The Opposition’s resolution seeking the removal of Speaker Om Birla failed. Yet for nearly 13 hours across two days, the Lower House became the stage for one of the most intense debates on parliamentary functioning in recent years.
For the Opposition, it was less about parliamentary arithmetic and more about highlighting a systematic erosion of democratic functioning inside the House. For the ruling benches, however, the move was nothing more than an attempt to malign a constitutional office and divert attention from what they called the disruptive behaviour of the Opposition.
When the debate concluded on March 11, the resolution was defeated by a voice vote amid loud protests and sloganeering from Opposition benches. However, a larger question that continues to echo through Parliament: what does neutrality mean for the Speaker of Lok Sabha?
The resolution was moved by opposition MPs led by Congress and backed by several parties, including DMK, Samajwadi Party, Left parties and RJD. In all, 118 MPs signed the notice.
Birla recused himself from presiding over the proceedings on moral grounds. BJP MP Jagdambika Pal took the Chair for the debate.
The Opposition maintained that the debate was necessary to place on record their protest against what they called the “brazenly partisan” functioning of the Chair.Opposition members cited a range of grievances: microphones allegedly switched off when Opposition MPs spoke, mass suspensions of members, routine rejection of adjournment motions, and the continuing vacancy of the Deputy Speaker’s post for nearly seven years.
The Question of Voice
At the centre of the controversy was the treatment of Leader of the Opposition Rahul Gandhi, who said he had repeatedly been prevented from speaking in the House. “The discussion here is about the democratic process and the role of the Speaker. My name is being raised multiple times, vile things are being said about me,” Gandhi said.
“This House doesn’t represent one party, this House represents the whole country. Every time we get up to speak, we are stopped from speaking.”
He also referred to a recent debate on the Motion of Thanks to the President’s Address where he was prevented from completing his remarks.
“Just a few days ago during a debate for the first time in parliamentary history, the Leader of the Opposition was not allowed to speak. I have been stopped from speaking multiple times,” Gandhi said.
“The last time I spoke, I raised fundamental questions about the compromises that had been made by our prime minister.”
The remark triggered loud protests from treasury benches, particularly when Gandhi reiterated allegations that Prime Minister Narendra Modi had been “compromised”.
“These issues are fundamental to the people of India,” Gandhi said, referring to questions he had earlier raised regarding former Army chief Manoj Mukund Naravane, Jeffrey Epstein and Gautam Adani.
Treasury Benches’ Defence&Opposition’s Charge
Responding to Gandhi’s intervention, Ravi Shankar Prasad defended the PM and rejected the allegations. He also accused Gandhi of making remarks against the country abroad and suggested he should be guided by his party on parliamentary rules.
The debate grew even more heated when opposition MPs questioned the Prime Minister’s absence during the discussion.
“And where is the Prime Minister when such a serious issue is being debated? Why has he deserted the House?”Several Opposition leaders framed their criticism around what they said had become a pattern of denial from the Chair.
RJD MP Abhay Kumar Sinha argued, “This House saw a black day when over 140 MPs were suspended in a single day…. whenever an Opposition MP rises to speak, the response is ‘No, No, No.’”
Another tradition is that while MPs speak, the camera moves in another direction.”
Mahua Moitra’s Sharp Attack
Among the most forceful interventions came from Trinamool MP Mahua Moitra, who accused the Speaker of unprecedented partisanship.“You have presided over the liquidation of the functioning of Parliamentary democracy,” she said.Moitra recalled that she had been “illegally expelled” from the House earlier and had not been allowed to present her defence.
“It is ironic that the House from which I was illegally expelled by the misogynist government… I am opening the debate on behalf of my party against that very Speaker,” she said. “You can’t run away from Karma.”
She argued that the role of the Speaker is that of a neutral arbiter, not a political actor. She also reminded the House that in the previous Lok Sabha one BJP member, Ramesh Bidhuri, had hurled abusive remarks such as “Katwa” and “aatanki” against a Muslim MP, Danish Ali, but the Speaker had not taken action against him.
Constitutional Questions
Another line of criticism concerned the prolonged vacancy in the post of Deputy Speaker.AIMIM MP Asaduddin Owaisi warned that the executive was attempting to overshadow the legislature.“The executive is trying to overpower the legislative wings,” Owaisi said. “Tomorrow, I will move a resolution to appoint a Deputy Speaker.”
Under Article 93 of the Constitution, the Lok Sabha must elect both a Speaker and a Deputy Speaker “as soon as may be.” Although the Constitution does not prescribe a specific timeframe, parliamentary convention has traditionally allowed the Opposition to occupy the Deputy Speaker’s chair, a practice that has remained unfulfilled for nearly seven years.
Congress leader KC Venugopal described the motion as a reluctant step compelled by a “deep concern for the state of democracy”.
“Never before has a Leader of Opposition been so blatantly silenced in the Lok Sabha,” he said.
“In the last few years, we have seen how Opposition MPs are suspended at whim, microphones are turned off, and the Sansad TV cameras try their best to avoid showing the Opposition benches.”
“Having a majority in Parliament doesn’t allow the ruling benches to run roughshod over time-tested democratic principles,” he said.
HM’s Defence of Birla
The government’s final reply came from Amit Shah, whose speech triggered another round of uproar in the House.Shah defended Birla’s conduct and reminded the House that only two such motions had been brought against Speakers since Independence.He accused the Opposition of misusing the debate to attack the government rather than discussing the Speaker’s role.
During his speech, Shah once again used a controversial expression that was later expunged. The same word had earlier been used and expunged on December 10, 2025. Earlier, on February 6, 2020, a word used by Prime Minister Narendra Modi in the Rajya Sabha had also been expunged.
According to Shah, nearly 80% of the speeches delivered by Opposition MPs were unrelated to the motion itself. He also criticised Rahul Gandhi’s parliamentary attendance and alleged that the Opposition was treating the House like a “mela”.
A History of Disputes
Several incidents in recent years have intensified tensions between the Opposition and the Chair.Birla, who served as Speaker during the 17th Lok Sabha and continues in the 18th Lok Sabha, presided over the suspension of an unprecedented 100 Opposition MPs from the Lower House. Another 46 MPs were suspended from the Rajya Sabha during the same period. He has repeatedly denied these allegations.
The resolution may have been defeated, but it revealed the depth of mistrust that now characterises parliamentary politics.