Article 94 of the Constitution of India deals with the vacation, resignation, and removal of the Speaker and Deputy Speaker of the Lok Sabha. According to this provision, the Speaker may be removed from office by a resolution of the Lok Sabha passed by a majority of all the then members of the House. Such a resolution must be preceded by a 14-day notice given by members intending to move the motion. During the consideration of this resolution, the Speaker cannot preside over the sitting, and another member of the House presides instead. This provision reflects the principle that the Speaker, though expected to remain politically neutral, ultimately derives authority from the confidence of the House.

The constitutional framework aims to ensure that the Speaker acts as an impartial guardian of parliamentary procedures. The office of the Speaker is crucial for maintaining order in debates, interpreting rules of procedure, and ensuring that the government remains accountable to Parliament. If the Speaker is perceived to act in a partisan manner, members of the House may invoke Article 94 to seek removal. However, given the numerical strength of the ruling party in most cases, such resolutions rarely succeed.

Historically, no Lok Sabha Speaker has been removed through such a resolution, although motions have occasionally been introduced. The recent attempt to remove Speaker Om Birla highlights how constitutional provisions can be used as a political instrument to express dissatisfaction with the functioning of the House. Even when such motions fail, they often trigger important debates about parliamentary accountability, neutrality of presiding officers, and the health of India’s democratic institutions.

The Speaker of the Lok Sabha occupies a unique position in India’s parliamentary system. Although elected as a member of a political party, the Speaker is expected to act as an impartial presiding authority once elected to the chair. This neutrality is vital because Parliament functions as the central forum where the government is held accountable by the Opposition and where national policies are debated in a structured manner.

The Speaker’s powers are extensive and influence the functioning of the legislature in several ways. These include:

• Maintaining order and discipline in the House during debates.
• Deciding who may speak and how much time is allotted for discussions.
• Interpreting parliamentary rules and procedures.
• Deciding on disqualification of members under the anti-defection law.

In India’s parliamentary democracy, Parliament functions as the primary institution through which the executive branch of government is held accountable. The Council of Ministers is collectively responsible to the Lok Sabha, meaning it must maintain the confidence of the House to remain in power. Through debates, questioning, and legislative oversight, Parliament ensures transparency in government decision-making.

Several procedural mechanisms enable Parliament to perform this accountability function effectively:

• Question Hour: Members ask questions to ministers regarding government policies and administrative decisions.
• Zero Hour: MPs raise urgent public issues without prior notice.
• Debates on bills and motions: These allow detailed scrutiny of government proposals.
• Parliamentary committees: These committees examine government policies, budgets, and administrative functioning in detail.

Single-party dominance occurs when one political party enjoys a large majority in the legislature for an extended period. While such dominance can provide political stability and enable the government to implement policies efficiently, it may also create challenges for democratic accountability and parliamentary functioning.

Positive aspects of single-party dominance include:

• Policy continuity and stability, which allows governments to implement long-term reforms.
• Efficient decision-making, as legislative deadlocks are less likely.
• Strong executive authority, which can help address urgent national issues.

Recent events in India’s Parliament highlight increasing political tensions involving the offices of the Speaker of the Lok Sabha and the Chairman of the Rajya Sabha. These presiding officers are expected to maintain neutrality while managing debates and enforcing parliamentary rules. However, growing political polarisation has increasingly placed them at the centre of disputes between the ruling party and the Opposition.

One example is the recent resolution introduced in the Lok Sabha seeking the removal of Speaker Om Birla. Although the motion was rejected by voice vote, the debate reflected deep disagreements about the functioning of the House. Opposition members accused the Speaker of restricting their opportunities to raise important issues, citing instances such as interruptions during speeches and denial of permission to raise certain topics. The government, on the other hand, defended the Speaker’s conduct by highlighting statistics on parliamentary productivity and speaking time allocated to Opposition members.

Another example occurred in the Rajya Sabha in 2024 when an Opposition resolution was introduced to remove Vice-President Jagdeep Dhankhar, who also serves as the Chairman of the Rajya Sabha. Although the resolution did not pass, it demonstrated how presiding officers have increasingly become subjects of political contestation. These developments underscore the need to reinforce institutional norms that preserve the neutrality and credibility of presiding officers in India’s parliamentary system.

Several structural and political factors contribute to the increasing polarisation and disruption in parliamentary functioning in India. Over the years, the nature of political competition has become more intense, with parties often prioritising political messaging over constructive legislative debate. This has led to frequent confrontations between the government and the Opposition inside Parliament.

One major factor is the rise of majoritarian politics. When the ruling party enjoys a strong numerical majority, it may rely more heavily on its legislative strength rather than consensus-building. Conversely, Opposition parties may resort to protests or procedural disruptions to draw attention to their concerns. This dynamic can transform Parliament from a deliberative forum into a stage for political confrontation.

Another factor is the increasing influence of media and political communication strategies. Parliamentary debates are now closely watched by the public through television and digital platforms. As a result, political parties sometimes prioritise symbolic gestures or dramatic protests to mobilise their supporters. While such actions may generate political visibility, they can undermine the institutional functioning of Parliament. Addressing these challenges requires renewed commitment from both the government and the Opposition to respect parliamentary procedures and restore the culture of reasoned debate.