New Delhi: The absence of a deputy speaker in the Lok Sabha for almost seven years was raised in the House on Tuesday (March 10) as it took up the no-confidence motion moved against speaker Om Birla.Opposition members said there is a “constitutional vacuum” as the deputy speaker’s post remains vacant, and raised objections to members of the panel of chairpersons presiding over the proceedings, as they too had been nominated by the speaker.“For the last seven years, the government is not ready to appoint a deputy speaker,” said Congress MP K.C. Venugopal referring to Article 93 of the Constitution.Article 93 states that the Lok Sabha needs to choose two members as speaker and deputy speaker “as soon as may be”.The Wire has reported that while the 17th Lok Sabha, in a first, ended without a deputy speaker, almost two years into the 18th Lok Sabha’s tenure too the post remains vacant.According to the Statistical Handbook of the Ministry of Parliamentary Affairs, the deputy speaker has been elected within a few weeks of the House taking oath at the most. The longest it has taken till date to elect a deputy speaker was during the 12th Lok Sabha when it took 270 days to elect P.M. Sayeed to the post when G.M.C. Balayogi was speaker.While there have been three instances of no-confidence motions being moved against the speaker in the past – in 1954, 1966 and 1987 – in none of these instances was the post of deputy speaker vacant.“Immediately after the election, the speaker and deputy speaker [have] to be elected,” said Venugopal. “You have created a constitutional vacuum.”Opposition MPs also objected to Bharatiya Janata Party (BJP) MP Jagdambika Pal presiding over the proceedings on the removal of the speaker. Opposition members said that Pal was a member of the panel of chairpersons appointed by the speaker and therefore cannot preside over the proceedings.Soon after the motion against Birla was moved by Congress MP Mohammad Jawed, All India Majlis-e-Ittehadul Muslimeen MP Asaduddin Owaisi rose to raise a point of order and said that Article 96 of the Constitution states that when a motion is moved against them, the speaker cannot preside over the House.He also referred to the Supreme Court’s Nabam Rebia judgement of 2016, which said that a speaker against whom a motion has been moved “cannot exercise adjudicatory or discretionary powers connected with the proceedings of his removal”.Owaisi said Pal cannot preside over the proceedings as he was appointed by the speaker and that Rule 10 of the Rules of Procedure and Conduct of Business in Lok Sabha cannot overtake constitutional provisions. Rule 10 provides that the deputy speaker or any other member presiding over the House will have the same powers as the speaker.“You have been appointed by the speaker. I am of the opinion that you cannot sit over these proceedings. The House’s sense should be taken. Rule 10 cannot overtake Article 95, Article 96 of the Constitution. This government has created a constitutional mess,” he said.Article 96 of the Constitution says that the speaker or the deputy speaker is not to preside while a resolution for their removal from office is under consideration.Article 96(1) states that while a resolution for the removal of the speaker or deputy speaker is under consideration, the speaker or deputy speaker respectively even if present shall not preside, and the provisions of clause (2) of Article 95 shall apply in relation to every such sitting as they apply in relation to a sitting from which the speaker, or, as the case may be, the deputy speaker, is absent.Article 95(2) on the other hand says that during the “absence of the speaker from any sitting of the House of the People, the Deputy Speaker or, if he is also absent, such person as may be determined by the rules of procedure of the House, or, if no such person is present, such other person as may be determined by the House, shall act as Speaker”.Congress MP Gaurav Gogoi, who opened the debate for the opposition, referred to Article 96. He said that while there is a panel of chairpersons, which member from the panel would preside over these proceedings had been decided by Birla, which was a constitutional violation.“The speaker has appointed a panel of chairpersons. From this panel, which chairperson will preside over these proceedings, who decided this? We are considering a resolution for the removal of the speaker from his office, how has it been decided that Jagdambika Pal will be presiding? Let the record state we are registering our protest that there is no record of how who will preside from the panel of chairpersons this has been decided,” he said.Union home minister Amit Shah then rose to raise his objection and said that the opposition members had interpreted the word ‘preside’ in the Constitution wrongly.“The word ‘preside’ used in the Constitution is about the House and does not refer to the office of the speaker. Even when elections are underway, the speaker’s office is not vacant. The post does not remain vacant. I have only risen because they are interpreting it wrongly,” said Shah.Gogoi then said it was about how the chairperson from the panel had been decided, which is a “clear exercise of the power of the speaker, which is not allowed. It is a violation of the Constitution”.Union parliamentary affairs minister Kiren Rijiju also rose amid the uproar to say that the authority of the panel of chairpersons had been made clear.“Whether it is [the] deputy speaker or panel of chairperson[s], the authority has been described. There was no need to raise this point and the discussion should begin,” he said.According to former Lok Sabha secretary-general and constitutional expert P.D.T. Achary, Article 95(2) does not apply in this case and the no-confidence motion does not disqualify the speaker in any way, including the panel of chairpersons chosen by him.“The speaker’s office is not vacant. The no-confidence motion does not disable or disqualify the speaker in any way. Article 96 says that the speaker cannot preside. There is no particular disqualification attached to the speaker merely because there is a no-confidence motion against him,” said Achary to The Wire.Achary also said that while it is unprecedented that the deputy speaker’s post remains vacant, despite it being mandatory for the House and not the government to elect one, any member of the House can move a resolution to do so.“In my view, any member can move a resolution urging the speaker to fix the date for the election of the deputy speaker, because it is a constitutional requirement. Therefore, a member is in his right to move a resolution in the House as per the mandate of urging the speaker to fix the date, following which the speaker will have to do so.”