Is the Opposition serious—or merely staging another episode of parliamentary theatre? The INDIA bloc’s reported decision to move a resolution seeking the removal of Lok Sabha Speaker Om Birla is less a constitutional exercise and more a political joke played in broad daylight. Cloaked in procedural language and inflated rhetoric, the move exposes not the alleged bias of the Speaker, but the Opposition’s growing desperation and intellectual bankruptcy. That the decision was taken at a meeting in Congress president Mallikarjun Kharge’s chamber—with the TMC, Left parties, DMK, SP, RJD, Shiv Sena (UBT), NCP (SP) and RSP in attendance—only adds to the irony. A collection of parties that cannot agree on leadership, policy, or even seat-sharing is suddenly united in demanding the Speaker’s removal. One wonders: unity for governance, or unity for optics? First, let’s address the constitutional basics—something the Opposition appears to have skipped. There is no provision to “impeach” the Lok Sabha Speaker. The Constitution is unambiguous. Under Article 94(c), a Speaker may be removed only by a resolution passed by a majority of all the then members of the Lok Sabha, after giving a mandatory notice period (14 days, extended in practice to 16–20 days). This is not impeachment in the sense applicable to the President or judges of constitutional courts. Calling it so is either ignorance or deliberate misrepresentation. Second, the arithmetic. Even if the Opposition manages to gather the minimum 100 signatures required to move such a resolution, what next? The notice has to be submitted—ironically—to the Speaker’s office. If admitted, it must still be adopted by the House. Does the Opposition have the numbers? Absolutely not. Are any NDA allies unhappy enough to break ranks and support such a motion? Again, a clear no. With the ruling coalition enjoying a comfortable majority, the motion is dead on arrival. So why this drama?
The stated grounds—Leader of Opposition Rahul Gandhi not being allowed to speak, naming of women MPs by the Chair, alleged preferential treatment to treasury bench members, and suspension of eight Opposition MPs—are not new. Speakers across party lines have taken similar decisions in past Lok Sabhas, often under far more chaotic circumstances. Parliamentary discipline is not optional, and the Chair’s rulings, once given, are final unless challenged through proper procedure—not shouted down through sloganeering. The real trigger appears to be Rahul Gandhi’s attempt to raise an issue based on alleged excerpts from an unpublished book, amplified by a magazine whose credibility has itself been questioned. The claim—that a former Army Chief waited two-and-a-half hours for clearance from the Modi government to respond to Chinese tanks—is misleading at best. The same General, by his own admission, has stated that he was told in unequivocal terms—by the Prime Minister or the Defence Minister—that he was free to take any action deemed appropriate. If operational autonomy were granted, what exactly is the grievance? Since 2014, the Modi government has repeatedly stated—on record—that the Chiefs of the Army, Navy, and Air Force enjoy unprecedented operational freedom. At the same time, strategic retaliatory actions, whether surgical strikes or air strikes, have involved consultations with military leadership, the National Security Adviser, and relevant ministries. That is called responsible governance, not micromanagement. History, too, offers perspective. No Lok Sabha Speaker has ever been removed since Independence. Such motions are typically moved for symbolic posturing, not because there is a realistic chance of success. The Opposition knows this. It knew it when a similar attempt to remove Vice President Jagdeep Dhankhar as Rajya Sabha Chair was rejected on technical grounds in August 2024. In essence, this move is not about protecting parliamentary democracy. It is about manufacturing outrage, recording allegations for political consumption, and diverting attention from the Opposition’s inability to engage substantively on policy, governance, or national security. Parliament deserves debate. What it does not deserve is constitutional vandalism masquerading as dissent. When numbers are absent and arguments are hollow, spectacle becomes the last refuge. And this so-called impeachment motion is precisely that—a spectacle, not a serious constitutional challenge.
