After the conclusion of the 2024 Lok Sabha elections and the election of Om Birla as the Speaker of the Lok Sabha, a crucial constitutional question looms at the outset of the 18th Lok Sabha. The appointment of the Deputy Speaker, stipulated under Article 93 of the Constitution, now stands pending. Will this delay mark another term where the parliamentary framework is without a mandated constitutional office, potentially contradicting the explicit provisions of Article 93?
The election of the Deputy Speaker is far from a mere procedural step. It brings to the forefront critical concerns regarding constitutional adherence, democratic ideals, and the effective operation of India’s parliamentary framework. Upon reviewing constitutional provisions and established norms, it becomes unequivocally clear that the prompt election of this crucial position cannot be overlooked or delayed.
Article 93 of the Constitution of India explicitly states: “The House of the People shall expeditiously elect two of its members as Speaker and Deputy Speaker.” The inclusion of the term “shall” in Article 93 carries substantial weight, indicating a mandatory obligation rather than discretionary authority. In legal education, the fundamental difference between “may” and “shall” underscores this critical distinction.
During the Constituent Assembly debates, Dr. B R Ambedkar underscored the significance of these positions. On May 19, 1949, he remarked, “The Speaker and the deputy speaker are crucial to parliamentary democracy. Hence, the Constitution meticulously outlines their election, removal and responsibilities” (Constituent Assembly Debates, Vol. VIII).
The phrase “as soon as may be” in Article 93 highlights the urgency and significance attached to these elections. While it allows for flexibility in timing to accommodate practical considerations, it does not permit indefinite postponement or the neglect of conducting the election altogether. Rule 8 of the Rules of Procedure and Conduct of Business of Lok Sabha outlines the procedure for electing the Deputy Speaker. Since 1952, starting with M A Ayyangar, Deputy Speakers have been elected for each term of the Lok Sabha until 2014. However, since May 25, 2019, there has been a notable and abrupt departure from this long standing parliamentary tradition.
There have been arguments suggesting that the phrase “as soon as may be” in Article 93 allows for the separate election of the Speaker and Deputy Speaker. However, this interpretation goes against both the spirit and the explicit wording of the Constitution. Article 93 clearly intends for the election of both roles to be conducted as part of a unified process. The inclusion of the term “respectively” further solidifies this interpretation, indicating that both positions should be filled concurrently. While practical considerations may necessitate a slight delay, such as a gap of perhaps a week, this does not contradict the essence of Article 93.
Article 93 must be interpreted broadly, not narrowly. The Supreme Court has underscored the significance of adhering to constitutional provisions in both their literal wording and their intended spirit. It is established legal doctrine that the Constitution’s provisions should not be construed narrowly or pedantically.
It is essential to emphasise that no tradition, precedent, convention, or historical deviation can supersede a clear constitutional directive like that outlined in Article 93 regarding the election of the Deputy Speaker. The Deputy Speaker plays a pivotal role beyond ceremonial duties, serving as a vital pillar of parliamentary democracy. When the Speaker is unavailable, the deputy speaker steps in to uphold the continuity of legislative operations.
As the potential stand-in for the Speaker, the deputy speaker bears the same responsibility as the Speaker in safeguarding the rights and privileges of the House, its members, and committees. The absence of a Deputy Speaker thus undermines the institutional framework of Parliament and hampers its effectiveness.
In their book, “Practice and Procedure of Parliament,” published by the Lok Sabha Secretariat, M N Kaul and S L Shakdher characterises the Speaker, and by extension the deputy speaker, as the moral compass and protector of the House, embodying its collective voice. Importantly, when presiding over sessions, the Deputy Speaker holds authority on par with the Speaker. Acting independently rather than as a subordinate, the deputy speaker is accountable directly to the House. This role encompasses all parliamentary powers, reflecting the Speaker’s authority during official proceedings.
Over the years, several landmark cases concerning the decisions made by presiding officers of legislative bodies have resulted in substantial judicial interventions. These include notable cases such as Mayawati v. Markandeya Chand and Ors AIR 1998 SC 3440, Jagjit Singh v. Haryana (2006) 11 SCC 1, D Sudhakar v. D N Jeevaraju and Ors. 2012 (1) SCALE 704, Balchandra L. Jarkiholi and Ors. v. B S Yeddyurappa (2011) 7 SCC 1, Shrimanth Balasaheb Patil v. Speaker, Karnataka Legislative Assembly (2020) 2 SCC 595, Keisham Meghachandra Singh v. Hon’ble Speaker, Manipur Legislative Assembly and Ors (2020) SCC Online SC, and Subhash Desai v. Principal Secretary, Governor of Maharashtra & Ors, WP (C) No. 493 of 2022. These cases represent significant legal precedents in this area.
In these cases, the Supreme Court has criticised the lenient decision-making of the presiding officers involved. This gradual erosion of parliamentary norms has brought us to a critical juncture where upholding parliamentary propriety requires addressing these deviations.
The Supreme Court’s February 13, 2024 order issuing notice in Writ Petition (C) No. 126/2023, which seeks a writ of mandamus directing the Union of India and the Speaker of Lok Sabha to commence the election process for the Deputy Speaker, highlights the seriousness of this issue. However, the judicial adjudication of the matter is still pending.
Electing a Deputy Speaker is more than a political necessity; it is a fundamental constitutional duty. The Lok Sabha must fulfill this obligation promptly to uphold democratic principles and constitutional supremacy. Neglecting this responsibility not only violates the Constitution’s explicit provisions but also weakens the integrity of the parliamentary institution.
(The writer can be reached at dipakkurmiglpltd@gmail.com)
