The Urgent Need to Elect a Lok Sabha Deputy Speaker: A Constitutional and Democratic Imperative
The absence of a Deputy Speaker in the Lok Sabha for two consecutive terms represents a significant deviation from India’s parliamentary traditions. Historically, the position has played a vital role in ensuring balanced legislative proceedings, preventing unilateral control, and upholding democratic integrity. Congress president Mallikarjun Kharge recently urged Prime Minister Narendra Modi to initiate the election process for this crucial position, highlighting the constitutional mandate and the necessity for an effective parliamentary system. The delay in appointing a Deputy Speaker raises serious concerns about governance, efficiency, and adherence to democratic principles. While the position remains unfilled, the implications extend beyond procedural matters, posing deeper questions about the health of India’s democratic framework.
The Indian Constitution provides clear guidelines regarding the appointment of both the Speaker and the Deputy Speaker in Article 93. It mandates that the Lok Sabha “shall, as soon as may be,” elect two members to these roles. The phrase “as soon as may be” implies urgency, although no strict timeline is set. Traditionally, the Deputy Speaker has been elected in the second or third session of each newly constituted Lok Sabha, ensuring swift fulfillment of this constitutional directive. Every Lok Sabha from the first to the sixteenth had a Deputy Speaker, typically from the principal opposition party. This convention has played a critical role in maintaining parliamentary neutrality, fostering productive debates, and ensuring legislative fairness. However, the seventeenth and eighteenth Lok Sabha have conspicuously deviated from this practice, leaving the position unfilled for two consecutive terms—an unsettling development that raises concerns about governance and accountability.
The Deputy Speaker is more than a symbolic position; they are the second-highest presiding officer after the Speaker. According to Article 95(1), the Deputy Speaker assumes the responsibilities of the Speaker if the latter is unavailable or the office falls vacant. This ensures the seamless functioning of legislative sessions and preserves parliamentary decorum. The absence of a Deputy Speaker increases the burden on the Speaker, potentially affecting the impartiality of proceedings and limiting the ability of the opposition to have a significant voice. Furthermore, the Speaker—typically aligned with the ruling party—could face challenges in maintaining neutrality without the institutional counterbalance that a Deputy Speaker provides. This scenario weakens the robustness of India’s parliamentary system and contradicts the foundational democratic principles upon which the legislature is built.
The delay in electing a Deputy Speaker is troubling for multiple reasons. Firstly, it contradicts constitutional provisions that mandate the prompt appointment of both positions. While the Constitution does not set a rigid deadline, historical precedent establishes an expected timeframe for the election. The Deputy Speaker has traditionally been appointed in the initial sessions of each new Lok Sabha, ensuring stability and continuity in governance. By ignoring this precedent, the current administration risks establishing a dangerous norm that undermines constitutional obligations.
Secondly, the delay raises questions about the government’s commitment to democratic traditions. The Deputy Speaker’s role is not merely ceremonial; it plays a critical part in ensuring fair parliamentary discourse. Without a Deputy Speaker, the Speaker retains greater control over proceedings without the conventional checks and balances in place. Such an arrangement is detrimental to democracy, as it could enable the ruling party to influence debates disproportionately, limiting fair representation for opposition voices. If this trend continues, it could set an unsettling precedent that distorts the balance of power within the legislature.
Political motivations appear to be a significant factor behind the delay. Traditionally, the Deputy Speaker has been elected from the ranks of the principal opposition party. This practice ensures that the opposition has a stake in parliamentary leadership, strengthening democratic discourse. However, the ruling party’s reluctance to uphold this tradition suggests an attempt to limit opposition influence within the legislative framework. This raises concerns about political maneuvering that prioritizes consolidation of power over adherence to democratic principles. The ruling party's hesitation in appointing a Deputy Speaker may be perceived as an effort to maintain greater control over parliamentary proceedings without any institutional counterbalance.
Comparisons with other parliamentary democracies further highlight the uniqueness of India's current scenario. In the United Kingdom, the House of Commons elects multiple Deputy Speakers to facilitate legislative discussions. The United States Congress also has designated roles to balance leadership responsibilities and ensure fair legislative oversight. In contrast, India's ongoing delay in electing a Deputy Speaker signals a weakening of democratic traditions and raises concerns regarding legislative autonomy. A functional parliamentary system requires institutional safeguards to prevent excessive concentration of power, and India's deviation from this norm is a cause for concern.
To rectify this issue, urgent action is required. The government must initiate the process of electing a Deputy Speaker without further delay. As per Rule 8(1) of the Rules of Procedure and Conduct of Business in Lok Sabha, the Speaker is responsible for setting the date for the election. Ensuring that this appointment happens swiftly would reaffirm India's commitment to parliamentary traditions and constitutional mandates. Allowing the position to remain vacant signals apathy toward democratic norms and institutional integrity.
The opposition has a crucial role in pushing for this election. By highlighting the constitutional necessity and democratic significance of the Deputy Speaker, opposition leaders can draw public attention to the issue and create pressure for change. Civil society organizations, legal experts, and democratic advocates must also emphasize the importance of adhering to parliamentary traditions. Active discourse on the matter can generate widespread awareness, reinforcing the need for institutional accountability and transparent governance.
The absence of a Deputy Speaker in the Lok Sabha for two consecutive terms represents a serious lapse in democratic governance. Beyond the procedural aspects, this delay weakens parliamentary balance and efficiency. A functioning democracy depends on robust institutional frameworks, and the neglect of this crucial position undermines the integrity of the legislature. The government must act swiftly to rectify this omission, reinforcing India’s commitment to constitutional principles and democratic traditions. The longer the position remains unfilled, the greater the risk of weakening parliamentary autonomy, limiting opposition voices, and setting a precedent that erodes democratic accountability. In a political climate where institutional integrity is paramount, ensuring the appointment of a Deputy Speaker is not just a legal obligation—it is a democratic imperative.
