Om Birla: 3 attempts to remove Lok Sabha Speaker failed, how safe is Om Birla’s chair?

The opposition in the Lok Sabha has given notice to bring a no-confidence motion to remove Speaker Om Birla from the post.

1954 was the first time when the opposition expressed no confidence in a Speaker of the Lok Sabha by questioning his impartiality. Then the first Prime Minister Jawaharlal Nehru had said that such proposals should not be taken lightly. This puts a question mark not only on the individual but on the institution. At present, the opposition in the Lok Sabha has given notice to bring a no-confidence motion to remove Speaker Om Birla from the post. This is the fourth time when a proposal is being brought to remove the Speaker of the Lok Sabha, but this is the first time when the Congress has expressed no confidence in the Speaker.

The Congress was in power when no confidence was expressed in the three previous speakers, questioning their impartiality. These three proposals were defeated and the opposition’s protest proved to be symbolic only. Read how three attempts to remove the Speaker failed in the history of Lok Sabha.

First proposal: When questions were raised on the first speaker Mavalankar

The first speaker of the Lok Sabha, G. V. Mavalankar was famous for running the House as per the rules. But many members of the opposition were dissatisfied with the conduct of the proceedings of the House. The opposition alleged that it was not given enough time during question hour, adjournment motions and debate occasions. This was the tenure of the country’s first elected Lok Sabha. On 18 December 1954, Socialist Party MP Vigneshwar Mishra had presented a proposal to remove Mavalankar.

This was the first no-confidence motion against a speaker in the parliamentary history of India. Vigneshwar Mishra, speaking in favor of the proposal, had said that the Speaker should be a representative of the collective conscience of the House and not a custodian of the government’s convenience. He said that the role of the opposition in democracy is as important as that of the government. If this balance appears to be affected by the Speaker’s decisions, the House has the right to express its concern. Other members of the opposition had also said that every decision of the Speaker may technically be legal, but if only one party is seen continuously benefiting from it, then it is natural to raise questions on fairness.

Nehru said do not make the proposal a political weapon.

On the other hand, the ruling party was rallied in support of Mavalankar. The members who spoke against the proposal called it not only unnecessary but also against the dignity of the institution. It was emphasized that Mavalankar has always worked as per the rules and disagreement cannot be termed as bias.

The then Prime Minister Jawaharlal Nehru effectively intervened in this debate and cautioned that such proposals should not be taken lightly because they question not only the individual but the credibility of the institution. He indicated that if the no-confidence motion is used against the Speaker as a political weapon, parliamentary traditions will weaken. This proposal was rejected after about two hours of debate.

Second proposal: Speaker’s bias, a threat to democracy

On 24 November 1966, it was the second time in the Lok Sabha when a notice was given by the opposition for the removal of the Speaker of the Lok Sabha, raising questions on his impartiality. However, the condition of minimum fifty members for this proposal of Madhu Limaye could not be fulfilled and the voting did not take place. Speaker Sardar Hukum Singh remained on his post. Madhu Limaye said that the chair of Speaker does not belong to any party. If there is doubt about the impartiality of the speaker, then democracy is in trouble. He and some other opposition members alleged that on some important issues the Speaker gave decisions that benefited the government.

The opposition complained about not being given adequate opportunity and time even in the matters of Question Hour and privilege motions. On the other hand, the ruling party had described the proposal as a result of the frustration of the opposition. It was emphasized that the Speaker’s functioning was completely impartial and also as per the rules.

Third proposal: Dignity will exist only when fairness is unquestionable.

Balram Jakhar was the third speaker, questioning whose impartiality the opposition had presented a no-confidence motion. This proposal was presented by Communist Party (Marxist) member Somnath Chatterjee. This proposal of Chatterjee was undoubtedly defeated but in the following years he had the good fortune of occupying the chair of the Speaker. In support of his proposal, Somnath Chatterjee had said that we respect the dignity of the post, but dignity remains only when impartiality is unquestionable. It was also said that the Speaker is accountable to the House and if the opposition has a persistent complaint, it is its democratic right to express it.

On the other hand, the members opposing the proposal termed Jakhar’s impartiality and loyalty to the rules as unquestionable and termed the opposition proposal as an attempt to give a political message. The opposition’s attempt to remove Jakhar had failed due to lack of majority.

How much danger is there on Om Birla’s chair?

The opposition’s notice of no-confidence/removal against current Lok Sabha Speaker Om Birla has alleged that he is misusing his constitutional position and restricting the freedom of speech of opposition MPs. At present this proposal is awaiting discussion and decision and listing for discussion. The ruling party is strong in numbers and is in support of Birla.

On three previous occasions, efforts to remove the opposition speaker have failed. In every proposal the opposition raised questions about the impartiality of the speaker. On the other hand, the pro-ruling party always fought staunchly in support of the Speaker. Whatever may be the results, such proposals create an atmosphere of doubt.

In Britain, party membership is deactivated as soon as the Speaker is elected.

In Britain, after being elected as the Speaker, his party membership is deactivated in view of his neutrality. There is no such tradition formally in India. But after the elections, the leaders of the ruling party and the opposition together take the Speaker to the podium. Certainly, this tradition is a symbol of the faith in him by the party and the opposition alike.

Also read: Why was Vande Mataram not made the national anthem of the country, how different is it from Jana-Gana-Mana?