Context Setting

As you may already be aware, the role of a chairperson/chairman/CEO/speaker in private firms, local government bodies, or committees is significant within democratic societies. In our constitution, we have three assemblies where our representatives (whether elected directly or indirectly by the common people) convene to operate our democracy.

India is a federal democracy, which means the power to govern the people is shared between one nation and its multiple states/provinces. At the national level, we have two assemblies:

1. Lok Sabha or Lower House (members elected by common people).

2. Rajya Sabha or Upper House (members elected by members of state legislatures).

At the state level, we have state legislatures.

3. State Legislative (members elected by common people).

Each of these assemblies has a speaker/chairperson, a position defined in our constitution and thus considered a constitutional designation.

A constitutional designation implies impartiality and equal treatment for all. However, in recent years, these chairpersons (at the national or state level) have made decisions that were not viewed as democratic. This has prompted discussions about their role and function in a democratic society.

These three designations function somewhat similarly, so we will refer primarily to Lok Sabha, but the same principles can be applied to State Legislative and Rajya Sabha.

In Article 93 of our constitution, the definition of the head of Lok Sabha, the Speaker, is provided, while the definition of the head of the state legislative assembly, the Speaker, is outlined in Article 178, and the head of Rajya Sabha, the Chairperson, is defined in Article 89.

Concerns Over the Speaker's Conduct and Power

Under the Indian Constitution, members of the Lok Sabha and Legislative Assembly elect two of their members as the Speaker and Deputy Speaker, respectively. Apart from overseeing the proceedings of the assembly and conducting general business to ensure its smooth functioning, the Speaker holds two crucial functions:

1. They can certify a bill as a Money Bill (though the Rajya Sabha and the states have limited influence over it).

2. They decide on the disqualification of members of their houses, meaning the Speaker can suspend assembly members.

Case 1: The decision of disqualification, which rests with the Speakers, does not seem proper. Let's understand this with an example:

In Lok Sabha, with over 530+ seats, Speakers are chosen from among these 530+ seats. Suppose a party "A" has 300+ seats, there's a high probability that the Speaker of the House will be a member of the party "A." If elected as Speaker, their decisions may be inclined towards the benefit of their party and its members.This is a trend we've observed for many years. Currently, the BJP is in power with a majority, and the Speaker is from the BJP. A BJP MP made a communally insensitive speech to a Bahujan Samaj Party MP, and nothing happened to him, while a Congress MP was suspended by the order of Speaker over a remark to Prime Minister Narendra Modi.

Similarly, in the Maharashtra State Assembly, 12 BJP MLAs were unconstitutionally suspended for a year in July 2021, this decision was later overturned by the Supreme Court.

Disqualification petitions have been pending against the Maharashtra Speaker for a year without resolution, as the Speaker has sole authority in these decisions. The Supreme Court has issued multiple orders, but no action has been taken.

Disqualifying members without proper reason and keeping them out of the assembly goes against the basic sentiments of a federal society, and action must be taken to address this issue.

Case 2: Constitutional or Legislative Bills

The Speaker is the key figure in the house but cannot operate alone. Therefore, they are granted the power to establish various committees (comprising members outside the house) and seek their assistance as needed. For example, committees like the Business Advisory Committee, the General Purposes Committee, and the Rules Committee work directly under the Speaker's guidance.When introducing a bill in the House, it is sometimes necessary to thoroughly analyze it, so the Speaker sends it to various committees. However, in recent years, even complex bills have been passed with a majority without consulting experts on these committees.

Between 2004 and 2014, 65% of bills were referred to parliamentary committees, compared to only 25% between 2014 and 2023. With less discussion and scrutiny of bills, this does not contribute to strengthening our democracy.

The Way Forward

As our Speaker is a part of the house members, they may be inclined when making decisions. In the structure of the British House of Commons, representatives are also members of the house but resign from their party once elected as Speaker, never rejoining any party, which presents a more democratic image.

On the other hand, various bodies, including the Supreme Court, have recommended to the Indian government to amend the constitution to establish an independent tribunal body and transfer these powers from the Speakers to it. This change has yet to occur.

Until then, it is up to the Speakers themselves to demonstrate impartiality within the assembly and keep the decorum of assemblies.