AS of February 2026, the political dynamics surrounding Lok Sabha Speaker Om Birla are highly charged, characterised by a major showdown between the ruling NDA government and the opposition.
Over 120 opposition MPs submitted a notice to remove Birla, alleging he acted in a “blatantly partisan manner,” denied floor time to the Leader of the Opposition (Rahul Gandhi), and suspended opposition members. Om Birla announced he would refrain from presiding over the House proceedings until the no-confidence motion against him is resolved, tasking the Secretary-General with managing the situation. It would hardly make a difference because the NDA holds a fateful majority and are not in the habit of making principled political gestures.
The opposition specifically highlighted the prevention of the Leader of the Opposition from quoting a former Army chief’s memoir regarding the 2020 Galwan Valley clash. But this was not Om Birla’s unprincipled actions. This move stems from intense, ongoing disputes regarding the management of Parliamentary proceedings, frequent adjournments, and accusations that the speaker is favouring the ruling party.
I write in a mood of pessimism. While 118 opposition members signed the motion, it faces a tough path due to numbers, with analysts suggesting such moves are often symbolic or designed to highlight parliamentary issues. The situation highlights a deep, ongoing rift between the government and the opposition regarding the neutrality of the Speaker’s chair. The Ruling alliance is not known to be faithful to serious democratic traditions where issues are resolved by dialogue. Scenes in the Parliament show two deeply antagonistic parties in an asymmetric struggle to achieve the highest of democratic standards. The PM is hardly, if ever, present. The kind of contempt for Parliament he has displayed is unprecedented.
Unlike Om Birla, India can proudly claim that our Parliament has had several Speakers who have left an indelible mark on Indian parliamentary history through their, impartiality, procedural innovations, and strict maintenance of decorum.
Ganesh Vasudev Mavalankar (1952–1956), fondly remembered as ‘Dadasaheb’ and hailed by Jawaharlal Nehru as the “Father of the Lok Sabha” was Parliament’s first-ever Speaker. He pioneered the highest standards and principles. He established the rules, procedures, conventions, and customs that formed the foundation of the Indian Parliament.
He created an Independent Secretariat and asserted the need for an independent Lok Sabha Secretariat, accountable only to the Speaker, ensuring the legislature’s autonomy from the executive. He regularised the ‘Question Hour’, strengthening the accountability of the government and even innovated measures such ‘Half-an-Hour’ discussions and ‘Short Notice Questions’. These devices kept both Government and the Opposition on their toes.
Balram Jakhar (1980–1989) was the longest-serving Speaker of the Lok Sabha, serving two consecutive terms. Known for his strict, yet fair handling of the House and his efforts to modernise parliamentary functions. he presided over the House during the enactment of the Anti-Defection Law (1985). He promoted the digitisation of library, reference, research, and documentation services for MPs. It must be asked if many of our MPs even know such an entity exists, and, if so, do they use them. His remarkable stature made him the first Asian to be elected Chairman of the Commonwealth Parliamentarian Executive Forum.
Then came the formidable Somnath Chatterjee (2004–2009) who was regarded as a “People’s Speaker” who took the institution closer to the public. Known for his strong belief in the autonomy of the Chair and his strict stance on parliamentary decorum, he launched the Lok Sabha Television Channel (LSTV) in May 2006, presided over the chaotic 2008 trust vote, where he expressed immense anguish, calling it the “worst day of his parliamentary career” when MPs flashed money in the House.
In a rare move for a speaker, he refused to resign from his position when his party (CPI-M) withdrew support from the UPA government, stating the Speaker belongs to the House.
The first Speaker to come from the Opposition was P. A. Sangma (1996–1998) known for his eloquence and his ability to conduct the House with consensus, particularly during a volatile coalition government. The Golden Jubilee Session to mark the 50th anniversary of India’s Independence, was pioneering because it set a national agenda for the future.
