The recent news of the Opposition moving a notice for the removal of Lok Sabha Speaker Om Birla has brought a rare constitutional procedure into the spotlight. While often colloquially termed an "impeachment", the Constitution of India technically reserves that term for the President; for the Speaker, however, the process is defined as "removal by a resolution".
In India's Parliamentary framework, the Speaker of the Lok Sabha holds a position of immense constitutional dignity and independence. To ensure that the Speaker can function as the "conscience of the House" without fear of political reprisal, the Constitution provides a rigorous mechanism for their removal. Prof D D Basu in Introduction to the Constitution of India says since the Speaker is the "symbol of the House’s liberty" and "the representative of the dignity of the House", he does not hold office at the "pleasure of the President" (unlike the Attorney General or Governors). Instead, the Speaker’s tenure is secured by the House itself. In other words, he holds office at the pleasure of the Lok Sabha.
Vacation and removal
Article 94 provides three ways a Speaker can vacate their office: (a) If they cease to be a member of the Lok Sabha, (b) by resigning in writing to Deputy Speaker, (c) By being removed from his office by a resolution of the House passed by a majority of all the then members of the House (Article 94(c)).
Article 96: Rights during the Removal Process
This article ensures fairness by outlining the Speaker’s status while a removal resolution is being debated by the Lok Sabha. It says the Speaker cannot preside over the House during such a session, though they retain all other rights of a Member of Parliament.
Moving the resolution
Rules 200–203 of the Rules of Procedure and Conduct of Business in Lok Sabha and Article 94-96 deal with the procedure to initiate the removal of the Speaker. To maintain the independence of the office of Speaker, the founding fathers ensured that the process cannot be triggered based on a whim.
A written notice of intention to move a resolution for Speaker's removal must be submitted to the Secretary-General of Lok Sabha, signed by at least two members. Under Article 94, no such resolution can be moved unless at least 14 days' notice has been given. This period is intended to allow the Speaker to prepare a defence against the allegations and for the House to consider the gravity of removing its presiding officer.
50-member rule
After the 14-day notice expires, the motion is listed in the List of Business of the Lok Sabha. The member who gave notice must seek the "leave of the House" to move the resolution. The person presiding (not the Speaker) asks those in favour of the motion to rise in their places. The motion is then admitted for discussion only if at least 50 members stand in support. If fewer than 50 members rise in support, the Speaker informs the member that they do not have the leave of the House, and the motion is dropped immediately.
Discussion and House dynamics
As per Article 96(1), the Speaker cannot preside over a sitting where their own removal is under consideration. In such a scenario, the Deputy Speaker typically presides over the business of the Lok Sabha. If the Deputy Speaker is also absent or under a removal motion, a member of the Panel of Chairpersons or another member as determined by the House rules takes the Chair.
Once admitted, the resolution must be taken up for discussion within 10 days. The debate is strictly confined to the specific charges mentioned in the notice. The Speaker has the right to speak in the House and take part in the proceedings during this time.
Speaker’s participation
The Speaker is not a passive bystander while a notice for his removal is under consideration. Under Article 96(2), the Speaker has the right to be present in the House, speak in and take part in the proceedings, and defend their actions against charges laid out in the resolution.
Right to vote
A crucial distinction exists on the Speaker's vote. Normally, under Article 100, the Speaker does not vote in the first instance; they only exercise a "casting vote" in the case of a tie. However, when a removal resolution is under consideration, the Speaker votes in the first instance (as a regular member). They cannot exercise a casting vote if the House is equally divided on the resolution. This prevents the Speaker from using their unique presiding power to save their own office.
Effective majority
The most significant hurdle in the Speaker's removal process is the type of majority needed to pass the resolution. Unlike a Simple Majority (majority of those present and voting) used for ordinary bills, the Speaker's removal requires an Effective Majority. The Constitution uses the phrase: "a majority of all the then members of the House." It is distinct from both a Simple Majority and an Absolute Majority.
The Calculation
Simple Majority: Majority of those present and voting
Absolute Majority: Majority of the total strength of the House (e.g., 273 out of 543)
Effective Majority: Majority of the effective strength of the House
How Effective Majority works: Total strength of the House minus vacancies divided by 2 + 1. For example, if the Lok Sabha has 5 vacancies, the effective strength is 543 - 5 = 538. The majority required would be 543/2 = 269 + 1 = 270. This high threshold ensures that the Speaker can only be removed if a clear majority of the actual sitting members lose confidence in the Chair.
Grounds for removal
M Laxmikanth in his book Indian Polity notes an interesting constitutional silence: the Constitution does not specify the grounds for the removal of the Speaker. Unlike the President (who can only be impeached for "violation of the Constitution") or Supreme Court Judges ("proved misbehaviour or incapacity"), the Speaker can be removed for any reason the House deems sufficient to lose its confidence. However, since the Speaker represents the House's dignity, a resolution is generally brought on grounds of:
Partisanship or bias in conducting House business
Failure to protect the rights of the minority/Opposition
Procedural irregularities or unconstitutional rulings
By requiring an effective majority and a 14-day notice, the Constitution balances the need for the Speaker's accountability with the need for their independence. While the "leave of the House" acts as a procedural filter, the effective majority acts as the ultimate democratic hurdle, ensuring that the "first citizen of the House" is only removed through a broad and clear mandate of the sitting members.