In the Lok Sabha, opposition MPs have submitted a notice to the Secretary-General of the House seeking the removal of Speaker Shri Om Birla from his post, bearing the signatures of 118 Members of Parliament. Accordingly, further action will proceed as per the rules of the House, and this no-confidence motion will be discussed within the House. According to the information received so far, the debate on this motion is likely to take place on March 9, when the second phase of the ongoing Budget Session begins, followed by voting, which will determine whether the motion is accepted or rejected.
However, a problem may arise because there is currently no Deputy Speaker in the House. The post of Deputy Speaker in the Lok Sabha has been vacant since the previous Lok Sabha. Even during the last Lok Sabha, this position was not considered necessary to fill, and after the formation of the new Lok Sabha in 2024, it has still not been filled. The Deputy Speaker’s post is also a constitutional position and carries the same authority as the Speaker in conducting the proceedings of the House. However, the responsibility for initiating the process to fill this post lies with the Speaker, as under the Constitution it is the Speaker who announces and issues the notification for the election to this position.
It has also been a tradition of the House that the post of Deputy Speaker is given to a member from the opposition so that the proceedings of the House appear completely impartial and the Chair commands the unwavering confidence of both the ruling party and the opposition. The basic reason for this is that since the Speaker traditionally comes from the ruling party, giving the Deputy Speaker’s post to the opposition helps maintain balance in the House, so that the Speaker’s Chair may truly be regarded as the “Seat of Vikramaditya.” However, we know that in the harsh politics of the present time, traditions are breaking down. In Parliament, both the ruling party and the opposition behave like adversaries. This situation is very unpleasant for parliamentary democracy, yet both sides attempt to justify it politically.
Now the question arises: in the absence of a Deputy Speaker, who will preside over the House during the debate on the motion to remove Shri Birla? Normally, in the absence of the Speaker, there is a panel of Chairpersons to preside over the proceedings. It is obvious that during the hearing of the motion, one of the senior-most members from this panel will be chosen. However, there is no previous example of such a situation in the House, so a solution will have to be found in accordance with the constitutional rules of procedure.
On this occasion, it is necessary to recall the statement of the first Speaker of the Lok Sabha, the late G.V. Mavalankar, who had said that a day might come when there would be a demand to seat an impartial person from outside the House as Speaker. Mavalankar expressed these words at a function organized on the parliamentary system. A motion to remove him from the post of Speaker was also brought in the Lok Sabha in 1954, as some opposition MPs had alleged that he was not doing justice to them. Although the motion was defeated by a large majority, it was debated openly in the House, and opposition members expressed their views frankly. Mavalankar himself was a strong proponent of keeping the office of the Speaker completely independent of the government, and it was due to his efforts that a separate secretariat for the Speaker was established, so that the Speaker would not have to depend on the government for any matter and could do full justice to members of all sides in the House, protecting the rights of every member fearlessly and without bias.
When a motion for the removal of the Speaker is admitted in the House and debate begins, the Speaker cannot sit in the Chair and must sit with the ordinary members. The Speaker cannot participate in the debate on the motion, as the subject of the debate concerns his conduct, nor can he take part in the voting. Therefore, Shri Birla’s decision to stay away from the House until the motion is decided is appropriate. However, the opposition should also consider that when it brings a motion against the Speaker, its implications for democracy are very serious. Although we have abandoned the tradition of electing the Speaker unanimously, the responsibility of maintaining the dignity of the office rests on all sides.
Dignity would also have required that when Speaker Shri Birla had given his final ruling that the Leader of the Opposition, Shri Rahul Gandhi, should not cite the book of retired General Naravane, he should have refrained from mentioning it in his speech and spoken differently on the issue of national security. However, he made no such effort and remained adamant. Democracy never functions through “stubbornness,” but through “understanding.” The need of the hour was for the Leader of the Opposition to find a middle path whereby he could express his views on the Motion of Thanks to the President’s Address without referring to the book. Unfortunately, that did not happen, and the ruling side also remained adamant, resulting in the present situation.
Now it is expected of the Lok Sabha that when the debate on the no-confidence motion takes place on March 9, it should be conducted in a completely calm and dignified atmosphere. However, there is still time before that date, and no one can predict what political developments may unfold in the meantime, especially as assembly elections in five states are also due to be announced.
