New Delhi: Congress MP Gaurav Gogoi on Tuesday raised procedural and constitutional objections in the Lok Sabha during the ongoing discussion on the resolution seeking a no-confidence motion against Speaker Om Birla.
Participating in the debate, Gogoi cited parliamentary rules and said that the Speaker should not preside over proceedings when a resolution seeking his removal from office is under consideration.
He said that the Speaker appoints a panel of chairpersons and questioned how it had been decided that Jagdambika Pal would preside over the House during the discussion on the resolution.
According to Gogoi, there was no “official record placed” before the House from the panel of chairpersons explaining the decision. He argued that the House should have clarity on “how Jagdambika Pal, who was presiding over the proceedings, came to occupy the Chair during such an important discussion”.
Jagdambika Pal intervened and said he had already issued a ruling on the matter earlier. He maintained that since the position of the Speaker was not vacant, the Speaker’s appointments remained valid and, therefore, the decision regarding the Chair was within his authority.
However, Gogoi disagreed with this interpretation and argued that if the Speaker does not have the authority to preside over proceedings during the discussion on his removal, the question arises as to “how that authority can still be exercised in appointing someone to preside”.
Union Home Minister Amit Shah then intervened in the debate and said that the powers of the Speaker continue to remain valid even during periods such as elections. According to Shah, the Opposition was “misinterpreting” the term preside.
He clarified that while the Speaker cannot personally preside over the proceedings during the discussion of a motion seeking his removal, the office itself does not become vacant.
Supporting this argument, Pal said that the authority of the Speaker remains valid even if the Lok Sabha is dissolved, and continues until a new government is formed and a new Speaker is elected.
Gogoi resumed his remarks and reiterated his earlier point that the reason a chairperson from the panel selected by the Speaker presides during such debates is precisely because of the Speaker’s authority.
He argued that allowing a panel member appointed by the Speaker to preside during the debate on a motion against the Speaker amounted to a “violation of the Constitution”.
He also pointed out that in the last three instances when a resolution seeking the removal of a Lok Sabha Speaker had been brought, there had been a Deputy Speaker in the House. However, he said that the current government had not appointed a Deputy Speaker.
Gogoi further clarified that the Opposition did not have any “personal problem” with Om Birla, but said the issue concerned the functioning of the Chair and the manner in which the House was being run.
He added that even though the Opposition INDIA Bloc has nearly 200 members in the Lok Sabha, the post of Deputy Speaker has remained vacant, and said the country should know how the House is functioning in such circumstances.
Continuing his criticism, Gogoi claimed that even the microphone system in the House was being “weaponised”. He claimed that members of the Treasury Benches were being given opportunities to speak while Opposition MPs, particularly Leader of the Opposition Rahul Gandhi, were not being given access to the microphone.
He further alleged that the “LoP was not allowed to speak in the House when he wanted to raise matters of national security”.
“The country has a cowardly leadership,” Gogoi said, adding that this was the “reason Opposition isn’t allowed to speak in the House”.
At this point, Pal objected to the remarks and said they amounted to “slanders”.
Gogoi, however, rejected the charge and said that these were “not merely allegations” but issues directly related to the resolution under discussion. He reiterated that the Opposition was being “disallowed” from speaking by being denied access to the microphones in the House.
(IANS)
