<p>While the Opposition’s no-confidence motion against Lok Sabha Speaker Om Birla is certain to fail, considering the treasury benches’ preponderance in numbers, the fate of the motion must not take the attention away from the central issue. </p><p>The conduct of the Speaker has not conformed to the best norms to be followed by presiding officers and the precedents set by some of Birla’s distinguished predecessors. His actions during the ongoing session may have been the immediate trigger for the non-confidence motion, but the Opposition parties have even in the past expressed apprehensions about the way he managed the House. It is the responsibility of the presiding officer to ensure that the proceedings are fair and follow the best traditions of parliamentary democracy. Birla has been found wanting on these counts, and the Opposition’s response draws on valid concerns.</p>.<p>Questions have been raised on the Speaker’s decision not to allow the Leader of the Opposition Rahul Gandhi to cite in his speech excerpts from an unpublished memoir by former Chief of Army Staff General M M Naravane. Gandhi has the right to refer to observations made by a former Army chief, which were relevant to the issue of national security that figured in the President’s address. While the rules restrict members from reading material except in connection with the business of the House, the absence of an absolute ban and the provision for members to quote from written material if they authenticate the content should have served as a go-ahead for Gandhi. The best parliamentary traditions demanded that the LoP was not prevented from speaking. Birla’s decision to advise Prime Minister Narendra Modi not to be at the House – for his reply to the motion of thanks on the President’s address – is also contentious. The Speaker said he had credible information about members of the Opposition having planned “unexpected” conduct, hinting at the possibility of an attack on the Prime Minister by women members. If the information about a threat to the Prime Minister’s safety was authentic, the Speaker should have taken action or alerted the relevant agencies about the input. Ensuring the Prime Minister’s absence from the House was not the appropriate response.</p>.<p>Standards of parliamentary debate and conduct have deteriorated over the years. Both the government and the Opposition are responsible for this decline. But the drift becomes starker when presiding officers fail to act impartially and independently, and brazenly violate the best norms and conventions that should guide their conduct.</p>
<p>While the Opposition’s no-confidence motion against Lok Sabha Speaker Om Birla is certain to fail, considering the treasury benches’ preponderance in numbers, the fate of the motion must not take the attention away from the central issue. </p><p>The conduct of the Speaker has not conformed to the best norms to be followed by presiding officers and the precedents set by some of Birla’s distinguished predecessors. His actions during the ongoing session may have been the immediate trigger for the non-confidence motion, but the Opposition parties have even in the past expressed apprehensions about the way he managed the House. It is the responsibility of the presiding officer to ensure that the proceedings are fair and follow the best traditions of parliamentary democracy. Birla has been found wanting on these counts, and the Opposition’s response draws on valid concerns.</p>.<p>Questions have been raised on the Speaker’s decision not to allow the Leader of the Opposition Rahul Gandhi to cite in his speech excerpts from an unpublished memoir by former Chief of Army Staff General M M Naravane. Gandhi has the right to refer to observations made by a former Army chief, which were relevant to the issue of national security that figured in the President’s address. While the rules restrict members from reading material except in connection with the business of the House, the absence of an absolute ban and the provision for members to quote from written material if they authenticate the content should have served as a go-ahead for Gandhi. The best parliamentary traditions demanded that the LoP was not prevented from speaking. Birla’s decision to advise Prime Minister Narendra Modi not to be at the House – for his reply to the motion of thanks on the President’s address – is also contentious. The Speaker said he had credible information about members of the Opposition having planned “unexpected” conduct, hinting at the possibility of an attack on the Prime Minister by women members. If the information about a threat to the Prime Minister’s safety was authentic, the Speaker should have taken action or alerted the relevant agencies about the input. Ensuring the Prime Minister’s absence from the House was not the appropriate response.</p>.<p>Standards of parliamentary debate and conduct have deteriorated over the years. Both the government and the Opposition are responsible for this decline. But the drift becomes starker when presiding officers fail to act impartially and independently, and brazenly violate the best norms and conventions that should guide their conduct.</p>
