Off The Chair?: On Opposition’s Motion To Remove LS Speaker
The opposition’s decision to move a notice seeking the removal of Lok Sabha Speaker Om Birla marks yet another serious moment in parliamentary politics. Notices under Article 94(c) of the Constitution are not routine instruments of protest. They are meant to be used only when the opposition believes the neutrality of the Chair has been fundamentally compromised.
In their petition, opposition parties have accused the Speaker of acting in a partisan manner during recent Lok Sabha proceedings. The immediate trigger was the handling of debates during the Motion of Thanks to the President’s Address, where opposition leaders, including the Leader of Opposition Rahul Gandhi, were denied adequate opportunity to speak. This was followed by the suspension of several opposition MPs, further deepening the sense that the Chair was not functioning as an impartial authority.
ALSO READ: ‘Kamal’ Dead: On Delhi Man’s Death By Authority Negligence
It is important to state that apparently, no attempt to remove a Lok Sabha Speaker has ever succeeded. The numbers required make such motions almost impossible to pass. The opposition is aware of this. The motion, therefore, is less about removal and more about record. The government has dismissed the move as a political stunt. That response avoids the core issue. The Speaker’s role is central to the credibility of Parliament. Even the perception of bias weakens the institution, regardless of where one stands politically. Treating the motion as mere disruption misses an opportunity to reflect on why such distrust has reached this level.
Parliamentary disruptions are often blamed entirely on the opposition, while the conduct of the Chair escapes scrutiny. That imbalance only fuels further confrontation. The opposition’s motion may fail procedurally, as history suggests it will. But the necessary questions it raises about neutrality and the health of parliamentary democracy will not disappear with a vote.
