The resolution sponsored by opposition parties in the Lok Sabha for removal of the Speaker, Om Birla, in terms of the provisions of Article 94 (C) of the constitution was the first such resolution during the last forty years flagging partisan behaviour of Birla. Predictably it has been defeated by voice vote. And yet its contents underlined the crucial point that the legislative intent of the House arising out of deliberations taking place there has been systematically eroded because leaders of opposition parties charged that Birla did not allow them to exercise their legitimate right to speak and leaders of the ruling party, representing the executive, got preferential treatment. Such preferential treatment for the executive has led to the predominance of executive intent over legislative intent which often are looked upon by judiciary to determine validity of the law.Deliberative process muzzledIllustration: Pariplab Chakraborty.Law making powers of the parliament is based on a deliberative and consultative process. The instance of three farm Bills passed by Lok Sabha in September 2020, when Birla was the speaker, without consulting stakeholders and adequate deliberations of their provisions in the House represented the triumph of executive intent. The fact that farmers were not consulted for framing those Bills was flagged by the Supreme Court while adjudicating the constitutional validity of those laws. Repeated pleadings of the opposition parties for adequate discussion of those Bills in the Lok Sabha were not heeded to by Birla and the Modi regime eventually tendered an apology and repealed those laws following the resilient non-violent protests by farmers lasting for a year.Opposition voices got muzzled in the House and what happened at the time of passing of those farm laws got replayed in subsequent years.Rahul Gandhi’s caseTherefore, the resolution of opposition parties remains extremely relevant and it was more poignantly underlined when on March 12, leader of opposition in Lok Sabha Rahul Gandhi was not allowed to speak in the House when he cited petroleum minister Hardeep Puri’s dealings with convicted American sex offender Jeffrey Epstein. Gandhi was raising the issue of India’s energy crisis in the wake of the conflict in West Asia. Gandhi claimed that the US humiliated India after permitting it to buy Russian oil for thirty days because of a “compromise” which Gandhi traced to Puri’s relations with Epstein whom he publicly claimed as a friend.Such prevalence of the executive intent in the parliament by stifling opposition voices negates its seminal role as a deliberative chamber. That Birla had done it a day after the resolution for his removal was defeated testified to the stand taken by the opposition in that aforementioned resolution.Ambedkar’s visionWhat he did is inconsistent with the vision of Ambedkar who while unveiling the portrait of L R Gokhale in Poona District Law library on December 22, 1952 said, “There must be people in the Parliament immediately ready there and then to challenge the government.”“Now, if you understand what I am saying,” he remarked, “democracy means that nobody has any perpetual authority to rule, but that rule is subject to sanction by the people and can be challenged in the House itself.”. He then added with emphasis, “You will see how important it is to have an opposition. Opposition means that the government is always on the anvil. The government must justify every act that it does to those of the people who do not belong to its party.” He also said that the opposition is a condition precedent for democracy.”Those words uttered a few months after the first Lok Sabha commenced its functioning in 1952 resonate today when opposition as precedent to democracy is struggling to voice its opinion in the deliberations of the Lok Sabha as part of its mandate to fashion the legislative intent based on deliberation and discussion.US Supreme Court upholding legislative processBy not allowing the opposition to speak the deliberative aspects, legislative process is being undermined by the speaker who is the custodian of the House, repository of its dignity and rights and privileges of all the members be they from treasury or opposition.On February 21 this year, the US Supreme Court declared the decision of US President Donald Trump in imposing tariffs on other countries as unconstitutional on the ground that it bypassed the deliberative process of the American Congress.It stated that “…most major decisions affecting the rights and responsibilities of the American people (including the duty to pay taxes and tariffs) are funnelled through the legislative process for a reason”. Flagging the key point that “deliberative nature of the legislative process ….can tap the combined wisdom of the people’s elected representatives.. and not just that of one faction or man” it very profoundly observed, “ There, deliberation tempers impulse, and compromise hammers disagreements into workable solutions”. It further added, “And because laws must earn such broad support to survive the legislative process, they tend to endure, allowing ordinary people to plan their lives in ways they cannot when the rules shift from day to day. In all, the legislative process helps ensure each of us has a stake in the laws that govern us and in the Nation’s future. For some today, the weight of those virtues is apparent. For others, it may not seem so obvious. But if history is any guide, the tables will turn and the day will come when those disappointed by today’s result will appreciate the legislative process for the bulwark of liberty it is.”The words “…the legislative process for the bulwark of liberty” cannot be a reality if opposition voices are shut in the Lok Sabha or Rajya Sabha. Speaker Birla must be mindful of the legislative intent his actions are producing and it must be consistent with the constitution, liberty and will of the people which the Lok Sabha as a representative body represents.Gandhi’s visionNo wonder that Mahatma Gandhi in his article titled ‘Speakers and Politics,’ published in the Harijan on July 17, 1938, very sensitively observed “… [T]he speaker’s position assumes very high importance, greater than that of the Prime Minister”.It is clear that Birla cannot afford to make legislative intent subservient to executive intent.S.N. Sahu served as an officer on special duty to former President K.R. Narayanan.This piece was first published on The India Cable – a premium newsletter from The Wire – and has been updated and republished here. To subscribe to The India Cable, click here.