No-Confidence Motion Against Lok Sabha Speaker Om Birla: Constitutional Mechanism and Implications
Note: Full article text was not available. This explainer is based on the title and description only and may need updating when the full text is reviewed.
The Congress party submitted a no-confidence motion (technically, a removal resolution under Article 94(c)) against Lok Sabha Speaker Om Birla, signed by 118 Members of Parliament.
The debate on the motion is likely scheduled for March 9, 2026 — the first day of the second part of the Budget Session.
The motion cites allegations of partisan conduct by the Speaker and restrictions imposed on opposition speakers during key debates.
Speaker Om Birla has announced he will not preside over Lok Sabha proceedings until the motion is resolved, in keeping with the constitutional mandate under Article 96.
Article 94: Vacation, Resignation, and Removal of Speaker and Deputy Speaker
Article 94 of the Constitution governs how the offices of the Speaker and Deputy Speaker of Lok Sabha are vacated. Under Article 94(c), the Speaker may be removed from office by a resolution of the House of the People passed by a majority of all the then members of the House — this is known as an "effective majority." This is a higher threshold than a simple majority (majority of members present and voting), making Speaker removal constitutionally more demanding than an ordinary no-confidence motion against the Council of Ministers.
The Congress-led motion, signed by 118 MPs (well above the 50-member threshold for admissibility), invokes Article 94(c). However, passing the resolution requires at least 272 votes (effective majority in a full-strength House of 543), which would require substantial cross-party support beyond the current opposition numbers.
Article 96: Speaker Not to Preside While Removal Resolution is Under Consideration
Article 96 provides a safeguard against conflict of interest: when a resolution for the Speaker's removal is under consideration, the Speaker shall not preside over the House, even if present. The Deputy Speaker (or another member designated under Article 95(2)) chairs the proceedings instead. However, the Speaker retains the right to speak in the House, participate in proceedings, and — crucially — vote in the first instance on the resolution (unlike the normal rule under Article 100, where the Speaker votes only in case of a tie).
Key Details
- Article 96(1): Speaker shall not preside while the removal resolution is under consideration.
- Article 96(2): Speaker has the right to speak and participate in the proceedings of the House during consideration of the resolution.
- Article 96(2): Speaker is entitled to vote in the first instance on the resolution but not in case of equality of votes — this is a reversal of the normal casting-vote rule under Article 100.
- This provision is derived from the British parliamentary convention where the Speaker of the House of Commons withdraws from the Chair when their position is under discussion.
Speaker Om Birla has stepped aside from presiding duties until the motion is resolved, consistent with the constitutional mandate under Article 96. The Deputy Speaker or a designated member will chair proceedings in the interim.
Comparison: Removal of Speaker (Art. 94) vs. Removal of Vice-President/Rajya Sabha Chairman (Art. 67)
UPSC frequently tests distinctions between analogous constitutional provisions for different offices. The mechanism for removing the Lok Sabha Speaker under Article 94 is structurally different from the removal of the Vice-President (who is ex-officio Chairman of Rajya Sabha) under Article 67.
The current motion against Speaker Birla is a single-House affair confined to Lok Sabha under Article 94(c), unlike the two-House process required to remove the Vice-President.
Historical Precedents: No Lok Sabha Speaker Has Ever Been Removed
No-confidence motions against Lok Sabha Speakers are historically rare, and none has ever succeeded. Only three such motions have been moved in the history of independent India.
The motion against Speaker Birla is only the fourth such attempt in over seven decades of Indian parliamentary history. While it has cleared the procedural hurdle of admissibility, the effective majority requirement (272 in a full House) means it faces the same arithmetic challenge that defeated all previous attempts.
- Constitutional basis for Speaker removal: Article 94(c) of the Constitution of India
- Majority required: Effective majority — more than 50% of all then members (272 out of 543 if no vacancies)
- Notice period: 14 days prior notice to the Secretary-General of Lok Sabha
- Minimum signatories for admissibility: 50 members of Lok Sabha
- Current motion signatories: 118 MPs
- Scheduled debate date: March 9, 2026 (first day of second part of Budget Session)
- Speaker's status during motion: Cannot preside (Article 96), but can speak and vote in the first instance
- Previous motions against Speakers: G.V. Mavalankar (1954, defeated), Sardar Hukam Singh (1966, inadmissible), Balram Jakhar (1987, negated) — none succeeded
- Analogous provision for Vice-President removal: Article 67(b) — resolution in Rajya Sabha by effective majority, agreed to by Lok Sabha