Parliament is poised for a confrontation on 9 March as the Lok Sabha prepares to take up a no-confidence motion against Speaker Om Birla, a development that has revived scrutiny of the long-vacant post of Deputy Speaker and intensified questions about parliamentary convention and balance of power within the House.The notice seeking Birla’s removal comes during the second phase of the Budget session and follows mounting friction between the Treasury benches and the Opposition over disruptions, suspensions and the management of debates. While the numbers in the House suggest the motion is unlikely to succeed, its political symbolism has placed the spotlight on procedural norms and on a constitutional office that has remained unfilled since 2019.
Under Article 93 of the Constitution, the Lok Sabha “shall, as soon as may be,” choose two members to be Speaker and Deputy Speaker. Traditionally, the Deputy Speaker’s post has often been offered to a member of the Opposition, a convention seen as reinforcing neutrality in presiding over proceedings. However, there is no binding constitutional timeline mandating when the election must take place, leaving scope for governments to delay the appointment.
Om Birla, a member of the Bharatiya Janata Party from Kota, was first elected Speaker in June 2019 at the start of the 17th Lok Sabha and returned to the chair after the 2024 general election. His tenure has been marked by frequent clashes between the ruling alliance and Opposition parties, particularly over the curtailment of debates and the handling of adjournments. Opposition leaders argue that the absence of a Deputy Speaker has weakened institutional checks within the House, especially at a time when parliamentary sittings have been punctuated by walkouts and protests.
The post has been vacant since the dissolution of the 16th Lok Sabha in 2019. In previous Houses, Deputy Speakers such as M. Thambidurai and Karia Munda were elected within months of the Speaker. The extended vacancy over two successive terms is without modern precedent and has drawn comment from constitutional experts and former presiding officers.
Legal scholars note that while the Constitution does not specify a deadline, the phrase “as soon as may be” carries weight. Several petitions have been filed before the Supreme Court in the past urging direction for the election of a Deputy Speaker, arguing that prolonged inaction undermines constitutional intent. The court has so far refrained from setting a rigid timeframe, observing that the matter falls within the domain of parliamentary procedure.
Opposition parties contend that the absence of a Deputy Speaker concentrates procedural authority in the Speaker’s office and reduces the likelihood of bipartisan management of the House. They also argue that in the event of a motion against the Speaker, the Deputy Speaker would ordinarily preside, ensuring continuity and impartiality. With the office vacant, alternative arrangements must be made under the Rules of Procedure.
The government has maintained that there is no constitutional breach and that the election of a Deputy Speaker can be scheduled at an appropriate time. Ministers have pointed to past instances when appointments were delayed and have accused the Opposition of using procedural issues to score political points during a crucial fiscal session.
The timing of the no-confidence motion intersects with broader debates about the functioning of Parliament. Data compiled by parliamentary research bodies show that the 17th Lok Sabha recorded fewer sitting days compared with several previous terms, though it also passed a high volume of legislation. Critics argue that truncated debates and frequent disruptions have diminished deliberative scrutiny, while the government asserts that productivity should be measured by legislative output rather than hours logged.
Beyond the immediate arithmetic of the motion, the controversy has triggered renewed discussion about conventions that underpin the Westminster model adapted in India. In many Commonwealth legislatures, offering the Deputy Speaker’s role to the Opposition has served as a signal of inclusiveness and procedural fairness. Departures from this practice are not unlawful, but they tend to sharpen partisan divides.
Senior parliamentarians from across the political spectrum have in the past described the Deputy Speaker as a stabilising presence, particularly during heated exchanges. The officeholder not only presides in the Speaker’s absence but also chairs key committees and plays a role in administrative decisions within the Lok Sabha Secretariat.