It is indeed extraordinary that Lok Sabha Speaker Om Birla adjourned the House when the leader of the opposition, Rahul Gandhi, rose to speak on March 27. Birla noted that members, especially the leader of the opposition, should conduct themselves “in a manner that maintains the high standards and dignity of parliament.”
Without explaining how Rahul Gandhi’s conduct failed to meet “the high standards and dignity” of parliament, Birla adjourned the House.
It is even more baffling that Birla did not clarify to Congress MPs, who met him in his chamber, which rule the LoP had violated or how his conduct breached parliamentary decorum.
Such conduct by the Speaker goes against well-established parliamentary conventions, which dictate that when the LoP rises, the Chair grants them time to speak.
There are multiple historical instances in both Houses of Parliament demonstrating that whenever the LoP stands to intervene in a discussion, the Chair typically permits them to do so by asking the current speaker to yield the floor. When Arun Jaitley of the BJP was LoP in the Rajya Sabha, chairman Hamid Ansari frequently allowed him to speak when he stood up during discussions. In July 2003, then-Rajya Sabha chairman Bhairon Singh Shekhawat (also from the BJP), despite ruling against an opposition discussion on the alleged partial role of the CBI in the Babri Mosque demolition case, later revised his ruling to permit discussion on the CBI’s role without referring to the Babri issue, which was sub judice.
Similarly, in the Lok Sabha, past Speakers have allowed not just the LoP but also senior members to intervene in debates. For example, former prime minister Chandrasekhar, representing his party as a lone member, was regularly granted the floor when he stood up. On March 3, 1997, Biju Patnaik stood up while BJP MP Sunderlal Patwa was speaking about the mandate of prime minister Devegowda’s government. Patnaik strongly countered Patwa’s claim that the mandate favoured nationalism represented by the BJP, saying, “You people talk of nationalism. Do you know what nationalism is? You cannot know it. His rashtrawad is breaking up the nation into 20 pieces.” Patnaik was neither asked to sit down nor was the House adjourned by the then-Speaker.
These examples demonstrate that past presiding officers of both Houses have not been accused of suppressing the opposition’s voice in the manner Speaker Om Birla has been.
Speaking to reporters outside the House, Rahul Gandhi stated that proceedings “were not being run as per democratic norms.” He claimed that when he requested to speak, Birla “just ran away.” Highlighting parliamentary conventions that allow the LoP to speak, Gandhi expressed regret that he was not being given the opportunity to do so.
Responding to the Speaker’s charge that he was not maintaining the dignity of the House, Gandhi asserted that he had done nothing wrong in the past seven to eight days yet was still not allowed to speak. He emphasised that democracy provides space for both the government and the Opposition, arguing that the Opposition was being denied its rightful space. Referring to prime minister Modi’s remarks on the Maha Kumbh Mela, Gandhi stated that he had expressed his desire to speak but was not permitted to do so.
In all fairness, Speaker Om Birla should clarify the specific rule Rahul Gandhi breached and provide a concrete justification for his decision. While presiding over the House, Birla remarked, “In this House, father and daughter, mother and daughter, husband and wife have been members. In this context, I expect the Leader of the Opposition to conduct himself in accordance with Rule 349, which deals with rules to be observed by members in the House.”
Was Birla referencing an undated video clip of Gandhi touching the cheeks of his sister and MP Priyanka Gandhi Vadra during House proceedings? If so, that hardly constitutes a violation of parliamentary rules.
By failing to substantiate his claims about Rahul Gandhi’s breach of parliamentary norms, Speaker Birla weakens his own argument for denying the LoP an opportunity to speak.
Legislative intent of the Constituent Assembly for a strong opposition
In doing so, Birla also violates the legislative intent of the Constituent Assembly, which envisioned a robust opposition in parliament.
On December 17, 1946, M. R. Masani, during discussions on the Objectives Resolution moved by Jawaharlal Nehru, argued that India’s democracy would be hollow if it led to a police state where the government could suppress opposition parties. Similarly, on April 27, 1947, Assembly member Somnath Lahiri noted that fundamental rights would not only make India a free country but also create conditions for opposition to flourish. He insisted that the right to criticise the government must be protected, as curtailing this right would undermine democracy.
On November 8, 1948, Z. H. Lari advocated for the inclusion of the LoP position in the Constitution, recognising its importance in parliamentary democracy. Again, on May 20, 1949, during debates on Article 86 of the draft Constitution (now Article 106), Lari moved an amendment to provide a salary for the LoP, arguing that a strong Opposition, along with the rule of law and a free press, forms the bulwark of democracy. While T. T. Krishnamachari and Ananthasayanam Ayyangar supported the idea of an LoP, they suggested leaving its formalization to future legislatures. Dr. B. R. Ambedkar agreed, leading to the eventual institutionalisation of the LoP in 1977 through parliamentary legislation.
As India celebrates the 75th anniversary of its Constitution, Speaker Om Birla should uphold the Constituent Assembly’s vision by ensuring the Opposition has a legitimate voice in the Lok Sabha.
S N Sahu served as Officer on Special Duty to President of India K.R. Narayanan.
This piece was first published on The India Cable – a premium newsletter from The Wire & Galileo Ideas – and has been updated and republished here. To subscribe to The India Cable, click here.
