The Lok Sabha admitted an Opposition-backed motion to remove Speaker Om Birla from office on 10 March 2026. The resolution, brought forward by Congress and supported by other parties, alleged bias in the conduct of the Speaker. The debate was marked by procedural disputes, questions over who should preside during the discussion, and interruptions from both Treasury and Opposition benches.
According to Deccan Herald, the motion was formally admitted after Congress legislator Mohammad Jawed read out the notice in the House. The required number of MPs stood in support, leading to the resolution’s acceptance for debate. The session quickly became contentious as AIMIM leader Asaduddin Owaisi questioned the legitimacy of Jagdambika Pal presiding, since he was appointed to the panel of chairpersons by Speaker Birla.
As reported by Hindustan Times, Congress Deputy Leader Gaurav Gogoi opened the debate, clarifying that the motion was not a personal attack on Om Birla but was intended to preserve the dignity of Parliament. Gogoi argued that microphones in Parliament had been "weaponised" to silence Opposition voices and cited repeated interruptions of Leader of Opposition Rahul Gandhi during key debates. He stated, “We were compelled to bring this resolution to save democracy and the dignity of the Parliament. The Parliament’s dignity and rules have to be protected.”
As highlighted by The Hindu, Trinamool Congress MP Mahua Moitra accused Speaker Om Birla of systematically curtailing Opposition members’ speaking time and presiding over the largest mass suspension of MPs in Lok Sabha history. Moitra also raised the absence of a Deputy Speaker and questioned the process by which the presiding officer was chosen for the debate. She stated, “The Speaker has systematically throttled the voice of the Opposition and by default, the voice of 41 crore Indians.”
“We were compelled to bring this resolution to save democracy and the dignity of the Parliament. The Parliament’s dignity and rules have to be protected.”
Debate over the presiding officer continued as proceedings unfolded, with BJP’s Nishikant Dubey and Parliamentary Affairs Minister Kiren Rijiju defending Pal’s competence to chair the session. Trinamool Congress MP Saugata Roy suggested a motion to appoint a presiding officer specifically for the purpose, but the House proceeded with Pal in the chair.
During the session, debate intensified as Gogoi reiterated that the motion was not about personal grievances but about the Speaker’s role as custodian of the House’s rights. He referenced incidents where the Speaker allegedly pre-empted Prime Minister Narendra Modi’s attendance based on unverified claims, calling it a breach of neutrality. Gogoi also cited the lack of opportunity for Opposition leaders to raise critical issues, including the India-US trade agreement and matters related to national security.
Analysis showed that the scheduled debate on the motion was repeatedly disrupted by Opposition protests demanding discussion on the West Asia situation. The House was adjourned without a final vote on the resolution, and the debate was set to continue the following day.
“The Speaker represents the dignity of the House, the freedom of the House and because the House represents the nation, in a particular way, the Speaker becomes the symbol of the nation’s freedom and liberty.”
Further coverage revealed that both sides cited constitutional provisions and parliamentary precedents to support their positions. The Opposition maintained that the Speaker’s impartiality was in question, while the ruling party highlighted reforms and increased participation during Om Birla’s tenure. The debate was allotted ten hours, with multiple MPs scheduled to speak on the motion.
At the end of the day’s proceedings, as details emerged, the Lok Sabha had not yet voted on the resolution. The session was adjourned amid ongoing protests and procedural wrangling, with the outcome of the motion pending further debate.
Note: This article is produced using AI-assisted tools and is based on publicly available information. It has been reviewed by The Quint's editorial team before publishing.