House decorum: on the functioning of Parliament

The Lok Sabha rejected by voice vote, on March 11, a resolution under Article 94(C) of the Constitution for the removal of Lok Sabha Speaker Om Birla from office, but only after a hostile debate on the functioning of the House deepened the wedge between the government and the Opposition. In principle, Parliament is the foundation of representative democracy, and its routine functions act as an instrument that holds the cabinet accountable. As a forum for government-Opposition interaction, it is meant to operate in a structured, methodical way. Single-party dominance has eroded all these formal and informal functions of legislatures at all levels, and the Lok Sabha, sadly, has become a platform for political partisanship. In recent years, the chairs of the Lok Sabha and the Rajya Sabha have been dragged into political conflict. In 2024, there was an Opposition resolution to remove Jagdeep Dhankhar as Rajya Sabha Chairman. Though the resolution did not pass, he resigned as Vice-President for unexplained reasons. The Opposition has raised concerns over the Lok Sabha’s functioning, but what precipitated their protest into a formal resolution for Mr. Birla’s removal was, possibly, his statement that he had confidential knowledge that Congress women MPs might act against Prime Minister Narendra Modi on the House floor.

Opposition MPs are routinely denied the opportunity to raise substantive issues, though the government cites statistics in its rebuttal. The Speaker had disallowed Leader of the Opposition (Lok Sabha) Rahul Gandhi from quoting former Army Chief M.M. Naravane’s unpublished memoir, which discusses Prime Minister Narendra Modi’s role in the 2020 military standoff with China. The microphones of Opposition MPs are frequently switched off during debates. The Opposition has pointed out that in February, Mr. Gandhi was interrupted 20 times while speaking during the Motion of Thanks to the President’s Address and also blocked from raising the Gautam Adani investigation issue in the U.S. and the EU-U.S. trade deal. The government argued that the Opposition was given 56% of Zero Hour time, and that NDA MPs, despite their majority, received 321 supplementary questions against the Opposition’s 364 during his tenure. Home Minister Amit Shah said that the House’s productivity during Mr. Birla’s tenure had been high and that it had debated in 14 regional languages. Mr. Shah also cornered Mr. Gandhi for being frequently absent from the House. The resolution and the debate manifested a deeply fractured polity in need of urgent corrective measures. The ruling majority and the Opposition must rise above partisanship and restore the majesty of Parliament.

Overall Analysis

This editorial reflects on the declining standards of debate and institutional functioning in India’s Parliament following a failed attempt to remove the Speaker of the Lok Sabha. The resolution, moved under Article 94 of the Constitution to remove Om Birla, was rejected by voice vote, but the debate surrounding it revealed deep political divisions between the government and the Opposition.

The editorial begins by emphasizing the fundamental role of Parliament in a representative democracy. Ideally, it should serve as a structured forum where the government is held accountable by the Opposition through debates, questions, and legislative scrutiny. However, the author argues that increasing dominance by a single political party has weakened these democratic practices. Instead of functioning as a neutral space for policy discussion, Parliament has increasingly become a stage for political confrontation and partisanship.

The article then places the controversy in a broader institutional context. It notes that parliamentary presiding officers have increasingly been drawn into political disputes. For instance, a similar attempt was earlier made to remove Jagdeep Dhankhar as the Chairman of the Rajya Sabha. Although that motion failed, the episode reflected growing tensions in parliamentary functioning. In the present case, the Opposition’s anger escalated after the Speaker claimed he had confidential information that women MPs from the Indian National Congress might stage a protest against Narendra Modi inside the House. Such remarks, the editorial suggests, intensified mistrust between the two sides.

The second half of the editorial focuses on procedural concerns raised by the Opposition. It claims that Opposition MPs are often prevented from raising significant issues in the House. The editorial cites instances involving Rahul Gandhi, who was reportedly stopped from quoting former Army Chief M. M. Naravane regarding the 2020 India–China military standoff. There are also allegations that microphones of Opposition MPs are switched off during debates, limiting their ability to speak. The government, however, counters these accusations with statistics suggesting that the Opposition has received substantial speaking time and opportunities for questions during parliamentary proceedings.

By presenting both sides of the argument, the editorial shows that the issue is not merely procedural but reflects a broader crisis of political trust. The conflict demonstrates how intense political polarization has begun to undermine parliamentary norms and conventions. The article concludes by warning that the health of India’s democracy depends on restoring mutual respect and decorum in Parliament. Both the ruling party and the Opposition must move beyond partisan conflicts and work toward preserving the dignity and effectiveness of the institution.

Important Vocabulary (5)

1. Decorum – proper behavior and respect for rules in a formal setting.
2. Partisanship – strong, often biased support for a particular political party or group.
3. Rebuttal – a response that argues against or disproves a claim.
4. Precipitated – caused something to happen suddenly or earlier than expected.
5. Fractured – deeply divided or broken into opposing groups.

Conclusion & Tone

The editorial argues that the controversy surrounding the Speaker’s removal reflects deeper problems in the functioning of Parliament, including growing polarization and declining respect for institutional norms. It calls on both the government and the Opposition to restore cooperation, transparency, and dignity in parliamentary proceedings.

Tone: Critical, concerned, and cautionary.