Of late, the impartiality of the presiding officers of Rajya Sabha and Lok Sabha has been seriously questioned for the manner in which they have been conducting the proceedings of the parliament and dealing with the opposition MPs.The expunction of remarks of some MPs of the opposition benches on Prime Minister Narendra Modi’s links with Adani was adversely commented upon in editorials of some of the major dailies like the Indian Express and the Hindu on February 22, 2023.Also read: Rajya Sabha Adjourns Till Next Month After Opposition MPs Protest Over Adani, Expunged RemarksMore later on the scathing remarks of these editorials. They bring out the extent of damage done to our parliamentary democracy by Presiding officers. Our democracy has anyway been continuously facing serious assault. The intensity of these assaults has gone up manifold after 2014.Mahatma Gandhi on the role of speakers On July 16, 1938, Mahatma Gandhi wrote an article “Speaker and Politics” in the Harijan against the backdrop of what he said was “some controversy…raged round the propriety of the speakers of the various Provincial Assemblies taking an active part in politics”.It may be recalled that in 1937, the Indian National Congress had won elections to form governments in several provinces and speakers were elected to preside over those provincial legislatures. In that article, Gandhi, while commenting on the controversy generated by the participation of speakers in politics, deeply reflected on their roles and thoughtfully observed, “..the speaker’s position assumes very high importance, greater than that of the Prime Minister”.He proceeded to explain the important duties of a speaker and wrote: “… he has to discharge the functions of a judge while he occupies the chair. He has to give impartial and just rulings. He has to enforce decorum and laws of courtesy between members. He has to be calm in the midst of storms. He has opportunities of winning over opponents which no other member of the House can possibly have.”Then he added, “Now if a speaker outside the House ceases to be impartial and indulges in party polemics, he cannot possibly carry the weight he would if he observed impartiality and calmness everywhere.”Eighty-five years after those weighty words of Gandhi, editorials in the media are commenting on the dangerous collapse of the ideal of neutrality defining the office of the presiding officers of our apex legislature.Muzzling of the opposition’s voice A bizarre development took place in the Lok Sabha on March 18, 2023, when Sansad TV covering the proceedings of the House switched off the audio a few seconds after several opposition MPs shouted “Rahulji ko Bolne Do (Let Rahul Speak)” in response to the high- decibel slogan of the Bharatiya Janata Party (BJP) MPs of the treasury benches, “Rahul Gandhi Mafi Mango (Rahul Gandhi tender apology)”.A view of the Lok Sabha. Representative image. Photo: LSTV/PTI PhotoRuling BJP party MPs have been demanding an apology from Rahul Gandhi and disturbing the proceedings of the House from March 13, 2023, onwards for his allegedly offensive remarks on Indian democracy in speeches he delivered recently in London.A close look at those speeches, however, clearly establishes that he never made any offensive remarks, rather he famously stated that Indian democracy is a public good and the recurring assaults on it by the Modi regime is an internal problem, the solution to which would come from within the country.Treasury benches’ attack on Rahul Gandhi In fact, Rahul Gandhi, while addressing a press conference in Delhi on March 16, said that he met the speaker of Lok Sabha on that day itself and said that four ministers of the Modi regime made allegations against him in the Lok Sabha from March 13 itself when the House resumed the second part of the budget session.He, therefore, submitted before the speaker that he, as an MP has the right, as per the rules of the House, to give a reply to those allegations. According to him, the Speaker only smiled while quietly listening to him.However, Rahul Gandhi expressed his apprehension that he would not be allowed to reply to those allegations and yet hoped that the speaker would grant him time to speak in the House. He proceeded to assert that it would be a test for our democracy to see how his request to the speaker is dealt with. The House was adjourned by the speaker following the pandemonium and Gandhi could not speak.Rahul Gandhi’s apprehensions were proved to be true when he was not given any time to speak on March 17 in spite of his request and the demand of some opposition MPs of Lok Sabha that he should be called to speak. The sad part is that as soon as opposition MPs shouted “Rahulji ko Bolne do” the audio of the Sansad TV was switched off and only the visuals showing a smiling speaker were transmitted!The contrasting visuals of Sansad TV only airing high-decibel slogans of BJP MPs asking for Rahul Gandhi’s apology and switching off the audio seconds after opposition MPs shouted “let Rahul Gandhi speak” clearly bring out the partisan approach adopted to keep away opposition voices from the public domain.In fact, the switching off of the audio of Sansad TV for a fairly long time proves the point, repeatedly made by several opposition MPs, including Rahul Gandhi, that their microphones are being turned off when they speak on the floor of the House.Doctrine of differential rights to discriminate against opposition In other words, the current regime unofficially follows the doctrine