Motion to Remove the Speaker: Constitutional Process, Precedents, and Democratic Implications

Why in News ?

The Opposition has moved a no-confidence motion against Lok Sabha Speaker Om Birla. Parliamentary sources indicate that the motion will now be examined and processed as per established constitutional and procedural rules.

The move follows criticism from the Congress and other parties, who accused the Speaker of not permitting the Leader of Opposition to quote from or discuss former Army Chief M M Naravane’s unpublished memoir.

The Opposition also objected to the Speaker’s claim that Prime Minister Modi could have been attacked inside the House, calling it unwarranted and contentious.

Background and Context: Speaker’s Office in India’s Parliamentary Democracy

The office of the Speaker of the Lok Sabha occupies a central position in India’s parliamentary system. As the presiding officer of the House, the Speaker is expected to function with neutrality, uphold constitutional values, protect minority rights, and ensure smooth legislative functioning.

Over time, however, the Speaker’s decisions—particularly regarding recognition of members, certification of Money Bills, disciplinary actions, and allocation of speaking time—have increasingly come under political scrutiny. The current controversy reflects growing tensions between the ruling party and the Opposition over procedural fairness, parliamentary debate, and the limits of presiding authority.

While India’s Constitution allows for the removal of the Speaker, the process is deliberately stringent to safeguard the dignity, stability, and independence of the office, ensuring that removal is not used as a routine political tool.

Removal of the Lok Sabha Speaker: What the Constitution Allows

The Lok Sabha Speaker (or Deputy Speaker) can be removed from office only through a strict constitutional process.

Under Article 94(c) of the Constitution, removal is possible by a resolution passed by a majority of all the then members of the Lok Sabha.
This provision applies only to the Lok Sabha, not the Rajya Sabha, and the procedural requirements are stringent, reflecting the high threshold set for removing the presiding officer of the House.

When Does the Lok Sabha Speaker or Deputy Speaker Vacate Office ?

Article 94 of the Constitution lays down the conditions under which the Speaker or Deputy Speaker vacates office:

• Cessation of membership (Article 94(a)): They automatically vacate office if they cease to be a member of the Lok Sabha.
• Resignation (Article 94(b)): They may resign at any time by submitting a written resignation.
• Removal by resolution (Article 94(c)): They can be removed through a Lok Sabha resolution passed by a majority of all the then members of the House.

These provisions ensure both stability and accountability of the presiding officers.

Procedure to Remove the Lok Sabha Speaker or Deputy Speaker

• A member seeking removal must submit a written notice to the Secretary-General of the Lok Sabha.
• The notice may be jointly signed by two or more members, but the resolution cannot be moved unless at least 14 days’ notice is given.
• After receipt, a motion for leave to move the resolution is listed in the List of Business in the members’ names.
• The date fixed must be any day after the 14-day notice period, following which the House may consider the motion as per rules.

Past Precedents of No-Confidence Motions Against Lok Sabha Speakers

• No-confidence motions have been moved against the Lok Sabha Speaker on three occasions—in 1954, 1966, and 1987.
• For such a motion to proceed, it must be supported by at least two Members of Parliament, and 50 members must stand in support, fulfilling the House’s quorum.
• The procedure is governed by Rules 200–203 of the Rules of Procedure and Conduct of Business in Lok Sabha.
• Historically:
  • 1954: Motion against G V Mavalankar (India’s first Speaker)
  • 1966: Motion against Hukam Singh
  • 1987: Motion against Balram Jakhar

In all three cases, the motions failed, and none of the Speakers were removed from office, underscoring the high threshold for such action.

Guidelines Governing a No-Confidence Motion Against the Speaker

Under Rule 200A of the Rules of Procedure and Conduct of Business in Lok Sabha, a no-confidence motion against the Speaker must meet strict content and conduct requirements:

• The resolution must be specific in its charges, clearly and precisely worded.
• It must be free of arguments, inferences, ironic expressions, imputations, or defamatory statements.
• Once the motion is admitted for discussion, the Member(s) who submitted it are not permitted to make a speech, underscoring the procedural rigor governing such motions.

What Follows If a No-Confidence Motion Is Admitted ?

• If a no-confidence motion is admitted, members supporting it must rise in their places.
• If at least 50 members stand, the presiding officer declares that leave is granted and schedules the motion for a day within 10 days.
• If fewer than 50 members rise in support, the presiding officer declares that the member “has not the leave of the House”, and the motion does not proceed further.
• Any resolution submitted without the required notice is not taken up, ending the process at the preliminary stage.
• On the appointed day, the resolution is listed in the business of the House and taken up for discussion.
• The mover(s) may be allowed to speak for up to 15 minutes, subject to the presiding officer’s permission, and the debate must be strictly confined to the charges stated in the resolution.

Speaker’s Role During Consideration of Removal Motion

• While a removal motion is under discussion, the Speaker continues in office and, as a Member of the Lok Sabha, retains the right to participate and speak in the proceedings.
• The Speaker is entitled to vote in the first instance on the resolution or related matters, but cannot exercise a casting vote in the event of a tie, preserving procedural fairness.

Significance of a No-Confidence Motion Against the Speaker

1. Reinforcing Parliamentary Accountability

Such motions, though rare, serve as an institutional mechanism to hold the presiding officer accountable to constitutional norms and parliamentary ethics.

2. Protecting the Neutrality of the Speaker’s Office

The high threshold ensures that the Speaker is insulated from routine political pressures, preserving the independence and dignity of the office.

3. Reflecting Health of Parliamentary Democracy

Open contestation over procedural fairness highlights the vibrancy of parliamentary democracy and the centrality of debate, dissent, and institutional checks.

4. Balancing Stability and Oversight

The stringent process balances the need for stability in legislative functioning with the democratic principle of oversight over constitutional offices.

5. Setting Normative Standards for Legislative Conduct

Debates around the Speaker’s role influence evolving conventions regarding impartiality, decorum, and procedural justice in Parliament.

Challenges and Way Forward

Challenges

• Politicisation of the Speaker’s Office: Growing perceptions of partisan conduct can undermine public trust in parliamentary institutions.
• Procedural Deadlocks: Repeated confrontations may disrupt legislative functioning and reduce productivity of Parliament.
• Erosion of Parliamentary Conventions: Declining adherence to unwritten norms of impartiality and decorum risks weakening democratic culture.

Way Forward

• Strengthen Institutional Conventions: Reinforce traditions of neutrality through political consensus and parliamentary ethics codes.
• Enhance Transparency: Provide clearer reasoning and documentation for major procedural rulings.
• Promote Dialogue: Encourage structured engagement between the ruling party and Opposition on parliamentary reforms.
• Capacity Building: Regular orientation programmes for presiding officers and members on constitutional roles and procedures.
• Codify Best Practices: Consider formal guidelines or conventions to clarify the Speaker’s discretionary powers and responsibilities.