Opposition parties are preparing to move a no-confidence motion against Lok Sabha Speaker Om Birla, escalating a confrontation over the conduct of proceedings after claims that the Leader of the Opposition, Rahul Gandhi, was denied an opportunity to speak during the debate on the Motion of Thanks to the President’s Address.The move, still under internal discussion among floor leaders, reflects a sharp breakdown in trust between the Treasury benches and Opposition ranks at the start of the Budget Session. Opposition MPs argue that the Speaker’s chair has shown selective discretion in allocating speaking time, undermining the convention that the Leader of the Opposition is heard during major debates. Parliamentary affairs officials from the government side reject the charge, saying the Chair acted in line with rules and the sequence of speakers.
Bid to challenge the Chair intensifies as Opposition strategists frame the proposed motion as a defence of parliamentary norms rather than a personal attack on the Speaker. Under the rules, a substantive motion expressing lack of confidence in the Speaker can be admitted only with prior notice and if the Chair allows it to be taken up, a threshold that has historically made such attempts rare and politically fraught. Even when admitted, success requires a majority in the House, which the Opposition does not command.
The flashpoint arose during the discussion following the President’s Address, a constitutionally significant debate that traditionally allows leaders across parties to outline priorities and critique the government’s agenda. Opposition MPs allege that Rahul Gandhi sought to intervene after multiple members from the ruling side had spoken, but was not recognised by the Chair. Video clips circulating among MPs have been cited internally to support the claim, though the Speaker’s office has maintained that the list of speakers and time limits were adhered to.
Rahul Gandhi, who assumed the role of Leader of the Opposition in the current Lok Sabha after his party-led alliance crossed the statutory threshold, has publicly stressed the need for equal opportunity on the floor. Senior Opposition figures say the episode fits a broader pattern in which interruptions, curtailed time, and disciplinary actions have disproportionately affected non-government members. They point to earlier sittings where adjournments followed protests over microphone cut-offs and denied interventions.
From the government’s perspective, the allegation overlooks the pressures of managing a crowded House with multiple parties seeking time. Ministers argue that the Speaker has permitted extended debates and allowed Opposition-initiated discussions within the limits of the rulebook. They also note that disorderly conduct has forced the Chair to make difficult calls to preserve decorum, insisting that no member, regardless of position, enjoys an automatic right to speak outside the agreed list.
Constitutional experts say the threshold for a no-confidence motion against the Speaker is intentionally high to protect the independence of the office. The Speaker is expected to be non-partisan once elected, but is chosen by the majority, creating an inherent tension. Past attempts to challenge Speakers have typically been symbolic, aimed at mobilising public opinion rather than altering outcomes on the floor.
The political calculus for the Opposition involves weighing the risks of appearing confrontational against the benefits of spotlighting what it calls institutional imbalance. A formal notice would force the House to confront questions about neutrality, even if the motion is not admitted. It could also set the stage for sustained protests and coordinated floor strategy, including demands for clearer protocols on recognising the Leader of the Opposition during marquee debates.