of differential rights. While there is one set of rights for the ruling BJP MPs, another set of rights seem to have been made for those on the opposition benches.The infamous doctrine was followed and adopted by European colonialists who framed for themselves some rights which were completely denied to the people of colonies. So what happened in the Lok Sabha on March 17, 2023, and what the opposition MPs are complaining about for a long time, is that their voices are being stifled in a way that constitutes the replay of the colonial era doctrine of differential rights, that too in the apex legislature of our country.The aggressive employment of the doctrine of differential rights by some ministers of the ruling Modi regime was evident when they condemned Rahul Gandhi for allegedly denigrating the whole nation because he made sharply critical comments on democracy and allegedly invited the United States and Europe to intervene and salvage it.Also read: What Rahul Gandhi Said in the UK and Why It Hit a Raw Nerve of the BJP’sWhile those allegations are utterly false and fabricated, it is intriguing that the same BJP ministers are silent on Modi’s speeches delivered in China, South Korea, and other countries between 2015 and 2017. Modi had said, among other things, that it was a curse to be born in a nation like India prior to 2014.Stalling the proceedings of both Houses of parliament and stridently asking Rahul Gandhi to apologise for the offending remarks he never made in London, and at the same time not applying the same yardstick for Prime Minister Modi, who truly made highly disparaging remarks on India as a whole and its citizens born in this land, is nothing but a sordid manifestation of upholding the doctrine of differential rights. It constitutes the negation of democracy, democratic values, and the ideal of equality and equal opportunity.Rahul Gandhi at the Grand Committee Room, UK Parliament. Photo: Twitter/@INCIndiaIt is rather tragic that even the presiding officers of both Houses of parliament are acting in a manner that generates an unmistakable impression that the doctrine of differential rights governs their conduct vis-à-vis treasury and opposition benches.For instance, Jagdeep Dhankar, the chairman of Rajya Sabha, and Om Birla, the speaker of Lok Sabha, expunged several remarks of Rahul Gandhi and the Leader of Opposition in Rajya Sabha, Malikarjun Kharge, on the Adani issue. But strangely remarks of Defence minister, Rajnath Singh, in the Lok Sabha that Rahul Gandhi in London had invited Europe and America to interfere in India for saving democracy was never expunged despite knowing fully well that Rahul had never made such remarks.Also read: By Appointing Personal Staff to RS Panels, VP Dhankhar Risks Undoing Efforts of Freedom StruggleIn the last week of February 2023, Dhankar asked the Privileges Committee of Rajya Sabha to inquire into the conduct of 12 MPs (nine of Congress and three of the Aam Aadmi Party) for disturbing the proceedings of the Rajya Sabha.From March 13 onwards, the strange phenomenon of ruling BJP party MPs disturbing the proceedings of both the Lok Sabha and Rajya Sabha and the silence of Dhankar concerning such disturbance in the Rajya Sabha is very telling. Adverse editorial comments The Indian Express editorial dated February 22, under the caption ‘V-P Dhankar v Opposition: A question of propriety’, very scathingly remarked, “By engaging in what looks like a partisan political exercise against the Opposition, VP Dhankar undermines the Parliament, his office.” Very strong words indeed!On the same day, the Hindu also editorially commented on the decision of the chairman of Rajya Sabha, Jagdeep Dhankar, and speaker of Lok Sabha, Om Birla, for expunging several remarks of the Leader of Opposition in Rajya Sabha, Malikarjun Kharge and Lok Sabha MP, Rahul Gandhi on Adani issue, respectively.It sharply 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.”Also read: Heed the Voice of Parliament, the Expunged and the Not-ExpungedThe two editorials are alluding to exactly this the doctrine of differential rights forming as the subtext of decisions made by Presiding officers of both Houses. It clearly affirms their partisan role which does not augur well for the health of our democracy.SC indictment on partisan speakers In 2019, the Supreme Court in Shrimanth Balasaheb Patil vs. Hon’ble Speaker Karnataka had observed: “The speaker, being a neutral person, is expected to act independently while conducting the proceedings of the house or adjudication of any petitions.” Observing that “the constitutional responsibility endowed upon him has to be scrupulously followed”, the court made it clear that “[h]is political affiliations cannot come in the way of adjudication”.Then it pertinently stated, “If the speaker is not able to disassociate from his political party and behaves contrary to the spirit of neutrality and independence, such person does not deserve to be reposed with public trust and confidence.” The Supreme Court also noted, in its operative portion, that “in any case, there is a growing trend of speakers acting against the constitutional duty of being neutral”.Can the Rajya Sabha chairman and Lok Sabha speaker turn the searchlight inwards and examine their own actions by taking into account the profound remarks of Gandhi and observations of the Supreme Court? Can they salvage our democracy and uphold the sanctity of parliament?S.N. Sahu served as Officer on Special Duty to President of India K.R. Narayanan.