Discuss the role of the presiding officer as an impartial arbiter in a polarised legislature, with reference to disqualification petitions and committee allocations.

The presiding officer is meant to be the neutral guardian of the House. Under the Tenth Schedule, the Speaker or Chairman acts as a tribunal on disqualification petitions [2]. The same office also nominates the chairs of Department-Related Standing Committees (DRSCs). When the House is polarised, holding both roles puts impartiality under strain. The Mamata-led AITC's protest in October 2026 shows this clearly [1].

Arbiter in disqualification petitions

• Quasi-judicial role: the presiding officer decides whether a claimed merger (Para 4) is valid, and that decision is open to judicial review (Kihoto Hollohan, 1992).
• Capacity for prompt rulings: the Rajya Sabha Chairman decided Sharad Yadav's case within three months in 2017 [3].
• Strategic delay: the Schedule sets no time limit. The three-month deadline exists only as a Supreme Court direction [2].
• In Manipur, the Court removed a defector-minister in 2020 before the Speaker had ruled.

• In Telangana, petitions against 26 MLAs who defected were never decided [2].

• Delayed remedy: even quick rulings can stay stuck in court for years [3].

Arbiter in committee allocations

• Convention, not rule: chairs are shared roughly by party strength, but no party has a written entitlement to one.
• Oversight already shrinking: the share of Bills sent to committees fell from 60–71% in the 14th and 15th Lok Sabhas [4] to 16% in the 17th [5]. This makes every Opposition-held chair more valuable.
• Pre-judging the case: rebel MP Kakoli Ghosh Dastidar claims a merger into another party, and the petition against her is still pending. She was nonetheless given the Chemicals and Fertilizers chair, while the AITC got none. The AITC called this contrary to "parliamentary propriety" and says it was also denied a chair in 2019 [1].
• Counter-view: no rule was broken, and she remains a lawful MP until disqualified. However, the presiding officer could have kept her out of both parties' share until the case was decided.

Way forward

• Write the three-month deadline into the Tenth Schedule [2].
• Act on the Law Commission (170th Report) and NCRWC proposal: disqualification to be decided by the President or Governor on the Election Commission's advice.
• Have the Rules Committees codify proportional chair allocation. Members facing pending petitions should not be counted for any party until their case is decided.
• Consider electing committee chairs, as the UK House of Commons has done since 2010.

Impartiality has to be visible, not only formally correct. When one office both times a disqualification ruling and allots chairs in the meantime, the result leans one way. Codified deadlines and rule-based allocation would protect the presiding officer's neutrality and keep Parliament's oversight of the executive strong.