QUES . Discuss about the need for impartiality and integrity in the functioning of Speakers in Indian legislative bodies.

HINTS:

The Office of the Speaker occupies a pivotal position in our parliamentary democracy. The speaker represents House. He represents the dignity of the house, the freedom of the house and because the House represents a nation, in particular, way speaker becomes a symbol of national freedom and dignity.

Therefore a free position should always be occupied by the persons of outstanding ability and impartiality. However, over the last two decades, the misuse of the post of speaker in the functioning of India’s Parliament and state assemblies as well is one among many reasons for falling levels of the legislatures.

Must read: Role of Presiding Officers of state legislatures in maintaining order and impartiality

Issues with the functioning of speakers in India

Handling of disruptions: The Speaker is responsible for maintaining order and decorum in the Lok Sabha, and there have been instances where the Speaker has faced criticism for his or her handling of disruptions in the Lok Sabha.

Bills are Not Referred to Committees: Stalling parliamentary proceedings has resulted in the passing of significant bills without discussion.

Use of Discretion: There have been instances where the Speaker has been accused of using his discretion in an arbitrary or biased manner. Speakers exercise wide discretion in matters of Money Bills, decorum maintenance, and the suspension of members. Bills are sometimes labeled as ‘Money Bills’ to bypass the Upper Houses. E.g., The Aadhar bill, introduced as a Money bill.

Favour Ruling Party and Party Interest Over National Interest: Speakers who are active members of the ruling party may refuse essential debates in the national interest to avoid embarrassing the ruling party.

Handling of disqualification cases: The Speaker is responsible for deciding on cases of disqualification of members of the house, and there have been instances where the Speaker has faced criticism for his or
her handling of such cases. Several judgments on the anti-defection law highlight partisan conduct of speakers in state assemblies.

Example: Karnataka MLAs disqualification case, 2019: The Supreme Court recommended the Parliament to amend the Constitution regarding the role of the Speaker as a quasi-judicial authority while dealing with disqualification petitions.

Appointment System: Speakers are typically elected by the ruling party, leading to questions about their independence from party influence.

Lack of Tenure Security: The Constitution of India doesn’t provide a fixed tenure for speakers, making their position dependent on their selection, which can influence their actions in the House.

Relations with the media: The Speaker is expected to be the spokesperson of the house, and there have been instances where the Speaker has faced criticism for his or her relations with the media and for not providing sufficient information to the media about the proceedings of the house.

Cases related with disputed functioning of Speaker

Kihoto Hollohan vs Zachillhu (1992): Minority judges argued that the Speaker’s power to decide on defections undermines democratic principles.

Nabam Rebia v Bemang Felix case (2016): Supreme Court held that it is “constitutionally impermissible” for a speaker to proceed with disqualification proceedings, if a no-confidence motion against him is pending.

Keisham Meghachandra Singh vs The Hon’ble Speaker Manipur (2020): The Supreme Court recommended amending the Constitution to create an independent tribunal led by judges to handle such matters.

Suggestions to improve the impartiality of the Speaker in India

֍Upon selection as Speaker, the individual should resign from their political party to avoid conflicts of interest.

֍Follow the Ireland model, where the Speaker is someone who has given up political ambitions and built credibility.

֍Adopt the British Model (‘Once a Speaker, Always a Speaker’), where Speakers usually remain unopposed by major political parties, enhancing objectivity.

֍Adopt practices from the UK, where Speakers resign from associated political parties to reflect impartiality.

֍The Speaker in Canada has the authority to call ministers to appear before the house to answer questions and to hold investigations into matters of public concern. This could expand the Speaker’s oversight role over the executive branch and hold it accountable to parliament.

֍A committee, like the one headed by V.S. Page, suggested allowing Speakers to continue if they have been impartial and efficient in their previous tenure.

֍It is suggested that, anyone seeking the position of Speaker may be required to run for election on an independent ticket.

֍Shift the power of disqualification under the anti-defection law to the President or Governor, who decide based on the suggestions of the Election Commission of India (2nd ARC recommendation).

֍Grant the Speaker the power to impose various disciplinary actions, such as a salary cut for members disrupting the house.

֍Allow the Speaker to create a parliamentary committee to recommend the removal of MPs who regularly disrupt the house. The committee’s decisions should be subject to judicial review.

֍Establish an independent tribunal to resolve questions related to the disqualification of members based on defection.

Overall, while the office of the Speaker of the Lok Sabha is an important and respected constitutional position, it is not immune to criticism and controversy, and it is important for the Speaker to ensure that he or she is fair, impartial, and transparent in the discharge of his or her duties.

For more information: External link: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Speaker_of_the_Lok_Sabha