No-Confidence Motion Against Lok Sabha Speaker (Om Birla) — Detailed UPSC Analysis
The Opposition’s move to bring a removal resolution against Lok Sabha Speaker Om Birla under Article 94(c) is significant because it tests the constitutional design for Speaker’s accountability while also underlining the Speaker’s central role in protecting fairness, debate, and rules-based functioning of Parliament. The issue is UPSC-relevant for Indian Polity (Parliament), constitutional provisions on the Speaker, and governance themes like neutrality of constitutional/legislative authorities and democratic deliberation.
What happened and why it is in the news
On 10 February 2026, the Congress-led Opposition submitted a notice to move a resolution seeking the Speaker’s removal, alleging partisan conduct and bias in managing House proceedings.
Reports indicated the notice had signatures/support from roughly 118–120 MPs across Opposition parties, while some parties, such as the TMC, initially held back, indicating a cautious approach.
Allegations cited (as reported)
The Opposition’s reported grounds include restrictions on debate (including claims that the Leader of Opposition and others were not given adequate opportunity to speak), objections to certain statements attributed to the Chair, suspension of Opposition MPs during the Budget Session, and grievances about the handling of allegedly objectionable remarks by a ruling-party MP.
For UPSC answers, treat these as the political triggers, but focus your analysis on the constitutional process, the institutional role of the Speaker, and safeguards to prevent misuse by either side.
Constitutional position of the Speaker (UPSC core)
The Speaker is not just a presiding officer; the office is pivotal to ensuring orderly proceedings, protecting minority rights in debate, and maintaining the dignity of the House.
While the Speaker belongs to a political party, the constitutional expectation is functional impartiality—decisions on recognition to speak, acceptance of notices, admissibility of motions, and maintenance of decorum shape democratic deliberation.
Article 94(c): Removal of Speaker—meaning and threshold
Article 94(c) provides that the Speaker (or Deputy Speaker) may be removed by a resolution of the Lok Sabha passed by a majority of all the then members of the House.
This is commonly described as an effective majority—a stringent standard because it is tied to the total current strength (“then members”), not merely the majority of members present and voting at that moment.
Why the “effective majority” matters
Because the bar is high, it prevents frequent or frivolous attempts to destabilize the presiding office.
At the same time, it ensures removal remains possible where a large portion of the House believes the Speaker’s conduct has undermined the office’s neutrality.
Procedural requirements: notice, admission, and debate
1) Mandatory 14-day notice
A written notice of at least 14 days is required before the resolution can be moved.
This “cooling-off” period creates time for political consultation, public scrutiny, and preparation, and it reduces the possibility of sudden disruption of parliamentary business.
2) Support threshold: “50 members rising”
When such a motion is taken up, at least 50 members must rise in their seats in support for the motion to be admitted/proceed for discussion.
This is a gatekeeping step: it ensures the House’s time is not consumed unless there is a minimum demonstrated support on the floor.
3) Voting and passage
If admitted and debated, passage requires the constitutionally mandated majority of all then members (effective majority).
In practice, the outcome usually hinges on the ruling coalition’s strength and party discipline because the government side typically supports the Speaker.
Article 96: What happens when a removal motion is pending
Article 96 provides that while a resolution for removal of the Speaker is under consideration, the Speaker does not preside over the House.
However, the Speaker may be present, participate, and vote in the first instance (but not exercise a casting vote in a tie), which aims to balance fairness in presiding with the Speaker’s membership rights as an elected MP.
Political arithmetic: why such motions rarely succeed
A key contextual point is history: reporting indicates that no motion to remove a Lok Sabha Speaker has ever succeeded.
Given the NDA’s reported strength of 293 (above the simple majority mark of 272), the Opposition’s motion is widely seen as unlikely to pass unless there is significant cross-voting or major alliance shifts.
Historical and comparative perspective (exam-friendly)
India has witnessed attempts/resolutions to remove Speakers earlier, but they have been defeated or not taken up, underscoring how demanding the procedure is and how tightly the office is linked to the House majority.
This is relevant for UPSC because it shows the difference between formal accountability mechanisms (exist on paper) and practical enforceability (depends on numbers and political incentives).
Governance and democratic implications (Mains value-add)
1) Speaker’s neutrality and legitimacy
If a Speaker is perceived as partisan, it can reduce trust in parliamentary processes—especially in decisions on who speaks, what is admitted, and how disorder is handled.
Even when a motion is unlikely to pass, it can act as a political signal and a pressure mechanism to restore procedural fairness.
2) Speed vs deliberation in parliamentary functioning
Frequent disruptions and suspensions intensify the debate on whether Houses are functioning as deliberative forums or as battlegrounds for messaging.
UPSC angle: link this to parliamentary productivity, quality of debate, committee work, and the role of institutions in mediating conflict.
3) Checks and balances within the legislature
Removal under Article 94(c) is an internal legislative check (the House checks its presiding officer).
But the high threshold means accountability is strongly “majority-dependent,” raising questions on how minority rights are protected when partisan polarization is high.
What to write in Prelims notes
- Speaker removal: Article 94(c).
- Presiding restriction during consideration: Article 96.
- Procedural highlights: 14-day notice, 50 members rising.
- Exam caution: effective majority = “majority of all the then members.”
What to write in Mains (ready points)
- Constitutional basis and rationale for high thresholds (stability + legitimacy).
- Importance of Speaker’s neutrality for deliberative democracy and opposition rights.
- Limits of the removal mechanism due to coalition arithmetic and party discipline.
- Need for stronger conventions and transparency in decision-making by the Chair to preserve institutional credibility.
FAQs
Q1. Under which Article can the Lok Sabha Speaker be removed?
Under Article 94(c) of the Constitution.
Q2. What majority is required to remove the Speaker?
A majority of all the then members of the Lok Sabha (effective majority).
Q3. Is prior notice compulsory for moving such a resolution?
Yes, a minimum 14-day written notice is required.
Q4. Why is “50 members rising” important?
It is the minimum floor-support test typically used to decide whether the motion will be admitted/proceed for discussion.
Q5. Can the Speaker preside while the removal motion is being considered?
No, Article 96 bars the Speaker from presiding during consideration of the removal resolution, though the Speaker can be present and vote in the first instance.
Q6. Have such motions succeeded in India earlier?
Reporting indicates no motion to remove a Lok Sabha Speaker has ever succeeded.
