Lok Sabha is expected to witness an unusual parliamentary moment when Speaker Om Birla does not preside over proceedings as members debate a motion seeking his removal, a development that underscores growing tensions between the government and the opposition benches.When Parliament reconvenes for the second phase of the Budget session on March 9, the Lower House is likely to take up a resolution moved by opposition parties accusing Birla of conducting the House in what they describe as a “blatantly partisan” manner. The motion, submitted earlier in February, carries signatures from more than a hundred opposition members and triggers a constitutional process rarely invoked in the history of the republic.
Under the Constitution, a Speaker may be removed through a resolution passed by a majority of the House’s total membership after at least fourteen days’ notice has been given. Once such a motion is admitted, the Speaker cannot preside over the sitting during the debate and vote. Instead, the proceedings are chaired by another member designated under parliamentary rules, normally from the panel of chairpersons.
Birla’s absence from the chair during the debate will mark a striking visual shift in the chamber. The Speaker traditionally occupies the central seat overseeing debates, maintaining order and ensuring adherence to parliamentary procedure. During discussion of the removal motion, he may attend and respond to the allegations but cannot oversee the proceedings.
The resolution represents a sharp escalation in the confrontation between opposition parties and the Treasury benches during the ongoing Budget session. The notice, moved by Congress leaders including deputy leader Gaurav Gogoi and chief whip K. Suresh, lists several grievances against the Speaker’s handling of parliamentary business.
Opposition members argue that the Speaker has repeatedly curtailed their opportunities to speak in debates and has taken disciplinary action in a manner that favours the ruling side. Among the incidents cited in the notice is the interruption of Leader of the Opposition Rahul Gandhi during the debate on the Motion of Thanks to the President’s Address. Opposition leaders also objected to the suspension of eight members during protests in the House.
The motion further criticises remarks attributed to the Speaker during a heated session in which he said he had advised Prime Minister Narendra Modi not to attend the Lok Sabha because of information suggesting some opposition members might stage an unexpected protest. Opposition leaders describe the statement as unfounded and damaging to parliamentary decorum.
Support for the motion spans several opposition parties, including Congress, Samajwadi Party, DMK, and Left parties. Estimates of the number of signatories range between about 118 and 125 members. Some parties, however, have adopted a cautious approach. Trinamool Congress has held back from signing the notice, reflecting differences within the opposition bloc over the strategy of confronting the Speaker directly.
Despite the political drama surrounding the move, parliamentary arithmetic suggests the motion faces steep odds. Removing the Speaker requires an effective majority of all members of the Lok Sabha, a threshold the opposition does not possess without support from members aligned with the government. Observers therefore view the initiative less as a realistic attempt to unseat the Speaker and more as a symbolic protest intended to highlight grievances over the conduct of parliamentary proceedings.
Attempts to remove a Speaker have been exceedingly rare in India’s parliamentary history. Only three such resolutions have been moved before: against G. V. Mavalankar in 1954, Sardar Hukum Singh in 1966, and Balram Jakhar in 1987. None of those efforts succeeded, and no Lok Sabha Speaker has ever been removed from office through a vote of the House.
The current episode also draws attention to procedural peculiarities within the Lower House. The position of Deputy Speaker has remained vacant since 2019, meaning that the debate on the removal motion will be presided over by a member from the panel of chairpersons rather than by a deputy occupying the constitutionally mandated office.
Government leaders have indicated they intend to resolve the matter quickly so that the House can proceed with its legislative agenda during the remainder of the session. Parliamentary Affairs Minister Kiren Rijiju has said the debate and vote on the motion will be scheduled at the start of the second phase of the Budget session, signalling the administration’s preference to settle the issue before moving on to budgetary and legislative business.