Lok Sabha Speaker Om Birla has established Parliamentary Friendship Groups with more than 60 countries, drawing in lawmakers from across the political spectrum, including several opposition figures who have faced suspension from the House for unruly behaviour. The expansive initiative comes as members of the opposition have tabled a no-confidence motion aiming to remove Birla from office, accusing him of partisan conduct in presiding over Lok Sabha proceedings. The Parliamentary Friendship Groups are designed to deepen inter-parliamentary engagement, facilitate dialogue between India’s legislature and foreign counterparts, and enhance structured exchanges on legislative practices, trade, technology, and social policy. Parliamentary affairs sources describe the effort as part of a broader push to complement traditional diplomacy with sustained legislative interaction.
A total of 64 separate friendship groups have reportedly been constituted, each with a membership drawn proportionately from diverse parties. Influential figures leading these groups include Congress leaders Shashi Tharoor, P. Chidambaram and Gaurav Gogoi; Dr Kanimozhi of the DMK; Derek O’Brien and Abhishek Banerjee of the Trinamool Congress; Asaduddin Owaisi of AIMIM; and Samajwadi Party’s Akhilesh Yadav and Ram Gopal Yadav. Several suspended opposition MPs have also been appointed to group memberships covering countries such as Indonesia, Italy, Singapore, the UK, Trinidad and Tobago, Saudi Arabia and South Korea.
Representatives from the ruling party have been named as chairpersons for other groups. Senior Bharatiya Janata Party figures such as Ravi Shankar Prasad, Baijayant Panda and Nishikant Dubey will lead parliamentary groups focused on strategic partners including the United States, Russia and the European Parliament. This cross-party mix is intended to signal a collective legislative voice in international forums.
The timing of the Speaker’s announcement has fuelled debate in political circles because it intersects with the Opposition’s effort to unseat him. Opposition parties, unified under the INDIA alliance, submitted a notice of no-confidence under Rule 94C of the Lok Sabha procedures, arguing that Birla has repeatedly denied them procedural fairness and opportunity to raise issues of public significance during the ongoing Budget session. One flashpoint was the decision to not allow Leader of the Opposition Rahul Gandhi to quote from an unpublished memoir by former Army chief General M M Naravane in the House. Critics have also highlighted the suspension of several Opposition MPs as evidence of biased conduct.
Government and ruling coalition spokespeople, including Parliamentary Affairs Minister Kiren Rijiju, have pushed back against criticisms of partisanship. They argue that the no-confidence motion is unlikely to succeed given the numeric strength of the ruling coalition in the 543-member Lok Sabha. Rijiju has also framed parliamentary diplomacy as a non-partisan endeavour that can enhance India’s global engagement while reinforcing legislative cooperation across party lines.
Opposition leaders backing the motion contend that the Chair’s conduct has eroded confidence in the neutrality expected of the Speaker’s office, undermining parliamentary norms and stalling the legislative agenda. They have pointed to instances where debate was cut short or dissenting voices were curtailed during key discussions. Nonetheless, disagreement persists within some opposition ranks over strategy and unity, with debates around who should or should not sign the no-confidence notice illustrating differing views on parliamentary conventions and tactics.
Analysts note that the constitution of Parliamentary Friendship Groups with significant opposition participation could be seen as a bid to reset engagement and project institutional unity internationally. Proponents argue that this form of parliamentary diplomacy can help build long-term relationships with legislatures abroad, raise India’s profile on global issues, and enable lawmakers to participate directly in discussions on shared challenges. Critics, however, view the move through a domestic political lens, suggesting it might be aimed at diffusing opposition pressure while maintaining the Speaker’s stature amid sustained political contestation.