The Opposition has moved a no-confidence motion against Lok Sabha Speaker Om Birla, more than a year after a similar attempt was made to bring a motion against the then Rajya Sabha chairman Jagdeep Dhankhar.
If admitted, this would be the fourth such motion in independent India seeking the removal of a Lok Sabha Speaker, although none of the earlier attempts have succeeded. The first no-confidence motion against a Speaker was in 1954. G.V. Mavalankar was the speaker then.
The development follows escalating tensions between the government and the Opposition over the conduct of parliamentary proceedings and disciplinary action against members. Relations between the two sides had deteriorated after the Leader of the Opposition raised issues linked to former Army chief M. M. Naravane’s unpublished book, in which he is said to have described events and conversations with the political leadership during the Chinese advance in Galwan. The present motion carries the signatures of 118 MPs.
In December 2024, Opposition parties had initiated a no-confidence motion against Dhankhar, accusing him of preventing Opposition leaders from speaking in the Rajya Sabha and of functioning in a partisan manner. The motion was not taken up because of procedural and technical reasons. Dhankhar later resigned, citing health concerns, although political observers pointed to reported differences with sections of the government and suggested a possible political context. His departure created an unusual institutional moment as impeachment-related parliamentary processes and other procedural matters were underway in the Upper House.
Opposition parties have listed multiple grievances against Birla. The Congress has argued that Rahul Gandhi was not given enough opportunity to speak in the Lok Sabha and that several Opposition MPs were suspended for protesting.
Party sources also cited claims suggesting that women MPs posed a security or personal threat to the prime minister as part of the broader dispute. The Congress described the situation as a serious erosion of Parliamentary norms and said the Leader of the Opposition holds a stature comparable to a shadow prime minister, making restrictions on his participation a violation of parliamentary fairness.
Parties in the INDIA bloc have framed the motion as a defence of Parliamentary functioning rather than a purely political exercise, arguing that repeated suspensions, curtailed debate and selective enforcement of rules have reduced space for dissent and weakened legislative scrutiny.
Government sources maintain that the Speaker has acted within parliamentary rules and that disruptions by Opposition members necessitated disciplinary action to ensure the House functions.
Removal of a Lok Sabha Speaker is governed by Article 94 of the Constitution, which requires at least 14 days’ written notice and support from a minimum of 50 members for the motion to be taken up. During consideration of such a resolution, the Speaker does not preside over the house and the Chair is taken by the deputy speaker or another designated presiding officer. Given the numerical majority held by the ruling party and its allies, the motion is widely viewed as unlikely to succeed.
Historically, such resolutions have carried symbolic and political weight rather than resulting in removal. Previous attempts against Mavalankar in 1954, Sardar Hukam Singh in 1966 and Balram Jakhar in 1987 were all unsuccessful, and no Lok Sabha Speaker has ever been removed through this constitutional process.
Even without realistic prospects of passage, the present motion underscores a deepening institutional confrontation between the government and the Opposition.
