The glorious legacy of the Lok Sabha Speaker, an institution that symbolises impartiality and complete independence from the Executive while presiding over the Lower House of parliament, has been systematically negated by the incumbent, Om Birla. As a result, several opposition parties have submitted a notice under Article 94(C) of the Constitution of India, seeking his removal.This is the fourth instance in India’s history as a parliamentary democracy since 1952 of such a notice being submitted by opposition parties. Previously, there have been criticisms of the partisan approach Speaker Birla has adopted in the media, including in prominent newspapers, based on House proceedings.Vithalbhai Patel’s legacyThe fall in standards of the functioning of the House, especially when we consider India’s long tenure as an independent nation, should humble all of us. Particularly so, considering the legacy of Vithalbhai Patel, who in 1925, during the struggle for independence that is now being celebrated, became the first Indian to be elected as president of the Central Legislative Assembly, a position now referred to as the Speaker of the Lok Sabha.Patel fiercely defended his independent position without letting the British viceroy and his colonial regime influence his role and duties. In 1929, Patel ruled to disallow the Public Safety Bill in the Assembly. This prompted the viceroy to make its provisions operational via the ordinance route. Mahatma Gandhi had described the viceroy’s move as an insult to India. Gandhi wrote an article, “Viceroy’s Ire”, published in Navajivan on April 21, 1929. He wrote in it, “The President of the Central Legislative Assembly represents India; he represents the voters, which in turn means India. Hence, the insult to Vithalbhai is an insult to India.”Employing Gandhi’s logic, it might be said that Lok Sabha Speaker Om Birla has enjoyed the same enviable status for two terms in independent India that Patel had before India threw off the colonial yoke. But his repeated violations of the ideal of impartiality and the constitution and the rules of procedure and conduct of business in the Lok Sabha do not match the legacy of his historic predecessor.No government response to Motion of ThanksConsider another example of how much things have changed. The customary discussion on the motion of thanks to the President’s address took place in Lok Sabha on February 4, 2026. Birla, as Speaker, has the mandate to conduct this discussion in accordance with Article 87(2) of the Constitution and Rule 20(1) of the set procedure for Lok Sabha.The said rule provides: “The Prime Minister or any other Minister shall, whether [they have] previously taken part in the discussion or not, have on behalf of the Government a general right of explaining the position of the Government at the end of the discussion…”The rule says the prime minister or any other minister shall respond at the end of the discussion. Therefore, Birla was duty bound to invoke that rule, asking Prime Minister Narendra Modi or any other minister to compulsorily respond to the discussion on the motion of thanks.Instead of doing so, he announced in the House on February 6 that he had himself advised the prime minister to not come to the Lok Sabha because, he said, of credible information he had that an unprecedented situation might be created by Congress party members near the prime minister’s seat.Blaming the main opposition party and coming to the aid of the prime minister and his government, which failed to respond to the motion of thanks contravenes the ideal of impartiality that should reflect in the Lok Sabha Speaker’s conduct. Besides, even if there were a grain of truth in his claim – that the prime minister might face an unprecedented situation – he could have asked any other minister to reply to the discussion, as the rules prescribe.Deciding not to do so severely compromises the Speaker’s position, violates the constitution and the rules of procedure for the house. Would it not then follow, that in the words of Mahatma Gandhi, he “insulted India”?Earlier actionsThere are several instances of infractions of rules and partiality that have placed the Opposition Benches at a disadvantageous, making it impossible for them to hold the government to account. Recall editorials published in prominent newspapers, the Hindu and the Indian Express on February 22, 2023 that were sharply critical of both Birla and then Rajya Sabha Chairman (former Vice President) Jagdeep Dhankhar, who has since resigned. The Hindu flagged their decision, taken in both houses of parliament, to delete parts of the speeches of Congress party president Mallikarjun Kharge and Leader of Opposition Rahul Gandhi, made in the Rajya Sabha and Lok Sabha, respectively.The deleted remarks had been on the Adani issue – a global ‘expose’ of its alleged wrongdoings, published by a future trader in the United States, that has since ceased to operate. The Hindu editorial observed: “Parliament is the platform where the Opposition has the responsibility to ask questions of the government, which the Council of Ministers has the responsibility to answer. There are parliamentary rules and norms that have evolved over time to achieve this objective. It will be a travesty of parliamentary democracy if the Opposition is penalised for seeking accountability from the government, which in turn is allowed to hide behind rules and obfuscate the issue.”Some time later, Speaker Birla did little in the form of taking action against Bharatiya Janata Party (BJP) member Ramesh Bidhuri, who abused fellow Member of Parliament and Bahujan Samaj Party (BSP) leader Danish Ali on the floor of the House. Ali was attacked over his Muslim identity in a clear instance of hate speech delivered by Bidhuri. Instead of a penalty that would match the wrong, Birla only stated that strict action would be taken if the MP repeated those words — as if hurling insults once did not violate the rules of the house.Then in July 2024, Birla on getting elected as Speaker, bowed before Prime Minister Narendra Modi, after the latter escorted him to his seat in Lok Sabha. This, again, sent the unacceptable message of the Speaker deeming himself subservient to the prime minister. At the time LoP Gandhi had pointed out – he, too, had escorted Birla to his chair, alongside Modi – that while Birla shook hands with him, he bowed before Modi. He said, “….no one is bigger than you [the Speaker] in this House…You must not bow down before anyone.”Birla’s track record as the presiding officer of Lok Sabha is unenviable. Now, as per media reports, a BJP MP has decided to move a substantive motion against Gandhi to terminate his membership and bar him from contesting elections for life. Can Speaker Birla uphold the rules while he deals with this motion?S.N. Sahu served as Officer on Special Duty to President of India K.R. Narayanan.