The Congress, backed by over 100 opposition MPs, on Tuesday formally submitted a notice under Rule 94C seeking a no-confidence motion against Lok Sabha Speaker Om Birla, citing alleged bias and stalled proceedings as Parliament’s Budget Session deepens political tensions.

In a significant escalation of parliamentary hostilities, the Congress party on 10 February 2026 submitted a no-confidence motion notice targeting Lok Sabha Speaker Om Birla, demanding his removal from office.

Congress MP Gaurav Gogoi confirmed the filing to reporters, saying the notice was formally handed to the Secretary-General of the Lok Sabha at 1:14 pm under Rule 94C of the House’s Rules of Procedure.

According to opposition sources, 118 MPs signed the notice, representing a cross-section of parties from the INDIA alliance and other non-BJP groups seeking to highlight what they describe as a “blatant erosion of impartiality” by the Speaker.

The move comes amid disruptions in the ongoing Budget Session of Parliament, where opposition parties have repeatedly protested restrictions on debate, alleged denial of speaking time to key leaders such as Leader of Opposition Rahul Gandhi, and what they call selective enforcement of rules that favour the ruling bloc.

Opposition leaders framed the motion as a constitutional check intended to restore the dignity and neutrality of the Speaker’s office. “We took this step after repeated complaints about how proceedings are being managed,” Gogoi stated, underlining that the motion reflects worsening trust between the Chair and non-ruling parties.

Allegations of Bias and Suppression of Dissent

Opposition MPs have laid out several grievances in the lead-up to the no-confidence motion.

One of the principal flashpoints was the denial of speaking rights to the Leader of Opposition on critical matters such as the Motion of Thanks to the President’s address, a conventionally pivotal debate in the Budget Session. Congress MPs argue that this undermines the House’s deliberative character and stifles dissenting voices.

A group of Congress women MPs also wrote to Speaker Birla rejecting allegations that they had planned to create unrest in the House claims that were cited by the Speaker as a reason for Prime Minister Narendra Modi’s absence during the President’s address reply. The women legislators described these allegations as “false and baseless” and suggested they were politically motivated.

Further fuelling tensions were accusations that the Speaker failed to act on complaints against some ruling party MPs alleged to have made offensive remarks during proceedings, and the suspension of several opposition MPs for remainder of the session — moves seen by critics as disproportionate or politically punitive.

Congress MP K. C. Venugopal has publicly voiced that the Opposition feels it is being denied space in the House. “There is no space for the Opposition in this House,” Venugopal told reporters, questioning the impartiality of the Speaker’s decisions and signalling that formal parliamentary tools including the no-confidence motion might be necessary to address these procedural concerns.

Parliamentary Mechanics and Political Implications

Rule 94C of the Lok Sabha Rules of Procedure is the instrument enabling MPs to seek removal of the Speaker through a no-confidence motion. Such motions are uncommon and represent one of the most serious parliamentary actions outside formal impeachment or criminal proceedings.

To be admitted for discussion, the motion generally requires the backing of a prescribed number of MPs reported in this case to be at least 100 which the opposition claims to have secured.

The notice sets the stage for a formal debate on the floor of the House, likely in the second half of the Budget Session, where MPs from both sides will contest not just procedural norms but broader political narratives.

If the motion is admitted, it could deepen ties among opposition parties even as some such as the Trinamool Congress (TMC) have reportedly been cautious in formally joining the signatures process, reflecting strategic calculations within the INDIA bloc.

On the government side, there has been no formal response from Speaker Birla or the ruling BJP leadership at the time of writing, though several government MPs have condemned the motion as politically motivated rhetoric rather than constructive parliamentary engagement.

Statements from ruling benches suggested that efforts should focus on substantive budget debates rather than procedural confrontations.

Meanwhile, during live parliamentary updates, senior members from the treasury benches, including Speaker Satish Mahana, have urged for more meaningful discussion and participation across party lines for the remainder of the session.

Contextual Roots of the Standoff

This confrontation did not emerge overnight. Opposition parties have been signalling discontent for several weeks, with discussions among leaders from Congress, DMK, SP, RJD, Left parties, and others taking place within party offices and private meetings, where strategies for redress of grievances were mapped out.

Among the factors cited by critics has been a perception that the Lok Sabha under Om Birla’s speakership has been more deferential to the ruling side, including procedural rulings and control over the flow of debates.

This perception has deepened following contentious events such as the refusal to allow the Leader of Opposition to speak on matters of national importance and the suspension of MPs after protests.

These developments come against the backdrop of a broader political climate marked by heightened partisanship and frequent disruptions in both Houses of Parliament, particularly during the Budget Session which is traditionally a showcase of democratic debate on national priorities.

The Logical Indian’s Perspective

At its best, India’s Parliament is a crucible of ideas where diverse voices converge to shape public policy and national direction. Procedural fairness, transparent conduct and respect for dissent are not optional extras they form the very bedrock of democratic practice.

The no-confidence motion against the Speaker demonstrates deep fractures in parliamentary trust, reflecting not just political rivalry but a profound sense of exclusion among opposition ranks.

While it is legitimate for MPs to use parliamentary tools to address concerns, it is equally important for all sides to foster decorum, uphold institutional integrity, and prioritise dialogue over confrontation.