Guwahati: A constitutional debate unfolded in the Lok Sabha on Wednesday after Assam Pradesh Congress Committee President Gaurav Gogoi accused the government of creating a “constitutional vacuum” by not electing a Deputy Speaker, even as proceedings began on a resolution seeking the removal of Speaker Om Birla.
The issue followed Gogoi’s motion to remove Birla, alleging bias toward the ruling party. The discussion soon expanded into a broader constitutional question about who should preside over the House during such proceedings.
In a post on X, Gogoi said the Constitution provides only two presiding authorities for the Lok Sabha: the Speaker and the Deputy Speaker, both elected by the House under Article 93 of the Constitution of India. By not electing a Deputy Speaker, he said, the government had left a constitutional gap in the parliamentary framework.
Gogoi also referred to Article 96 of the Constitution of India, which bars the Speaker from presiding over proceedings concerning his own removal to ensure neutrality. According to him, allowing a member from the panel of chairpersons, nominated by the Speaker, to preside over the debate undermines the intent of this constitutional safeguard.
“Neutrality cannot be reduced to a procedural formality. In a constitutional democracy, justice must not only be done but must also be seen to be done,” Gogoi said, adding that if a Speaker cannot act as judge in his own cause, he should also not be able to nominate someone to perform that role.
The procedural question arose in the Lok Sabha on Tuesday when Asaduddin Owaisi raised a point of order questioning the decision to allow Jagdambika Pal to chair the proceedings. Owaisi said Pal had been appointed to the panel by Birla himself, making his role problematic during deliberations on the motion to remove the Speaker.
The objection was countered by Nishikant Dubey, who cited constitutional provisions and parliamentary rules to support the decision. Kiren Rijiju also rejected Owaisi’s argument, stating that Pal was fully competent to preside over the House during the discussion.
Meanwhile, Saugata Roy suggested the government could consider moving a motion to appoint a presiding officer specifically for conducting the proceedings on the resolution.
Rejecting the objections, Pal proceeded with the process and put the notice for moving the resolution to the House, asking at least 50 members to stand in support, as required under parliamentary rules. After the required number of MPs stood, the notice was accepted.
Congress MP Mohammad Jawed then formally read out the resolution, which was admitted for discussion.
During his speech, Gogoi accused Birla of partisan conduct, alleging that the Speaker had made “baseless” allegations against women MPs from the opposition and had not allowed Leader of Opposition Rahul Gandhi to raise critical issues in the House.
The development prompted a parliamentary debate, with opposition parties raising constitutional concerns over the absence of a Deputy Speaker and the neutrality of the presiding authority, while the government stated that the proceedings were conducted according to constitutional provisions and House rules.