Opposition Move Against Om Birla Reignites Row Over Vacant Deputy Speaker Post

A no-confidence motion moved against Lok Sabha Speaker Om Birla has reignited debate over the prolonged vacancy of the Deputy Speaker’s post, which has remained unfilled for nearly seven years. The development has once again brought attention to procedural conventions and constitutional expectations surrounding the functioning of the Lower House of Parliament.

Members of the Opposition raised concerns not only about the conduct of proceedings under Birla’s tenure but also about the absence of a Deputy Speaker since 2019. Under Article 93 of the Constitution, the Lok Sabha is required to choose both a Speaker and a Deputy Speaker. While the Constitution does not prescribe a specific timeline, the long delay has drawn criticism from several quarters.

Traditionally, the Deputy Speaker’s position has often been offered to a member of the Opposition as a gesture of bipartisan cooperation. However, successive sessions of the current Lok Sabha have concluded without the election of a candidate to the post, prompting allegations of erosion of parliamentary conventions.

Also Read: Rahul Gandhi to Break Silence in Lok Sabha Amid Speaker No-Confidence Drama

The government has previously indicated that the election of a Deputy Speaker would take place at an “appropriate time,” citing scheduling and legislative priorities. Opposition leaders argue that the delay undermines institutional balance and weakens established democratic practices within Parliament.

The no-confidence move against Birla, even if unlikely to alter the leadership arithmetic in the House, has amplified focus on procedural norms and accountability mechanisms. As parliamentary sessions continue amid a charged political climate, the vacancy of the Deputy Speaker’s post remains a contentious issue at the heart of the debate over legislative functioning.

Also Read: Speaker Om Birla to Refrain From Presiding Over House After Opposition’s Removal Move