A contested election for the post of Lok Sabha Speaker is a sign of a broadening divide between treasury and opposition benches. Before Independence, contests for the position of president (equivalent of modern-day Speaker) were quite common. In the first election in 1925, Vithalbhai Patel defeated the govt nominee by two votes. He went on to lay the institutional foundations for the independence of the Speaker’s office.

The next exciting contest was in 1946. In this election, the colonial govt thought its nominee would win. But to its surprise, its members cross-voted, leading to GV Mavalankar’s election by a margin of three votes. Govt was incensed and wanted to examine the ballot papers to identify which of its members had voted for Mavalankar. Anticipating such an eventuality, the assembly secretary destroyed the ballot papers.

A high-pressure job | In a parliamentary democracy where govt is answerable to the legislature, a non-partisan Speaker is critical. It’s one of the most challenging offices. It combines constitutional responsibility with a political millstone. When the electoral verdict is that of a majority govt, Speaker has to ensure adequate space for minority voices and not allow govt to ride roughshod over them.

In a coalition scenario, Speakers are under pressure from their party to secure govt’s continuity and ensure the passage of its legislative business. Speakers have to walk a fine line, where they are not with any side but belong to the entire House. In both these situations, Speaker must ensure that the House fulfils the constitutional mandate of a deliberative legislature.

In 1952, when Mavalankar became Speaker of the first LS, he started the conversation to ensure Speaker’s impartiality. In his acceptance speech as Speaker, he highlighted the British convention about Speakership, “the principle of which is that, once a Speaker, he is not opposed by any party in the matter of his election, whether in the constituency or in the House, so long as he wishes to continue as Speaker”.

He championed this issue in parliamentary forums and pushed for it with Congress party. The party, however, felt that “this was not a feasible proposition for the present in view of other political parties being involved in the question.” Since then, the practice has been that political parties come to a consensus, and Speaker (usually from the majority party) is elected unanimously. Part of the consensus-building exercise is that the post of Deputy Speaker often goes to opposition benches.

Adding to complications | Over the years, the job of Speaker has become more complex and contentious. His responsibility is to conduct the proceedings of the House on the colonial principle that govt will decide the agenda for debate in the national legislature. The rules of both Houses of Parliament also prescribe that govt business takes priority. As if this were not enough, in 1985, the anti-defection law gave Speakers the power to decide on the disqualification of MPs for voting against the party whip and for anti-party activities. They could now make or break parties and govt.

Some of these structural issues have become more prominent now. They have led to successive govts shying away from uncomfortable debates in Parliament, and ministers are requesting the Speaker to exercise his/her discretion in fast-tracking govt business through LS. Limited space for opposition and inadequate scrutiny of govt bills by parliamentary committees have become a bone of contention between govt and opposition benches. Speaker’s decisions in state assemblies under anti-defection law have also tainted the office. There is apprehension that some of the unhealthy practices in states might find their way to Parliament.

Getting it right | The strengthening of the office of Speaker to better serve our national legislature requires interventions at two levels. The first is an urgent need to change some of the old procedures in the functioning of LS. For example, currently, Speaker has discretion in sending bills for scrutiny to parliamentary committees. Then, most decisions by the House get taken by a voice vote, but rules require an MP to demand a recorded vote to register whether they support or oppose a decision. In most developed countries, all legislation is scrutinised by committees, and all House decisions are recorded. These changes in India can insulate Speakers from unnecessary controversy in how they exercise their discretion.

On the aspect of anti-defection law, a pertinent question is why should the constitutional office of Speaker be required to solve the internal struggles of a political party? Perhaps it’s time to abolish the law to save the office of Speaker from aspersions of partisan behaviour.

In gist, what is expected of a Speaker was ably captured by Sir William Harcourt, who summed up the matter in the House of Commons: “We expect dignity and authority tempered by urbanity and kindness; firmness to control and persuasiveness to counsel; promptitude of decision and justness of judgment…a natural superiority combined with an inbred courtesy, so as to give by his own bearing an example and model to those over whom he presides an impartial mind, a tolerant temper, and a reconciling disposition.”

The writer is with PRS Legislative Research.