Opposition MPs submit notice seeking removal of Om Birla as LS Speaker

1. At a Glance

• INDIA bloc Opposition parties submitted a notice to the Lok Sabha Secretariat seeking removal of Speaker Om Birla, alleging partisan conduct of House business [2].
• Tests understanding of Article 94(c), the constitutional removal mechanism for the Speaker — a low-frequency but high-value Polity topic [1][3].
• Highlights the Speaker's neutrality principle and Opposition-Treasury friction over Leader of Opposition's (LoP) speaking time [2].
• Relevant for GS-II (Parliament, Speaker's office) and current-affairs-based Polity MCQs.

2. Why in the News

• On Tuesday, 10 February 2026, INDIA bloc MPs submitted a notice to Lok Sabha Secretary-General Utpal Kumar Singh, seeking a resolution to remove Speaker Om Birla, citing "blatantly partisan" conduct [2].
• Notice carried ~120 signatures, submitted by Congress chief whip K. Suresh and whip Mohamed Jawed on behalf of Congress, Samajwadi Party, and DMK; Trinamool Congress did not sign [2].
• Cited trigger: LoP Rahul Gandhi was allegedly not allowed to complete his speech on the Motion of Thanks to the President on 2 February 2026 [2].
• Speaker Birla directed the Secretary-General to "examine and process" the notice per rules [2].

3. Background & Evolution

• Article 94 (for Speaker/Deputy Speaker) and Article 96 (bar on Speaker presiding during own removal motion) form the constitutional basis, mirrored for Rajya Sabha Chairman under Article 90 [1][3].
• Under Rule 8 of the Rules of Procedure and Conduct of Business in Lok Sabha, a member must give 14 days' written notice before a resolution for removal can be moved [3].
• The current episode follows a pattern of repeated INDIA bloc allegations through the 18th Lok Sabha term (since June 2024) that the Speaker curtails Opposition speaking time, particularly the LoP's [1].
• PRS Team analysis frames this as reflecting a deeper "empty chair" crisis — recurring institutional friction over Speaker neutrality across Lok Sabha terms [1].

4. Core Static Facts

Item	Detail
Removal provision	Article 94(c), Constitution of India [3]
Notice period required	Minimum 14 days' written notice to Secretary-General, Lok Sabha [3]
Recipient of notice	Secretary-General, Lok Sabha — currently Utpal Kumar Singh [2]
Admission threshold	At least 50 members must rise in support for motion to be admitted [3]
Passage threshold	Effective majority — majority of all then members of the House (excluding vacancies) [3]
Speaker's role during motion	Cannot preside; may speak and vote (no casting vote) [3]
Current Speaker	Om Birla (Speaker since 26 June 2024, 18th Lok Sabha) [prior knowledge, corroborated by S1]
Parties signing notice	Congress, Samajwadi Party, DMK, and other INDIA bloc constituents (~120 MPs) [2]
Party not signing	Trinamool Congress [2]

5. Multi-Dimensional Analysis

Legal / Constitutional

• Article 94(c) permits removal only via a resolution passed by effective majority; a mere notice does not trigger removal — it is the first procedural step [1][3].
• No Lok Sabha Speaker has ever been removed via this mechanism in India's history, making passage highly improbable given NDA's majority.

Ethical / Governance

• Core allegation concerns Speaker's constitutional duty of impartiality, especially in regulating LoP speaking time — a test of institutional neutrality [2].
• Raises the broader governance question of whether Speakers, historically drawn from ruling party ranks, can adjudicate fairly against their own party's interests [1].

Political / Federalism

• Notice reflects INDIA bloc's collective strategy but exposes fault lines — TMC's abstention signals lack of complete Opposition unity [2].
• Withdrawal of stalling tactics ("Opposition agreed to let the House function") post-notice indicates the move was partly symbolic/pressure tactic rather than a genuine removal attempt [2].

Historical

• Echoes past precedents of no-confidence-style notices against Speakers/Chairmen in Indian legislative history, none of which succeeded, underscoring the mechanism's largely symbolic/political-signalling use [1].

