MS Shanker
Parliament is often described as the temple of democracy. Temples, by definition, are places where fear has no role—only order, dignity, and constitutional sanctity do. That is precisely why an extraordinary statement by Lok Sabha Speaker Om Birla during the Budget Session deserves serious national debate, not silence.
The Speaker publicly acknowledged that he advised the Prime Minister not to enter the House at a particular moment, as it would “not be in order.” This single admission raises more questions than answers. Since when does the Speaker of the Lok Sabha advise a sitting Prime Minister to stay away from the House? More importantly, what circumstances could justify such advice?
This is not a matter of partisan politics. It strikes at the heart of parliamentary convention.
The Prime Minister was scheduled to participate in proceedings linked to the President’s Address—a constitutional formality that has been observed without disruption across decades, wars, emergencies, and political turbulence. Even during the bitterest phases of Opposition politics, no Speaker in independent India’s history has publicly stated that a Prime Minister’s entry itself could trigger disorder.
So, what changed?
If the Speaker felt compelled to intervene, it logically suggests that he had credible inputs indicating an imminent breakdown of order, not just routine sloganeering. Parliament is built to absorb protest. What it is not built to accommodate is physical confrontation, personal targeting, or allegations that could irreversibly damage the dignity of the House.
This is where speculation—circulating widely on social media—enters the discussion. These claims, it must be clearly stated, remain unverified. But their very circulation, combined with the Speaker’s unprecedented caution, compels responsible inquiry.
The rumours suggest that certain Opposition members may have planned a deliberate escalation inside the House, timed around the Prime Minister’s arrival, with the intent of creating chaos so severe that proceedings would collapse entirely. Some versions go further, alleging that the objective was to engineer an incident that could be projected beyond India as a symbol of democratic breakdown.
Whether these claims are true or exaggerated is beside the immediate constitutional point. The real question is this:
What kind of intelligence or warning would make the custodian of the Lok Sabha advise the head of government to stay away?
Speakers are not alarmists. Their authority rests on neutrality. They do not act on WhatsApp forwards or political gossip. If Om Birla acted, he did so either to prevent a grave procedural violation or to avert a deeper crisis.
That alone demands transparency.
Unfortunately, instead of clarifying the circumstances, large sections of the media have chosen to look away. Perhaps because asking such questions invites discomfort. Also, perhaps because it disrupts the convenient narrative that disorder in Parliament is always “spontaneous.”
Let us be blunt: a democracy cannot survive if disruption becomes a strategy rather than a protest. Opposition is not the right to paralyse institutions. It is the duty to challenge power within rules.
What worries many citizens today is the sense that political desperation has crossed a threshold—where the objective is no longer to defeat Narendra Modi electorally, but to delegitimise his very presence in constitutional spaces. If that is indeed the trajectory, then the threat is not to one individual, but to the institution of Parliament itself.
The Constitution did not envisage a Speaker protecting the Prime Minister from the House. It envisaged a House worthy of the Prime Minister’s presence—whoever occupies that office.
If there was no credible threat, the Speaker owes the nation an explanation for his caution. If there was, then the nation deserves to know who is willing to burn parliamentary norms to win a political battle.
Silence helps no one. Questions, however uncomfortable, are the lifeblood of democracy.
And this question will not go away:
When the Speaker stops the Prime Minister from entering Parliament, who exactly has brought the House to that point?
