The 17th Lok Sabha marked the end of its five-year term without having a Deputy Speaker. Despite Article 93 of the Constitution mandating the position, the ruling BJP chose to leave it vacant for the entire term, which was a first in the history of Lok Sabha. The issue has now reached the Supreme Court amid demands from various quarters that the 18th Lok Sabha should not have this situation. Senior advocate Vibha Datta Makhija has filed a public interest petition in the Supreme Court requesting the Court to order the appointment of a Deputy Speaker, as mandated by the Constitution. Chief Justice D.Y. Chandrachud and Justices J.B. Pardiwala and Manoj Misra have scheduled the hearing for July 22, Monday.
As early as last year, the absence of Deputy Speakers in the Lok Sabha and several state legislatures like Rajasthan, Madhya Pradesh, Uttar Pradesh, Uttarakhand, Jharkhand, and Manipur was raised before another three-judge bench led by Chief Justice Chandrachud himself. Notices were sent to the central government and the respective states, emphasizing the constitutional requirement to have Deputy Speakers in the houses under Article 93 for the Lok Sabha and Article 178 for state legislatures. However, due to a lack of timely responses, the case did not proceed, and in the meantime, the Lok Sabha's term expired.
Now, for this term, one could argue that the constitutional language of 'as soon as may be' can be stretched to mean some delay. As per precedent, the Deputy Speaker should be elected immediately after the Speaker takes charge, but this did not happen. Efforts for a consensus were made earlier in the Speaker election itself with the goal of ruling-opposition party cooperation in the matter of house proceedings. The BJP government did not accept the suggestion of the opposition INDIA Front that if the post of Deputy Speaker is conceded to the Opposition, the Speaker could be elected unanimously. All the same, when the election for the post of Speaker was held, but the opposition showed a gesture of not insisting on ballot and the Speaker Om Birla was elected by voice vote.
Appointing a Deputy Speaker from the opposition is a healthy democratic practice reflecting pluralism and mutual cooperation in the house. After all, the legislative assembly is not just a place for the ruling party to convey governance information and decisions; the voice of the opposition and criticism of the administration also deserve a place there, and since it is necessary to run the house impartially, a member of the Opposition occupying the Deputy Speaker's position will go a long way in a fair and effective functioning of the house in the absence of the Speaker. However, the BJP has not valued such democratic environments, as evidenced by their swift passage of bills without discussions or deliberations in the previous terms. Even while enacting laws that were anti-people, contrary to the spirit of the Constitution, and which fostered divisiveness, the ruling party was then keen to see that bills were passed without much discussion or deliberation.
A Deputy Speaker may not be an indispensable component of legislative proceedings; a panel of ten experienced members may serve the purpose to substitute the Speaker in his absence. However, alongside legislative control, recognizing the Deputy Speaker's role as a symbol of the consideration given to the opposition in a multi-party system reflects a high level of democratic awareness. Given the changes in the strength of the current Lok Sabha from the earlier one, the BJP might find it difficult to accept the presence of a Deputy Speaker from the opposition besides a leader of the opposition, who would rank 10th in protocol alongside Union ministers of state and the Deputy Chairman of the Rajya Sabha. Nonetheless, the Deputy Speaker's role can enhance the quality and orderliness of legislative proceedings. It is also worth noting that not all non-BJP states set a good example in this regard. Jharkhand, governed by the INDIA coalition's Jharkhand Mukti Morcha, does not have a Deputy Speaker. A few other states where the INDIA coalition is in power, like West Bengal, Karnataka, and Tamil Nadu, also have ruling party members as Deputy Speakers, but state assemblies may not qualify as models of democratic order as much as Lok Sabha may do.
Instead of allowing the matter to be dragged into complex legal debates and hair-splitting disputes over judicial intervention in parliamentary privileges, it would be more desirable if the parties concerned strive for a constitutional appointment through mutual discussions and consensus. And that would better ensure the existence and integrity of smooth running legislative bodies.