Neelam Sanjiva Reddy (1967–1969 & 1977) was known for his proactive approach in asserting the authority of the Speaker. Upon his election, he resigned from his political party, establishing a model of non-partisanship. He allowed a No-Confidence motion to be taken up on the same day as the President’s address, prioritising urgent parliamentary business over traditions.
G. M. C. Balayogi (1998–2002) was the first Dalit leader to occupy the Chair. And was known for his efforts to improve the training of lawmakers and for managing the house during critical political junctures. He was the first to emphasise that regular, forced adjournments lowered the dignity of the house and encouraged more substantive discussions.
Between Mavlankar and today, the optics stand as a fall-from-grace. Mavlankar was the epitome of the highest political values. A few of those who followed may have impacted a few dimensions. But the recent state of affairs only illustrates to the NDAs stubborn refusal to even display a glimpse of fairness and allow the Speaker to play his neutral umpire. Today, the Speaker can ‘Red-Card’ any member of Parliament without justification. It empties Parliament of its integrity and empties the meaning of democracy. The Speaker is viewed as a mere errand-person of the government and the people will pay the price while the government will rule in comfort convinced that they rule the roost.
Earlier, even in BJP times, we had Pramod Mahajan and other Ministers of Parliamentary Affairs, relate across the aisle building consensus. Mahajan was known for having “hardly any foes” despite intense political differences. As Parliamentary Affairs minister, his capability to build bridges with ideological adversaries was considered a key strength, allowing the government to navigate complex legislative issues. He was viewed as a “modernizer of Indian politics” and a “master of parliamentary affairs”. His effectiveness stemmed from his ability to manage the diverse interests of the coalition partners in the NDA. He was a close aide to both Vajpayee and L.K. Advani, often managing difficult situations within the house. His, and others’, efforts in managing the floor helped the government avoid major crises during its tenure.
He was known for his wit and charm, often using his personality to diffuse tension in Parliament, sometimes leaving the House in splits with his, at times, unconventional explanations. Mahajan often met opposition leaders informally to ensure smooth parliamentary proceedings. His tenure is considered a high point in the management of coalition politics in India, characterized by a pragmatic, “never-say-die” attitude and a focus on keeping the government running smoothly.
As of February 2026, and in stark contrast to Mahajan, the current Minister for Parliamentary, Kiren Rijiju has taken a confrontational stance, engaging in direct conflicts with opposition leaders, particularly in the Lok Sabha. Rijiju has accused Congress MPs of abusing him and Prime Minister Modi, and has released video clips to support claims of opposition members barging into the Speaker’s chamber. As recently as February 2026 budget session, Rijiju moved the motion to suspend eight opposition MPs for the entire session, citing “unruly behaviour” and the throwing of papers at the chair. Rijiju’s actions have been described by the opposition as “one-sided” and an attempt to stifle dissent, while he maintains his actions are necessary to protect the dignity of the House.
India yearns for and deserves a Mavalankar who essential in transitioning India from a revolutionary movement to a constitutional, rules-based democracy. Mahajan was a quintessential “troubleshooter” for the NDA coalition government. He was known for bringing together diverse, often opposing, political parties to pass landmark legislation.
Critics argue that the Speaker has frequently muted the microphones of opposition leaders, denied them opportunities to speak (particularly Leader of Opposition Rahul Gandhi), and allowed ruling party members to make personal attacks on opposition leaders.
Critics suggest his actions as Speaker are aligned with the political strategy of the top leadership. The tensions followed disruptions in the House did not allowing proper debate. His dubious decision to allow the Prime Minister to address the House while passing the Motion of Thanks is unconvincing. This is a highly contentious period in our history and a grave decline in parliamentary standards.
The question doing the rounds is will Om Birla step down to allow for a fresh election, a new face, and someone of impeccable political principles?
_____________
Ranjan Solomon is a writer, researcher and activist based in Goa. He has worked in social movements since he was 19 years of age. The views expressed here are the author’s own and Clarion India does not necessarily share or subscribe to them. He can be contacted at ranjan.solomon@gmail.com
