now decided to move a motion of no confidence against the Speaker. This situation is deeply unfortunate, as it suggests that the Lok Sabha has reached a stage where meaningful dialogue between the ruling party and the opposition has become impossible.
The fundamental question is: why has such a situation arisen? To understand this, we must also examine long-standing parliamentary traditions, because in a democracy, traditions often carry the same weight as formal rules. Since the first general elections in 1952, India adopted a practice whereby opposition members—despite being in the minority—were given a broad and meaningful space in the Lok Sabha to present their views. This ensured that the government remained constantly alert, focused on public interest, and informed by alternative perspectives aimed at public welfare.
In the first Lok Sabha elected in 1952, the number of opposition MPs was very small. Yet, in 1953, a no-confidence motion was moved against Speaker G. V. Mavalankar. Mr. Mavalankar had earlier served as the Speaker of the Central Assembly before Independence, and it was therefore considered appropriate to appoint him as the first Speaker of independent India. As per parliamentary procedure, when a no-confidence motion is introduced against the Speaker, he vacates the Chair and takes a seat among other members of the House. Until the motion is decided, the proceedings are presided over by the Deputy Speaker. During this period, the Speaker neither has the right to speak in the House nor to participate in the vote on the motion.
All of this happened in 1953, although the motion was defeated by a large margin because the Congress Party enjoyed an overwhelming majority at the time. In the present Lok Sabha, the ruling NDA coalition also has a clear majority, though the BJP by itself does not command a majority. This fact alone should not give the opposition undue optimism. The NDA’s allied parties are unlikely to abandon the ruling coalition on this issue, as they are stakeholders in power. Therefore, even if a no-confidence motion against the Speaker is moved, it is almost certain to fail. Nevertheless, such an event would undoubtedly damage the dignity and sanctity of the Speaker’s Chair.
Hence, if this situation can still be avoided, every effort should be made until the last moment to do so. Complicating matters further, women MPs from the opposition have written a joint letter to Speaker Om Birla, accusing him of making remarks that portrayed certain women members as potential criminals. Mr. Birla had allegedly stated that some women MPs could have done something inside the Lok Sabha against the Prime Minister that might have led to unforeseen consequences. The women MPs have demanded that he provide evidence to support this claim.
Looking at the overall atmosphere in the Lok Sabha, it appears as though the ruling party and the opposition have become sworn enemies. In a democracy, however, they are two wheels of the same vehicle, without which Parliament cannot function smoothly. We have already witnessed similar developments in the Rajya Sabha, where there was talk of bringing a no-confidence motion against former Chairman Jagdeep Dhankhar, and earlier attempts were made to move such a motion against Deputy Chairman Harivansh during the farmers’ bills controversy.
Such incidents erode public faith in democratic institutions. Therefore, at all costs, healthy parliamentary traditions must be upheld in the Lok Sabha, and the opposition’s rightful participation in parliamentary proceedings must not be compromised.
