New Delhi, Feb 10 – While several opposition parties have joined forces to move a resolution to remove Om Birla as the Speaker of the Lok Sabha, similar attempts have been made in the past, but none have been successful.
A notice to move the resolution was submitted by opposition members on Tuesday afternoon. Sources in the Lok Sabha secretariat said the notice will be examined and processed according to the rules.
Here's how a resolution is moved, approved, and disposed of, and why such resolutions have never been successful in the past:
At least two members of the Lok Sabha must sign the notice to move a resolution for the Speaker's removal. Any number of members can sign the notice, but a minimum of two is required.
The Speaker can be removed from office by a resolution passed by the House with a simple majority. Article 94C of the Constitution provides for such a move.
"All members of the House are counted to determine the majority, not just those present and voting, which is the normal practice. This means that the effective membership of the House, excluding vacancies, is used to calculate the majority," said former Lok Sabha Secretary General P D T Achary to PTI.
The notice must be submitted to the Lok Sabha Secretary General, not the Deputy Speaker or anyone else, he said.
The document is then reviewed at the preliminary stage to see if it contains "very specific charges," he said.
"At the initial stage itself, there is a process of admissibility. At that stage, it is seen whether it contains specific charges. Specific charges are required because only then the Speaker will be able to respond," Achary explained.
The resolution must not contain defamatory language or content.
Article 96 allows the Speaker to defend himself in the House.
The language of the proposed resolution is usually examined by the Deputy Speaker, but since the current Lok Sabha does not have a Deputy Speaker, it may be examined by the senior-most member of the panel of chairpersons.
The panel helps the Speaker run the House in his absence.
"It seems absurd that the Speaker is examining a resolution seeking his own removal," Achary said, adding that the rule is silent on the subject.
Once the processing part is over, the resolution reaches the House. But it can be presented to the House after 14 days, Achary said.
According to Article 96, the Speaker cannot preside over the House while the resolution for his removal is under consideration.
The chair then places it before the House for consideration. It is actually the House that approves it, or as the rule says, "grants permission".
Achary further said, "The chair then asks members in favour of the resolution to stand up. If 50 members stand up in support and if the criteria is met, the Speaker announces that the House has granted permission. Once the House grants permission, it must be discussed and disposed of within 10 days."
There have been instances of resolutions being moved. However, none have been adopted so far.
"The reason is that governments have a majority," Achary said.
The resolution alleges that Speaker Birla had acted in a "blatantly partisan" manner in conducting the business of the House and "abused" the constitutional office he holds.
The Opposition also accused the Speaker of making certain false allegations against members of the Congress.
Congress' Deputy Leader in the Lok Sabha Gaurav Gogoi, Chief Whip K Suresh, and Whip Mohamed Jawed submitted the notice under Article 94 C of the Constitution to Lok Sabha Secretary General Utpal Kumar Singh on behalf of several opposition parties, including the Congress, Samajwadi Party, and DMK.
Sources said the notice was signed by around 120 MPs from the opposition, including those from the Congress, DMK, Samajwadi Party, Left parties, and RJD. Shiv Sena UBT and NCP-SP have also signed the notice.
The TMC is not a signatory to the notice. Leader of Opposition in Lok Sabha Rahul Gandhi has also not signed the notice, sources said.
On several occasions, leaders of opposition parties have been simply denied the opportunity to speak, which is their basic democratic right in Parliament, the notice said.
The notice also cited that on February 2, Rahul Gandhi was not allowed to complete his speech on the Motion of Thanks to the President's Address. This is not an isolated incident. The leader of the opposition in the Lok Sabha is almost invariably not allowed to speak, it claimed.
On February 3, eight opposition MPs were "arbitrarily suspended" for the entire Budget session and are being penalised merely for exercising their democratic rights, the notice said.
On February 4, a BJP MP was permitted to make wholly objectionable and personalised attacks on two former prime ministers without being reprimanded even once for disregarding established conventions and norms of propriety, it said, apparently referring to Nishikant Dubey's remarks.
"Despite our request, no action has been taken against this particular MP, who is a habitual offender," they said.
The notice also referred to Birla's remarks that he had "concrete information" that many Congress members might move towards Prime Minister Narendra Modi's seat and carry out "some unexpected act" as a result of which he had requested him not to come to the House to reply to the discussion on the Motion of Thanks to the President's Address.
