‘The order of this court has to be followed. I am concerned about the dignity of our court. If someone feels that this was a stricture passed by a local court against a government servant, they are mistaken.’ These are the words of the Chief Justice of India, who felt despair over the inaction by the Maharashtra Assembly Speaker with respect to the disqualification petitions of its members that has been pending before him since July 2022. As the presiding officer of the Lok Sabha at the Centre and the Legislative Assembly in the States, the Speaker is required to act in an impartial manner. However, the functioning of this institution over the years in India has left much to be desired.
The office of the Speaker emerged in medieval Britain, when the House of Commons needed a spokesman in their dealings with the King. Until the 17th century, the Speaker was often seen as an agent of the Crown. However, since the middle of the 19th century, the Speaker has been considered to be an impartial Chairman of the House of Commons. They are the custodians of the rights and privileges of the House, its committees and its members.
Speaker conduct and gaps
Under the Indian Constitution, the Lok Sabha and Legislative Assemblies elect two of its members to be the Speaker and Deputy Speaker, respectively. Apart from the traditional roles with respect to the conduct of business, the Speakers perform two important functions: of certifying a Bill to be a Money Bill (over which the Rajya Sabha/Legislative Council have a limited role), and deciding on disqualification under the Tenth Schedule for defection.
The Lok Sabha and Legislative Assembly rules provide for suspension of members for misconduct in the House. It has been noticed that the Speakers and the Houses misuse these provisions more often than not against the Opposition members.
In a recent instance, the leader of the Congress party in the Lok Sabha, Adhir Ranjan Chowdhury, was swiftly suspended for his remarks against the Prime Minister (which was later revoked), but no swift action has been forthcoming against a member of the ruling Bharatiya Janata Party (BJP), Ramesh Bidhuri, for passing communal slurs against the Bahujan Samaj Party Member of Parliament, Danish Ali. There was also the case of the Maharashtra Assembly suspending 12 BJP MLAs unconstitutionally for a year in July 2021 that was later set aside by the Supreme Court of India.
The Speaker is the authority to refer Bills introduced to the Parliamentary Standing Committees. However, even significant Bills that require detailed scrutiny are not referred to such committees. As against more than 60% of Bills referred to committees in the Lok Sabha during 2004-14, less than 25% have been referred during 2014-2023. While such partisanship by Speakers affects robust parliamentary functioning, it is their role in deciding disqualification petitions that can derail the stability of elected governments.
The clairvoyance of French writer Jean-Baptiste Alphonse Karr who said ‘the more things change, the more they stay the same’ is hard to miss. It is a line that suits Indian politics even today, where our elected representatives find ingenious methods to circumvent the anti-defection law. The authority to decide on the disqualification of members under the Tenth Schedule is vested in the Speaker of the House. While he/she is expected to perform this constitutional role in a neutral manner, past instances have hardly inspired confidence, with the Speakers favouring the ruling dispensation.
The minority judges in Kihoto Hollohan (1992) were of the view that vesting the power to decide on defections with the Speaker violates the basic democratic principles. The Supreme Court in Keisham Meghachandra Singh vs The Honble Speaker Manipur (2020), recommended that Parliament amend the Constitution to vest these powers in an independent tribunal to be headed by judges. The present indictment of the Speaker of Maharashtra Assembly is also due to his continued inaction in deciding disqualification petitions for more than a year despite directions from the Court. Additionally, there have also been challenges in the Court in recent years against certification of certain Bills as a Money Bill by the Speaker of the Lok Sabha.
Once a Speaker, always a Speaker
The adage ‘what’s sauce for the goose is sauce for the gander’ reflects the role that a Speaker is expected to play. In Britain, the Speaker once elected to his/her office, resigns from the political party to which he/she belonged. In subsequent elections to the House of Commons, he/she seeks election not as a member of any political party but as ‘the Speaker seeking re-election’. This is to reflect his/her impartiality while presiding over the House. In the Indian Constitution, while the Tenth Schedule allows a Speaker (or Deputy Speaker) to resign from their political party on being elected to their office, it has been never done by any Speaker till date.
Considering that they are also constitutional functionaries who enjoy certain privileges, the higher judiciary is constrained ‘to go thus far and no further’, while dealing with the issues relating to Speakers. It is important that we adopt the practices as in Britain to instil confidence in the office of the Speaker. However, even till such time, it is imperative that Speakers eschew the ‘impropriety’ in their functioning and demonstrate ‘impartiality’. It is time the Speakers take a ‘vow’ to display the latter in the discharge of their functions, in consonance with sound democratic practices.
Rangarajan R. is a former Indian Administrative Service (IAS) officer. He currently trains civil service aspirants. The views expressed are personal
