What Happened
- Opposition parties, led by Congress, submitted a no-confidence motion against Lok Sabha Speaker Om Birla under Article 94(c) of the Constitution, with approximately 118-119 MPs signing the notice.
- The motion alleges persistent bias, including not allowing Leader of Opposition Rahul Gandhi to speak during the Motion of Thanks debate, suspension of eight opposition MPs, and tolerance of personalized attacks by ruling party members against former Prime Ministers.
- Speaker Om Birla has decided to step away from House proceedings on "moral grounds" until the motion is disposed of, with the Deputy Speaker expected to preside in his absence.
- The discussion on the removal resolution is scheduled for 9 March 2026, the first day of the second part of the Budget Session.
Static Topic Bridges
Article 94 — Vacation, Resignation, and Removal of Speaker and Deputy Speaker
Article 94 of the Constitution of India deals with how the offices of Speaker and Deputy Speaker become vacant. Under Article 94(c), the Speaker or Deputy Speaker may be removed from office by a resolution of the House of the People passed by a majority of all the then members of the House. This is an "effective majority" (also called "absolute majority") — not merely a majority of those present and voting.
- A 14-day prior notice must be given to the Secretary-General of Lok Sabha before the resolution can be moved
- The resolution requires the backing of at least 50 members for it to be admitted for discussion
- During the removal debate, the Speaker cannot preside over the House (Article 96), but retains the right to speak, participate in the debate, and vote on the resolution
- The Deputy Speaker or a member from the Panel of Chairpersons presides over the removal proceedings
- Analogous provision for Rajya Sabha Chairman: Article 67(b) — removal by a resolution of the Council of States passed by a majority of all the then members, with 14 days' notice
Connection to this news: The opposition's motion invokes Article 94(c) against Speaker Om Birla, making this the fourth time in independent India's history that such a resolution has been moved against a Lok Sabha Speaker.
Constitutional Role and Powers of the Lok Sabha Speaker
The Speaker of Lok Sabha is elected under Article 93 by the members of the House from among themselves by a simple majority of those present and voting. The Speaker is the guardian of parliamentary privileges, the interpreter of rules of procedure, and the custodian of the dignity and decorum of the House. The Speaker's powers are extensive, ranging from deciding the order of business and recognizing members to speak, to certifying Money Bills under Article 110.
- Article 93: Lok Sabha shall choose two members to be Speaker and Deputy Speaker
- Article 94: Speaker vacates office on ceasing to be a member, by resignation to the Deputy Speaker, or by removal resolution
- Article 95: In the Speaker's absence, the Deputy Speaker performs duties; if both offices are vacant, a member from the Panel of Chairpersons presides
- Article 100(1): The Speaker does not vote in the first instance but has a casting vote in case of a tie
- Article 110: The Speaker certifies whether a Bill is a Money Bill; the Speaker's decision is final
- Article 118: The Speaker regulates procedure and conduct of business in the House
- Tenth Schedule (Anti-Defection Law, 52nd Amendment, 1985): The Speaker decides disqualification petitions under the Anti-Defection Law, subject to judicial review (Kihoto Hollohan v. Zachillhu, 1992)
Connection to this news: The editorial debate revolves around whether the Speaker has exercised these constitutional powers impartially, and whether the onus lies on the Speaker to proactively earn the trust of the opposition, not merely on the opposition to refrain from filing removal motions.
History of No-Confidence Motions Against Lok Sabha Speakers
Although the constitutional provision exists, no Speaker has ever been successfully removed through a no-confidence resolution in the history of Indian Parliament. Prior to 2026, only three such attempts had been made.
- 1954: First motion against Speaker GV Mavalankar, filed by Socialist leader Vigneshwar Misir with 21 MPs; defeated after PM Nehru defended the dignity of the Chair
- 1966: Motion against Speaker Sardar Hukam Singh failed at the threshold stage — could not secure the mandatory support of 50 members
- 1987: Motion against Speaker Balram Jakhar was moved but negated by the House
- 2026: Motion against Speaker Om Birla — 118-119 MPs signed; discussion scheduled for 9 March 2026
- No Speaker has ever been removed through this process in India
- In contrast, UK Speakers have traditionally resigned upon losing the confidence of the House (convention, not statute)
Connection to this news: Om Birla becomes the fourth Speaker in independent India against whom such a resolution has been moved, and his decision to step aside on "moral grounds" pending disposal of the motion is a novel constitutional convention being established.
Impartiality of the Speaker — Convention vs. Constitutional Mandate
The Indian Constitution does not explicitly mandate impartiality of the Speaker, unlike the British convention where the Speaker severs ties with their political party upon election. In the UK, the Speaker stands as "Speaker Seeking Re-election" rather than as a party candidate. Indian Speakers, however, remain members of their political party.
- British convention: Speaker resigns party membership upon election; stands unopposed in general elections by major parties
- Indian practice: Speaker continues as a party member; often elected on party lines; no constitutional requirement to resign from party
- The Supreme Court in Kihoto Hollohan v. Zachillhu (1992) acknowledged concerns about Speaker's dual role as party member and arbiter under the Anti-Defection Law but upheld the arrangement, subject to judicial review
- Several committees and commissions have recommended that the Speaker resign from party membership: the National Commission to Review the Working of the Constitution (NCRWC, 2002, chaired by Justice MN Venkatachaliah) recommended that the Speaker should voluntarily sever links with the party
- The 2nd Administrative Reforms Commission also recommended greater insulation of the Speaker from party politics
Connection to this news: The editorial argument centers on this structural tension — while the opposition's no-confidence motion is a constitutionally valid tool, the deeper issue is the Speaker's responsibility to earn trust through demonstrated impartiality, a convention that remains aspirational in India's parliamentary practice.
Key Facts & Data
- Article 94(c): Removal of Speaker requires majority of all then members (effective/absolute majority)
- 14-day notice mandatory; minimum 50 members' support required for admission
- Lok Sabha strength: 543 elected members; effective majority for removal = 272+
- Previous no-confidence motions against Speakers: 1954 (Mavalankar), 1966 (Hukam Singh), 1987 (Jakhar) — none succeeded
- 2026 motion: ~118-119 MP signatures; discussion scheduled for 9 March 2026
- Speaker Om Birla: MP from Kota, Rajasthan; elected Speaker in June 2019, re-elected in June 2024
- Article 96: Speaker cannot preside during own removal discussion but can speak and vote
- No post of Deputy Speaker filled in 17th Lok Sabha (2019-2024) — longest vacancy in history