On February 2, Leader of Opposition Rahul Gandhi was not allowed to speak in the Lok Sabha during the discussion on motion of thanks on President’s Address because he tried to quote from an article published in The Caravan magazine giving an account of the unpublished memoirs of the then army chief M.M. Naravane. The former army chief reportedly wrote that Prime Minister Narendra Modi did not give him clear orders to deal with advancing Chinese tanks in India-China border near Ladakh.Gandhi was told by defence minister Rajnath Singh, home minister Amit Shah and even speaker Om Birla that he could not quote from a book which has not been published. The next day, Gandhi, while displaying a copy of Naravane’s published book in the premises of parliament said that he would present a copy of the book to Modi in the Lok Sabha but presciently added that the prime minister would not come to the House. Predictably Modi did not come and next day speaker Birla claimed he had advised Modi not to come because “Congress women MPs had gathered near his seat and any untoward incident could have taken place”.Congress leader Priyanka Gandhi denied that there was any plan to attack the prime minister and the opposition accused Modi of being too fearful to face the Lok Sabha. Birla claimed that he had credible information that unprecedented disturbances could be caused by Congress leaders near Prime Minister Modi’s seat in the House.Such an extraordinary statement has no parallel in the annals of our parliamentary democracy in the post-independence period. It signals that, as the occupant of the office of the speaker, Birla has negated the ideals of impartiality and neutrality defining his office and has seemingly acted as the spokesperson of the government. For the first time, the motion of thanks on President’s Address was passed by the House without the prime minister replying to the discussion as mandated by the constitution in its Article 87(2).Also read: Ahead of State Polls, Modi Takes Aim at TMC, DMK, CPI(M) in Rajya Sabha Alongside Familiar Target CongressThe incumbent of the office of the speaker of Lok Sabha, as the presiding officer, is duty-bound to discharge functions, as ordained by the constitution, so that the core objective of the parliamentary democracy to hold the government to account in the legislature is fulfilled. The procedural device of discussion on the matters referred to in President’s Address on a motion of thanks and the prime minister’s reply to such discussion constitutes a mechanism for holding the government to account.So by asking Prime Minister Modi not to come to the Lok Sabha to reply to the discussion on the motion of thanks on President’s Address, speaker Birla has compromised the ideal of holding the government to account in the legislature.Ambedkar’s visionOn November 4, 1948, while moving the draft constitution for consideration of the Constituent Assembly, B.R. Ambedkar famously stated that in the parliamentary system, the assessment of responsibility of the executive is both daily and periodic and “the daily assessment is done by members of parliament, through questions, resolutions, no-confidence motions, adjournment motions and debates on addresses.”So, Birla’s request to the prime minister to not come to the Lok Sabha to reply to the debates on the motion of thanks on President’s Address is a clear infringement of the core value of responsibility of the executive to the legislature.Speaker’s roleAs a speaker, Birla is vested with ample penal powers to bring the House to order so that the House proceedings could be conducted smoothly. He is the custodian of the rights and privileges of the members of the House regardless of their status as members of the treasury or opposition benches.By pointing finger at Congress members to protect Modi, Birla clearly showed his alignment with the prime minister vis-a-vis the opposition leaders belonging to the Congress party. Such an image of Birla demolishes the ideals of impartiality and neutrality, which is integral to the office of the speaker that he occupies.Gandhi’s vision of role of speakerIn his article titled ‘Speakers and Politics,’ published in Harijan on July 17, 1938, Mahatma Gandhi had thoughtfully observed, “… The speaker’s position assumes very high importance, greater than that of the prime minister.”Adducing the reasons in defence of what he wrote, Gandhiji outlined the role of a speaker as a judge to give impartial and just rulings, enforce decorum and laws of courtesy between members, remain calm in the midst of storms and avail opportunities of winning over opponents which no other member of the House could possibly have.Eighty-eight years after those words were uttered by Gandhi, Birla as the occupant of the august office of the speaker has gone against those ideals.Gandhi and Ambedkar’s vision of legislatureWhen Article 85 of the constitution (Article 69 in the draft constitution) providing for three sessions of the parliament (budget, autumn and winter) was being discussed in the Constituent Assembly on May 18, 1949, Ambedkar stated that during the British rule “the legislature was summoned primarily for the purpose of collecting revenue… the executive was not very keen to meet the legislature in order to permit the legislature either to question the day-to-day administration by exercising its right of interpellation or of moving legislation to remove social grievances.”He described the situation as a “travesty of democracy” and added, “I do not think any executive would hereafter be capable of showing this kind of callous conduct towards the legislature.”Also read: Behind the Silence of India’s VeteransBirla’s advice to Modi not to come to the Lok Sabha when the President’s Address was being discussed during the budget session is nothing but, in the words of Ambedkar, “a travesty of democracy.” Such an action of Birla as the speaker of Lok Sabha falls into the category of “callous conduct towards the legislature.”Mahatma Gandhi in his article “H. E. The Viceroy’s Ire,” published in Navajivan, on April 21, 1929 very sharply remarked about the cavalier manner in which legislatures were being treated by British rulers. He wrote, “Legislative Assemblies and such other bodies are like toys in the hands of the rulers. As long as they wish, they play with them and, when they please no longer, they wreck them.”Prime Minister Modi, preferring to stay away from the Lok Sabha and not replying to the discussion on the Motion of Thanks on the President’s Address, ostensibly on Birla’s advice, is treating the apex legislature as a toy, playing with it when he wishes and wrecking it when it causes him embarrassment.It is imperative to salvage parliamentary democracy, one of the basic structure of the constitution, to save India and the ideals that nourish our country.S.N. Sahu served as Officer on Special Duty to President of India K.R. Narayanan.