Current Affairs Topics Archive
International Relations Economics Polity & Governance Environment & Ecology Science & Technology Internal Security Geography Social Issues Art & Culture Modern History

Opposition moves no-confidence motion against Om Birla: How hard is it to remove a Lok Sabha Speaker?

March 10, 2026 6 min read Polity & Governance GS Paper 2 (Polity & Governance Parliament Constitutional Provisions)
On This Page ▼

What Happened

  • On March 10, 2026, the Opposition — led by the INDIA alliance — moved a no-confidence motion against Lok Sabha Speaker Om Birla in the Budget Session of Parliament, the fourth time in Indian parliamentary history that such a motion has been brought against a sitting Speaker.
  • Congress MP Mohammad Jawed formally moved the resolution seeking removal of Speaker Om Birla, alleging partisan conduct in managing House proceedings — including preventing Leader of Opposition Rahul Gandhi from speaking freely, with Gandhi reportedly being interrupted 20 times during his address during the Motion of Thanks to the President's Address.
  • More than 50 MPs (the minimum required to allow the motion to be formally taken up) stood in favour, and the presiding officer — BJP's Jagdambika Pal, who was chairing the House — granted leave, allowing the motion to proceed. A 10-hour debate was scheduled on the resolution.
  • The outcome of the motion is widely expected to be a defeat for the Opposition, as the NDA coalition commands a majority in the 18th Lok Sabha. Under Article 94(c), removal requires a majority of all current members — an "effective majority" the Opposition does not possess.
  • The significance of the motion lies less in its likely failure and more in its role as a constitutional statement: the Opposition is using the process to register its objection to the Speaker's conduct on the floor of the House.

Static Topic Bridges

Article 94 — Removal of the Lok Sabha Speaker

Article 94 of the Indian Constitution governs the vacation of office, resignation, and removal of the Speaker and Deputy Speaker of the Lok Sabha. Sub-clause (c) of Article 94 specifically addresses removal by the House.

  • A Speaker can only be removed by a resolution of the Lok Sabha passed by a majority of all the then members of the House — this is an "effective majority" (i.e., more than half the total membership, not just those present and voting).
  • No resolution for removal can be moved unless at least 14 days' notice has been given of the intention to move it (Article 94, proviso).
  • During removal proceedings, the Speaker cannot preside over the House but retains the right to speak and vote as a member.
  • The motion requires a minimum of 50 members to stand in support before the House grants leave to formally introduce it.
  • The Deputy Speaker presides over the House while a removal motion against the Speaker is being debated.

Connection to this news: The procedural requirements of Article 94 make removal of a Speaker extremely difficult in practice — the 14-day notice allows the government time to manage the session, and the effective majority threshold ensures the ruling coalition can vote it down. The motion's primary function is therefore political and constitutional signalling, not actual removal.

Speaker's Role — Constitutional Status and Doctrine of Impartiality

The Lok Sabha Speaker occupies a position of great constitutional importance. The Speaker is elected by the members of the Lok Sabha from among themselves (Article 93) and is expected to be a strictly neutral, impartial presiding officer — above party lines once elected.

  • Article 93: Speaker and Deputy Speaker are elected by the Lok Sabha.
  • Article 95: Deputy Speaker presides in absence of the Speaker; Speaker retains the right to vote as a member on all matters.
  • Article 96: Speaker does not vacate office merely because the House is dissolved; continues until the first session of the new Lok Sabha.
  • Article 105: Members of Parliament have freedom of speech in Parliament — the Speaker is obligated to protect this right.
  • By convention (derived from the UK Westminster model), the Speaker is expected to resign from their party affiliation upon election and conduct proceedings impartially. This convention has weakened in India — sitting Speakers are rarely seen as having broken party ties.
  • Past precedents: No-confidence motions against Speakers were moved in 1954 (G.V. Mavalankar), 1966 (Hukam Singh), and 1987 (Bal Ram Jakhar) — none succeeded.

Connection to this news: The Opposition's primary charge — that Speaker Om Birla has allowed interruptions of Rahul Gandhi's speeches while protecting treasury bench members — goes to the heart of the constitutional expectation of impartiality. Whether or not the motion succeeds, it places on record the Opposition's view that the Speaker has violated this fundamental convention.

Anti-Defection Law (10th Schedule) and the Speaker's Role as Adjudicator

A significant constitutional function of the Speaker — one that creates an inherent tension with the ideal of impartiality — is the role as the sole adjudicator of disqualification petitions under the Tenth Schedule (Anti-Defection Law) added by the 52nd Constitutional Amendment in 1985.

  • The 10th Schedule disqualifies a member who voluntarily gives up party membership or votes against the party whip.
  • The Speaker is the sole deciding authority on disqualification petitions under the 10th Schedule — a quasi-judicial role.
  • Critics argue this creates an inherent conflict of interest: the Speaker belongs to the ruling party and decides disqualification of opposition members.
  • The Supreme Court in Kihoto Hollohan v. Zachillhu (1992) upheld the 10th Schedule but held that the Speaker's decision is subject to judicial review after the fact.
  • In Nabam Rebia v. Deputy Speaker (2016), the SC held that a Speaker facing a removal notice loses the jurisdiction to decide disqualification petitions — one of the few judicial limits placed on the Speaker's anti-defection powers.
  • The 2024 Kalpana Soren case and multiple recent rulings have seen the SC assert stronger oversight over delayed anti-defection decisions by Speakers.

Connection to this news: The simultaneous concentration of House management powers (managing debate) and quasi-judicial powers (anti-defection) in the Speaker makes the current no-confidence motion particularly pointed — the Opposition's charge of bias directly implicates both functions.

Key Facts & Data

  • Article 94(c): Removal requires majority of all current Lok Sabha members (effective majority).
  • Notice requirement: Minimum 14 days' notice before moving a removal resolution.
  • Minimum support needed: 50 members must stand to grant leave for the motion.
  • MPs supporting current motion: 118 Opposition MPs signed the no-confidence notice.
  • Presiding officer during debate: Deputy Speaker (or senior-most available member if no Deputy Speaker has been elected).
  • Historical precedents: No-confidence against Speakers in 1954, 1966, 1987 — none resulted in removal.
  • Current motion (2026): The fourth such motion in Indian parliamentary history.
  • 18th Lok Sabha (2024-29): NDA has working majority; motion expected to be defeated.
  • Grounds cited: Allowing interruption of Rahul Gandhi's speech "20 times"; alleged pro-ruling party bias in managing House proceedings.
  • Speaker Om Birla: Elected in June 2024 for the 18th Lok Sabha; BJP MP from Kota, Rajasthan (serving second term as Speaker).
  • Article 93: Speaker elected by members of Lok Sabha from among themselves.
  • 10th Schedule: Added by 52nd Constitutional Amendment, 1985; Speaker is sole adjudicator of disqualification petitions.
  • Kihoto Hollohan (1992): SC upheld 10th Schedule; Speaker's decision subject to post-facto judicial review.