Q. “Once a speaker, Always a speaker’! Do you think the practice should be adopted to impart objectivity to the office of the Speaker of Lok Sabha? What could be its implications for the robust functioning of parliamentary business in India.
Ans:
The speaker of Lok Sabha in India is the chief parliamentary officer of the Lower House of Indian Parliament. The Speaker is elected by the House from among its members as soon as a new House of the People is formed after the general election. The office of speaker is considered to be guardian of the lower house,he maintains decorum,discipline and effective running of parliamentary business. The Constitution had entrusted the Speaker with the power to disqualify an MLA to maintain sanctity and purity of polity of the House.
[For a quality content, focused preparation and Quick updates, Join our new telegram channel]
In the UK, there is a convention that once a speaker, always a speaker. It means that a speaker’s constituency remain unchallenged during election. Further, once a person is appointed as a speaker he gives formal resignation from his political party. But in India there is no such convention.
Although in India, there are provisions to ensure Independence and Impartiality of speaker. e.g.
- Speaker is provided with a security of tenure.
- His salaries and allowances are fixed by Parliament. They are charged on the Consolidated Fund of India.
- His work and conduct cannot be discussed and criticised in the Lok Sabha except on a substantive motion.
- Powers of regulating procedure or conducting business or maintaining order in the House are not subject to the jurisdiction of any Court.
- Only exercise a casting vote in the event of a tie. This makes the position of Speaker impartial.
- He is given a very high position in the order of precedence. He is placed at seventh rank, along with the Chief Justice of India.
However, in recent time, there has been cases when many decisions of the speaker have been criticised for being partial and biased. e.g.
- Delay the decision making regarding disqualification of MLAs under anti-defection law in Manipur and Andhra Pradesh.
- 16 MLAs in the Arunachal Pradesh Assembly were disqualified by the Speaker, Nabam Rebia, in 2016 despite not officially leaving the party or defying its directives.
- Certifying bills such as Aadhaar Bill etc. as Money Bill, though it may not have met the strict criteria laid out in the Constitution,
- The farm Bills were passed by a voice vote despite opposition MPs asking for a division vote.
- Indian Speakers have held ministerial positions immediately before and after their term. Thus, it is not surprising that the Speakers in India have been blamed for partisanship.
Experts say that there is intrinsic paradox in the office of speaker, as the Speaker continues to belong to a particular political party and is dependent on his or her political party for re-election. There is no security in the continuity of office.
Thus, to impart the neutrality to the Speaker, the British convention of of ‘Once a speaker, Always a speaker’ may be adopted in which political parties do not field a candidate against the Speaker at the time of general elections. And the Speaker can continue in office, until deciding otherwise.
Its implications for the robust functioning of parliamentary business:
- With security in the continuity of office, the Speaker’s dependency on his or her political party will be eliminated. This will make the Speaker un-susceptible to pulls and pressures from her/his political party in the conduct of the proceedings of the Lok Sabha.
- It may address the accusation of speaker being prejudice and the problem of partisanship to a great extent.
- Effective implementation of anti-defection law can be ensured by uprightness of speaker. The persistent issue of defection can be addressed to a great extent.
- Unparliamentary conducts like disruptions etc. can be significantly reduced as speaker’s biased role in considered as one of the reason behind the disruptions in the house. Further, the Speakers’ reluctance to take action against disorderly members could potentially be reduced.
- It will increase the quality of discussion and that in turn will have positive impact on the policies and law enactment.
- It will also ensure that relevant bills are sent to parliamentary committees to further indepth deliberations. The instances of certifying other bills as money bill can also be reduced. Thus it will enhance the quality of law making
- Overall, it will further boost the people’s confidence and trust the parliamentary democracy.
Further, some other steps has also been advocated by many:
- The Speaker can also gives up the membership of his/her political party, like done in British convention.
- Administrative Reforms Commission’s Report titled ‘Ethics in Governance’ and various other expert committees have recommended that the issue of disqualification of members on grounds of defection should be decided by the President/Governor on the advice of the Election Commission.
- As said by the Supreme Court, unless there were “exceptional circumstances”, disqualification petitions under the Tenth Schedule should be decided by Speakers within three months.
- Increasing transparency in his decision-making process to increase trust in the Speaker. For instance, decisions by Speakers should be made available to the public.
A watchful Parliament forms the foundation of a well-functioning democracy and the presiding officers therefore, are the key to securing the effectiveness of this institution. All the required steps to strengthen the office can be taken without any delay. ©crackingcivilservices.com
