Om Birla has stepped aside from presiding over the Lok Sabha until the House disposes of a no-confidence motion moved against him by 120 Opposition MPs during the ongoing Budget Session. Initiated by the Indian National Congress, the notice accuses the Speaker of repeated partisan conduct, including denying Leader of the Opposition Rahul Gandhi the opportunity to speak, suspending eight MPs, and failing to act against Nishikant Dubey over alleged objectionable remarks.
Union Parliamentary Affairs Minister Kiren Rijiju has announced that the motion will be debated and put to vote on March 9, while warning that continued disruptions could trigger a “guillotine” to fast-track pending financial business. The development has drawn mixed reactions within the Opposition, with the All India Trinamool Congress urging restraint and procedural recourse before escalation.
Opposition Alleges Bias; Government Defends Procedure
The no-confidence motion, described by Congress leaders as an “extraordinary step born out of extraordinary circumstances”, lists four specific instances of alleged bias. According to sources cited by ANI, Opposition MPs claim they were systematically denied opportunities to raise issues of public importance during the Budget Session.
A central grievance relates to Rahul Gandhi reportedly not being permitted to speak during the debate on the Motion of Thanks to the President’s Address, where he sought to refer to former Army Chief General MM Naravane’s unpublished memoir in the context of the 2020 India-China border standoff.
The notice also flags the suspension of eight Opposition MPs and alleges that the Speaker failed to take adequate action against BJP MP Nishikant Dubey over what were described as “personalised and unsubstantiated” remarks targeting Congress women MPs and former Prime Ministers.
Additionally, the Opposition cited a statement attributed to Birla in which he said he had urged Prime Minister Narendra Modi not to attend the House on a particular day after receiving information that some MPs might approach the Prime Minister’s seat and create an “unprecedented incident”.
Congress MP Manickam Tagore stated publicly that while the Opposition holds the Speaker in personal regard, it felt compelled to act after repeated procedural denials. He emphasised that the move was not personal but rooted in what he described as a defence of parliamentary propriety.
The government, however, has dismissed allegations of bias. Kiren Rijiju confirmed that the motion has been admitted for discussion and scheduled for March 9, underscoring that the government remains committed to following parliamentary rules.
He also cautioned that if disruptions continue to stall proceedings, the government may invoke the guillotine a parliamentary mechanism to pass financial business without further debate to ensure essential legislative work is completed within constitutional timelines.
Rare Motion Revives Debate on Parliamentary Norms
A motion to remove a sitting Speaker is rare in India’s parliamentary history, making the current development significant both politically and institutionally. Under Article 94 of the Constitution, a Speaker can be removed by a resolution of the House passed by a majority of all the then members, provided a 14-day notice is given. During consideration of such a motion, the Speaker does not preside, which explains Birla’s decision to step aside temporarily.
The episode has also revived discussion around the prolonged vacancy of the Deputy Speaker’s post, which has remained unfilled for several years. Constitutional experts have pointed out that the absence of a Deputy Speaker adds complexity during moments like these, when questions arise about who presides over proceedings involving the Speaker’s conduct. Critics argue that filling the Deputy Speaker’s position in a timely manner could prevent procedural ambiguity and reinforce institutional resilience.
Within the Opposition bloc, responses have not been entirely uniform. The All India Trinamool Congress, through MP Abhishek Banerjee, suggested that Congress should first submit a formal appeal to the Speaker and allow two to three days for corrective action before pushing the motion forward.
The party has indicated it would consider signing the notice if no satisfactory response is forthcoming. This indicates that while there is shared unease among Opposition parties, tactical differences remain regarding the most effective course of action.
The broader backdrop is an already tense Budget Session marked by adjournments, protests, and sharp exchanges between Treasury and Opposition benches. With crucial financial business pending, including the passage of the Union Budget and related demands for grants, both sides face pressure to balance political contestation with legislative responsibility.
The Logical Indian’s Perspective
The Speaker’s office symbolises neutrality, continuity and the dignity of Parliament. Any allegation of bias — whether ultimately upheld or not carries serious implications for public trust in democratic institutions. Equally, the frequent disruption of parliamentary proceedings diminishes the quality of debate and risks reducing the House to a battleground rather than a forum for reasoned deliberation.
India’s democracy has thrived on robust disagreement, but it has also relied on adherence to constitutional morality and institutional respect. A no-confidence motion against the Speaker is not merely a political tactic; it is a constitutional instrument that must be exercised with gravity and restraint. Similarly, the majority must ensure that dissenting voices are heard and procedural fairness is visibly upheld.
