A group of women Members of Parliament from the Congress party has written to Lok Sabha Speaker Om Birla, alleging that he made grave and unfounded accusations against them while responding to demands from the Opposition over the non-appearance of Prime Minister Narendra Modi in the House. The letter, sent on Monday, urges the Speaker to uphold constitutional neutrality and act as an impartial custodian of the Lower House amid heightened political tensions.The MPs contend that remarks attributed to the Speaker were made under pressure from the ruling party to counter sustained Opposition criticism over the Prime Minister’s absence during key debates. According to the lawmakers, the comments went beyond procedural clarifications and amounted to imputations on their conduct and intent, something they describe as inconsistent with the dignity of the Chair. They argue that such statements risk eroding trust in the institutional role of the Speaker, who is expected to rise above partisan considerations.
The letter reflects a broader standoff in Parliament, where the Opposition has repeatedly pressed for the Prime Minister to respond directly to issues ranging from internal security and economic management to social justice concerns. Congress leaders have maintained that accountability requires the head of government to address the House on matters of national importance, rather than delegating responses to senior ministers. The ruling coalition, in turn, has argued that parliamentary convention allows ministers to answer questions on behalf of the government, and that disruptions have often curtailed scheduled business.
In their communication, the women MPs state that the Speaker’s alleged remarks sought to frame their insistence on the Prime Minister’s presence as a political tactic rather than a legitimate parliamentary demand. They reject that characterisation, saying it undermines the substantive concerns raised by elected representatives and trivialises the role of women legislators in holding the executive to account. The lawmakers also stress that the tone and substance of the comments have wider implications for how dissent is treated within the House.
The controversy has sharpened scrutiny of the Speaker’s office at a time when parliamentary proceedings have been frequently disrupted. While Speakers traditionally emphasise order and efficiency, their authority rests on broad acceptance of neutrality. Past occupants of the office have faced criticism from different sides, but sustained challenges from a bloc of MPs, particularly on questions of alleged bias, tend to heighten institutional sensitivities.
Legal and constitutional experts note that the Speaker’s powers are extensive, covering admission of motions, recognition of members to speak, and interpretation of rules. These powers are balanced by conventions that require restraint and even-handedness. When allegations of partisanship surface, they argue, the credibility of parliamentary adjudication can come under strain, even if the Speaker’s formal rulings remain within the rulebook.
Within the Congress party, senior leaders have rallied behind the women MPs, describing their letter as a defence of parliamentary norms rather than a personal attack on the Speaker. Party representatives have pointed to multiple occasions when demands for the Prime Minister’s intervention were raised across parties, framing the issue as one of executive accountability rather than Opposition brinkmanship. They have also highlighted the symbolism of women MPs taking the lead, linking the dispute to broader debates about respect and representation in public institutions.
The ruling coalition has dismissed the allegations, asserting that the Speaker has consistently applied the rules and that the Opposition’s strategy has relied on repeated disruptions to draw attention away from legislative work. Coalition figures argue that accusations against the Chair are a diversion from procedural violations by protesting members and that the Speaker’s interventions were aimed at restoring order rather than targeting specific MPs.