The Indian National Congress has formally submitted a notice for a no-confidence motion against Lok Sabha Speaker Om Birla to the Lok Sabha Secretariat. This legislative move follows a series of confrontations between the opposition and the chair regarding the conduct of house proceedings. According to official reports, the notice bears the signatures of 118 Members of Parliament from the opposition bloc. The party has invoked Rule 94C of the Rules of Procedure and Conduct of Business in Lok Sabha to bring forward this motion. The Lok Sabha Secretariat has confirmed receipt of the notice and is currently evaluating it as per established parliamentary norms.
The opposition's primary grievance centers on allegations of partiality during house debates. Specifically, they claim that Leader of the Opposition Rahul Gandhi wasn't given adequate time to speak during the discussion on the Motion of Thanks to the President's Address. Interestingly, while the motion is backed by the party, Rahul Gandhi's signature is reportedly absent from the document, while according to parliamentary experts, the process for removing a Speaker is governed by constitutional provisions that require a 14-day notice period and a majority vote in the house for adoption.
Allegations of Bias and Opposition Strategy
The opposition parties, led by the Congress, have accused Speaker Om Birla of failing to maintain neutrality. The INDIA bloc leaders held a high-level meeting at Congress President Mallikarjun Kharge's chamber to finalize the strategy. They alleged that while treasury bench members are given significant leeway, opposition voices are frequently stifled. The motion also highlights concerns regarding the treatment of women MPs and the overall atmosphere within the house. The opposition maintains that the Speaker's role is to act as an impartial arbiter, a standard they claim isn't being met in the current session.
Government Response and Numerical Reality
Parliamentary Affairs Minister Kiren Rijiju has criticized the opposition's move, describing it as a futile exercise given their lack of numbers. Rijiju stated that the motion wouldn't impact the functioning of the government or the position of the Speaker. He further accused the opposition of insulting the dignity of the Speaker's chair and engaging in unruly behavior, including climbing on officials' tables. The government maintains that the Speaker has acted within the rules and that the opposition is merely attempting to create a political narrative without the necessary legislative backing to succeed.
Historical Precedents of Motions Against Speakers
In the history of the Indian Parliament, this marks only the fourth instance where a no-confidence motion has been moved against a Lok Sabha Speaker. V. Mavalankar, which was eventually rejected after debate. In 1966, Madhu Limaye targeted Speaker Hukam Singh, but the motion failed due to lack of support from the required 50 members. The most recent case prior to this was in 1987, when Somnath Chatterjee moved a motion against Speaker Balram Jakhar, which was also defeated by the house.
Constitutional Framework and Procedural Requirements
The removal of the Speaker is governed by Article 94 of the Indian Constitution. It stipulates that a member holding office as Speaker or Deputy Speaker may be removed from office by a resolution of the House of the People passed by a majority of all the then members of the House. Crucially, no such resolution can be moved unless at least 14 days' notice has been given of the intention to move the resolution. Under Rule 94C, the Secretariat will now examine the validity of the signatures and the grounds mentioned. If found in order, the motion will be placed before the house for a vote, requiring a simple majority of the total membership to pass.