6. Recent Developments (last 12-18 months)

• 2 February 2026: Alleged incident of LoP Rahul Gandhi not being allowed to complete his Motion of Thanks speech [2].
• 10 February 2026: INDIA bloc submits removal notice against Speaker Om Birla with ~120 signatures [2].
• 11 February 2026 (reported): Speaker Birla instructs Secretary-General to examine/process the notice; Budget discussion resumes in Lok Sabha [2].
• PRS Team commentary (Feb 2026) frames episode as part of a recurring "empty chair crisis" over Speaker impartiality in the 18th Lok Sabha [1].

7. Prelims Hooks

• Removal of Lok Sabha Speaker is governed by Article 94(c) of the Constitution.
• Minimum notice period for a Speaker-removal resolution: 14 days, in writing, to the Secretary-General.
• Motion needs support of at least 50 members to be admitted for discussion.
• Passage requires an effective majority (majority of all then members, not just those present and voting).
• The Speaker cannot preside over the House while their own removal resolution is under discussion (Article 96 analogous principle).
• The Speaker can speak and vote during such proceedings but has no casting vote in case of a tie.
• Current Lok Sabha Secretary-General: Utpal Kumar Singh.
• Current Lok Sabha Speaker Om Birla belongs to the 18th Lok Sabha (constituted after 2024 general elections).
• The 2026 removal notice was signed by ~120 MPs from Congress, Samajwadi Party, DMK, and other INDIA bloc parties — Trinamool Congress abstained.
• The trigger cited: LoP not permitted to complete his Motion of Thanks speech on 2 February 2026.
• Notice was submitted by Congress chief whip K. Suresh and whip Mohamed Jawed.
• No Lok Sabha Speaker has ever been removed through this constitutional mechanism to date.

8. Mains Relevance

• GS-II: Polity — "Parliament and State Legislatures – structure, functioning, conduct of business, powers & privileges"; role of the Speaker, Rules of Procedure.
• GS-II: "Separation of powers between various organs; dispute redressal mechanisms and institutions."
• Possible question stems: 1. "Discuss the constitutional and procedural mechanism for removal of the Speaker of the Lok Sabha. Comment on why this provision has rarely been invoked successfully in Indian parliamentary history." (GS-II, 15 marks) 2. "The office of the Speaker is expected to be above partisan politics, yet controversies around impartiality recur frequently. Critically examine with reference to recent developments." (GS-II, 15 marks) 3. "Examine the adequacy of Article 94 as a check on the Speaker's conduct vis-à-vis the Opposition's rights in the House." (GS-II, 10 marks)

9. Related Topics to Study Next

• Anti-Defection Law (Tenth Schedule) — Speaker's quasi-judicial role in deciding disqualification petitions, another neutrality flashpoint.
• Role and powers of the Leader of Opposition (LoP) — statutory recognition, privileges, and current disputes over speaking time.
• Rules of Procedure and Conduct of Business in Lok Sabha — governs notices, motions, and House business generally.
• Article 90 / Removal of Rajya Sabha Chairman (Vice-President) — comparative removal mechanism.
• Parliamentary Privileges and Speaker's disciplinary powers — suspension of MPs, related governance debates.
• Motion of Thanks on President's Address — procedural context of the triggering incident.
• Committee system and Business Advisory Committee — Speaker's role in scheduling House business.
• Historical Speaker controversies — e.g., past no-confidence attempts and precedents in Indian legislatures.

10. Common Errors / Trap Areas

• Confusing removal of Speaker (Article 94) with removal of Rajya Sabha Chairman/Vice-President (Article 67) — different offices, different articles.
• Assuming a notice for removal automatically triggers a vote/resolution — it only starts the 14-day procedural clock; admission requires 50-member support.
• Believing simple majority (present and voting) suffices — the correct threshold is effective majority (majority of all then members).
• Mixing up Article 96 (Speaker not to preside during own removal discussion) with Article 94 (grounds/mode of removal) — Article 96 concerns procedural neutrality, not removal grounds.
• Assuming the Speaker is barred from voting altogether during the motion — the Speaker may vote (except no casting vote in a tie).