The prolonged vacancy of the Deputy Speaker's post in the 18th Lok Sabha raises serious constitutional and governance concerns. Discuss.

Article 93 directs that the House "shall, as soon as may be, choose" a Speaker and a Deputy Speaker. Yet the 18th Lok Sabha, constituted in June 2024, has functioned without a Deputy Speaker [2] — a gap whose costs surfaced sharply during the March 2026 removal motion against Speaker Om Birla.

Constitutional concerns

• Mandate diluted into discretion: Article 93 is couched in mandatory language but fixes no timeline, allowing indefinite deferral of an obligation the Constitution treats as foundational [3].
• Succession vacuum: Article 95 makes the Deputy Speaker the automatic stand-in when the Speaker's office falls vacant or the Speaker is absent. Without one, continuity of the Chair rests on the Panel of Chairpersons, nominated by the Speaker under the Rules of Procedure [1].
• Article 96 rendered inoperable: the Speaker may not preside while a resolution for their own removal is considered; the Deputy Speaker is the designated substitute. In March 2026 a senior panel member had to preside instead — constitutional design replaced by improvisation [1][4].

Governance concerns

• Loss of bipartisan stake: the healthy convention of offering the post to the Opposition gives the entire House ownership of the Chair; its lapse deepens the perception of a majoritarian presiding establishment [3].
• Weaker institutional standing: panel members are nominated and removable at the Speaker's discretion, lacking the Deputy Speaker's independent status and continuity of tenure [1].
• Precedent risk: normalised vacancy invites replication in State legislatures, where similar provisions apply.

Admittedly, no business was invalidated — the removal motion was debated and concluded under a panel Chair [4] — but legality is not the same as constitutional sufficiency.

The vacancy is thus less a procedural lapse than an erosion of parliamentary balance. Amending the Rules to prescribe an outer time limit for the election, and restoring the convention of an Opposition Deputy Speaker, would realign practice with the spirit of Article 93 and strengthen the House as a self-governing institution.