.png)
The hallowed halls of the Lok Sabha have transitioned from a site of legislative debate to a theater of constitutional confrontation. In a move that underscores the deepening chasm between the Treasury and Opposition benches, Speaker Om Birla has reportedly decided to step away from presiding over House proceedings. This decision comes on the heels of a formal notice submitted by a coalition of Opposition parties seeking his removal from the chair—a rare and significant maneuver in Indian parliamentary history.
The Catalyst: A Notice of Removal
On Tuesday, a delegation of high-ranking Opposition leaders—including Congress' deputy leader Gaurav Gogoi, Chief Whip K. Suresh, and Whip Mohamed Jawed—submitted a formal notice to Lok Sabha Secretary General Utpal Kumar Singh. The resolution, backed by approximately 120 Members of Parliament, invokes Article 94(c) of the Constitution of India, which provides for the removal of the Speaker by a resolution passed by a majority of all the then members of the House.
The allegations leveled against Birla are pointed and severe. The signatories, representing the Congress, Samajwadi Party (SP), DMK, Shiv Sena (UBT), and NCP (Sharadchandra Pawar), have accused the Speaker of:
Blatant Partisanship: Operating the House in a manner that allegedly favors the ruling National Democratic Alliance (NDA).
Abuse of Constitutional Office: Allegedly making "blatantly false" statements against Opposition MPs on the record.
Suppression of Dissent: Limiting the Opposition’s ability to raise grievances during the high-stakes Budget Session.
The Speaker’s Response: A Self-Imposed Recusal
In a gesture aimed at maintaining the perceived "purity" of the Chair, sources indicate that Om Birla has opted not to attend proceedings until the validity and fate of the notice are determined. By recusing himself, Birla aims to avoid the optics of presiding over a House that is currently debating his own impartiality.
Furthermore, Birla has directed Secretary General Utpal Kumar Singh to examine the notice thoroughly. Under parliamentary rules, such a resolution requires a 14-day notice period before it can be moved. The Secretary General's office is now tasked with verifying the signatures and ensuring the motion adheres to the procedural requirements of the "Rules of Procedure and Conduct of Business in Lok Sabha."
also read :
SC calls digital fraud dacoity, orders SOP to protect victimsParliamentary Paralysis: The Budget Session at a Standstill
The standoff has effectively crippled the ongoing Budget Session, which began on February 1. While the Union Budget is arguably the most critical piece of annual legislation, it has been overshadowed by daily disruptions, sloganeering, and now, a constitutional crisis regarding the Speakership.
The impasse reveals a fractured Lower House where even the basic "rules of the game" are under fire. While the NDA maintains that the Opposition is merely attempting to distract from the government's developmental agenda, the Opposition argues that the Speaker’s role as an impartial arbiter has been compromised beyond repair.
"The Speaker is the guardian of the House, but when the guardian is perceived to be a partisan player, the very foundation of our parliamentary democracy is shaken," remarked a senior Opposition leader following the submission of the notice.
The "TMC Factor" and Opposition Unity
Interestingly, the move for removal has also exposed slight tremors within the "INDIA" bloc. While the Congress, SP, and DMK moved in lockstep, Trinamool Congress (TMC) MPs did not sign the notice. This absence is notable, given the TMC's usual vocal opposition to the government. While the TMC had previously indicated support for a no-confidence motion, their refusal to sign this specific resolution suggests a tactical divergence or a difference in legal strategy within the anti-NDA front.
| Party | Stance on Removal Notice |
| Congress | Lead signatory; alleges partisan behavior. |
| Samajwadi Party | Signed; supports the resolution for removal. |
| DMK | Signed; demands impartial House management. |
| TMC | Did not sign; remains a party to the broader opposition but opted out of this specific notice. |
| NDA (BJP & Allies) | Support the Speaker; view the notice as a "diversionary tactic." |
Constitutional Implications: Article 94 and Beyond
The removal of a Speaker is not a routine affair. According to Article 94(c), a Speaker can only be removed by a resolution passed by a majority of "all the then members." This means the Opposition faces a steep uphill climb, as the NDA currently holds a working majority in the House.
However, the primary goal of the Opposition may not be the actual removal—which requires numbers they currently lack—but rather the moral and political delegitimization of the Speaker’s authority. By forcing a discussion on his conduct, they ensure that every ruling made by the Chair for the remainder of the session is viewed through a lens of intense scrutiny.
Next?
As the Secretary General reviews the notice, the House faces a period of uncertainty. In the absence of the Speaker, the Deputy Speaker or a member from the Panel of Chairpersons typically presides. However, with the political climate at a boiling point, even the selection of a temporary presiding officer is likely to be contested.
The next 14 days will be critical. If the notice is found to be in order, it will be listed for discussion, leading to a high-voltage debate where the Speaker’s conduct will be dissected on the floor of the House.
The current crisis is a stark reminder that the strength of a democracy lies not just in the letter of the law, but in the trust between those who govern and those who oppose. With Om Birla stepping aside, the Lok Sabha finds itself in uncharted waters, searching for a path back to legislative normalcy.
.png)
