5 min readFeb 12, 2026 02:00 PM IST
First published on: Feb 11, 2026 at 08:54 PM IST
Opposition parties have submitted a no-confidence motion against Lok Sabha Speaker Om Birla. In the last six years, such motions have been moved against the Deputy Chairman of Rajya Sabha, Harivansh Narayan Singh and the Chairman of the Rajya Sabha, Jagdeep Dhankhar. The appropriate constitutional authorities rejected both these notices, and they did not reach the stage of discussion in the Rajya Sabha. But irrespective of the outcome of the motion against the Speaker, it raises two critical questions.
The first is an immediate operational question. Our Constitution has provisions to ensure continuity in high constitutional offices. So when President Zakir Hussain died, Vice President V V Giri acted as President till elections could be held. Similarly, when Vice President Dhankhar resigned, the Deputy Chairman took over the responsibilities for the Rajya Sabha. Similarly, the office of the Speaker will never be vacant.
The Constitution ensures this by specifying that the Speaker continues in office even after the House that he was elected by is dissolved. At the start of a new Lok Sabha, the President appoints a Speaker pro-tem ensuring that the position is never vacant. In case the office becomes vacant midway, the Deputy Speaker temporarily performs the duties of the Speaker. This happened when the first Speaker of Lok Sabha, G V Mavalankar, died in office, and the Deputy Speaker M A Ayyangar stepped in.
However, the Lok Sabha hasn’t had a Deputy Speaker since 2019. So, for the five-year term of the 17th Lok Sabha (2019-24), the constitutional office of the Deputy Speaker was vacant. The current Lok Sabha, which started its term in June 2024, has also not had a Deputy Speaker.
In the current context, a constitutional office has to decide whether to admit or reject the motion of no confidence against the Speaker. When such a motion was moved in the Rajya Sabha against Chairman Dhankhar, the Deputy Chairman gave the ruling to reject the motion. Currently, with no Deputy Speaker, there is a vacuum in the Lok Sabha as to who would take the decision on the Opposition’s motion.
The Constitution never envisaged that the position of the Deputy Speaker would remain vacant for long periods. It sought to ensure this by specifying that Lok Sabha MPs elect one of their colleagues to the office “as soon as may be”. The Lok Sabha is not alone in this regard; the constitutionally mandated office of the Deputy Speaker is vacant in multiple state legislative assemblies. But beyond the immediate conundrum, the larger issue is about the constitutional appropriateness of a vacant office in institutions that are required to uphold the constitution.
This, then, brings us to the second question, which is more institutional. In India’s deliberative democracy, the legislature is a forum for debate and discussion. The objective of these deliberations is to work collaboratively and guide the country in the right direction. The notices of no confidence against presiding officers are indicative of the escalating differences between political parties in Parliament. Even a casual observer of parliamentary proceedings would agree that the debate has become more personal and adversarial. The shrillness of debate has contributed to the acrimony and led to disruptions. A look at the working of Lok Sabha shows that from June 2024 to 2025, a disrupted Lok Sabha has worked for less than an hour on roughly a third of its total working days.
Parliament shoulders the immense responsibility for making laws for the 140 crore people of India. Even a simple misstep carries a massive opportunity cost for the country. So, when the Constitution framers gave Parliament the power to hold the government to account, pass budgets and make laws, they likely hoped that the institution would take that responsibility seriously. As part of that responsibility, the Constitution framers would have envisaged that our elected representatives would work for the national good, rising above political differences.
Our parliamentary procedures are colonial. They were designed with the thinking that the legislature was an impediment that had to be tolerated. These procedures require an immediate overhaul to encourage more bipartisanship and collaboration between its members. And while this happens, our nation continues to hope that our Parliament and MPs will not betray the trust the country has placed in them.
The writer looks at issues through a legislative lens and works at PRS Legislative Research
The Speaker has been under attack for not allowing Leader of Opposition Rahul Gandhi to quote from or speak about former Army chief General M M Naravane’s unpublished memoir. (Express file photo/Anil Sharma) 
Share
