Constitutional Provisions for Speaker Removal: Article 94 and the Om Birla Motion
Opposition members of Parliament moved a motion to remove Lok Sabha Speaker Om Birla from his office, with approximately 118 MPs signing the motion.
The motion was brought on grounds of partisan conduct — specifically alleging that the Speaker denied certain Opposition MPs the opportunity to speak during the President's address to Parliament, and made what were termed "unwarranted allegations" against women MPs from Opposition parties.
The Opposition filed a formal notice to the Secretary-General of Lok Sabha as required under Article 94(c) of the Constitution, with the mandatory 14-day advance notice.
Speaker Om Birla vacated the Chair while the motion was under consideration, as required by constitutional convention, and took his seat as an ordinary member.
Lok Sabha failed to take up the removal resolution amid procedural disruptions, and no Speaker has been successfully removed in India's parliamentary history.
Article 94: Removal of Lok Sabha Speaker
Article 94 of the Constitution of India deals with the vacation, resignation, and removal from the offices of the Speaker and Deputy Speaker of the Lok Sabha. Article 94(c) specifically provides for removal: the Speaker or Deputy 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.
The Opposition motion follows the constitutionally prescribed procedure under Article 94(c) — 14-day notice served, motion to be moved in the House, and requiring effective majority to pass. With the Opposition holding well under 272 seats in the 18th Lok Sabha, the motion had no mathematical prospect of success but served as a political and procedural assertion.
Speaker's Election and Constitutional Role: Articles 93-97
The Speaker of the Lok Sabha is a constitutional office established under Part V of the Constitution. Articles 93-97 deal collectively with the Speaker's election, tenure, powers, and removal.
Key Details
- Article 93: The House of the People shall choose two members to be Speaker and Deputy Speaker; elected by simple majority (majority of members present and voting)
- Article 100(1): The Speaker does not vote in the first instance but exercises a casting vote in case of equality of votes — exactly opposite to the President/Vice-President voting pattern
- Article 110: The Speaker's certification of a Bill as a Money Bill is final and conclusive — a significant constitutional power that has been contested in Raja Ram Pal v. Speaker, Lok Sabha and other cases
- Article 105(3): The Speaker's powers in relation to parliamentary proceedings — protection for anything said or vote given inside Parliament
- Article 122: Courts cannot inquire into proceedings of Parliament — Speakers' rulings on procedural matters are generally beyond judicial review
- Speaker's salary: Charged to the Consolidated Fund of India (like judges) — to insulate from annual budget votes
The constitutional design makes the Speaker's office both powerful and hard to remove — deliberate institutional engineering to ensure stability of the presiding officer. The Om Birla motion is the latest instance of Opposition using the constitutional mechanism available to signal dissatisfaction, even without mathematical hope of removal.
Anti-Defection Law: Speaker as Adjudicator (Tenth Schedule)
The Tenth Schedule of the Constitution, inserted by the 52nd Constitutional Amendment Act, 1985, provides for disqualification of members on grounds of defection. The Speaker of the Lok Sabha (and Chairman of Rajya Sabha) is the sole adjudicating authority for disqualification petitions under the Tenth Schedule — a role that has attracted criticism for compromising the Speaker's impartiality.
The allegation of partisan conduct against Speaker Om Birla is particularly resonant in the context of the Anti-Defection Law, where the Speaker's perceived impartiality matters enormously. It underscores a structural tension in Indian parliamentary democracy: the Speaker is simultaneously a political actor (party member, elected majority's choice) and a quasi-judicial adjudicator (Tenth Schedule decisions, ruling on bill admissibility).
Comparison: Speaker vs Rajya Sabha Chairman (Article 67)
The removal of the Rajya Sabha Chairman differs from the Lok Sabha Speaker's removal in one key structural respect:
The contrast highlights that the Lok Sabha Speaker's removal is entirely an internal House matter — the Rajya Sabha has no role, and the executive has no role. This makes it simultaneously more democratic (purely parliamentary) and less likely to succeed (requires the ruling majority to vote against its own chosen Speaker).
- Article 94(c): Speaker removal by effective majority of Lok Sabha (majority of all then members)
- Effective majority required in 18th Lok Sabha (543 seats): approximately 270+ votes
- 14-day advance notice: Mandatory before moving removal resolution (Article 94(c) proviso)
- Speaker's casting vote: Article 100(1) — no first-instance vote; casting vote only on equality
- Money Bill certification: Article 110 — Speaker's decision final
- Anti-Defection Law: Tenth Schedule, inserted by 52nd Amendment Act, 1985
- Kihoto Hollohan v. Zachillhu (1992): Speaker upheld as tribunal under Tenth Schedule; judicial review limited
- Historical removal motions: G.V. Mavalankar (1954), Hukum Singh (1966), Balram Jakhar (1987) — all failed; no Speaker ever removed
- Om Birla motion (2026): ~118 MPs signed; Lok Sabha failed to take up resolution
- Rajya Sabha Chairman removal: Article 67(b) — Rajya Sabha effective majority + Lok Sabha simple majority agreement (bicameral)
- Speaker's salary charged to: Consolidated Fund of India (Article 97)