Manish Tewari | Lok Sabha obliged to elect a deputy speaker soonest

Indeed, the issue of the election of deputy speaker is not a mere procedural formality. It raises vital questions about constitutional compliance, democratic principles, and the proper functioning of India's parliamentary system.

An examination of the constitutional provisions and conventions leaves no manner of doubt that the timely election of this pivotal role cannot be done away with.

What is the Constitution Mandate?

Article 93 of the Constitution of India is unequivocally clear. It states: “The House of the People shall, as soon as maybe, choose two members of the house to be, respectively, Speaker and deputy speaker thereof.”

The use of the word “shall” in Article 93 is significant, as it denotes an obligation which is mandatory rather than a discretionary one. Every student of law is taught the rudimentary distinction between “may” and “shall”.

In the Constituent Assembly debates, Dr B.R. Ambedkar emphasised the importance of these roles. On May 19, 1949, he stated: “The Speaker and the deputy speaker, as I said, are the pivots of parliamentary democracy. Therefore, the Constitution has made elaborate provisions with regard to their election, their removal and their functions” (Constituent Assembly Debates, Vol. VIII).

The phrase “as soon as may be” in Article 93 further underscores the urgency and importance attached to these elections. While it allows for some flexibility in timing to account for practical considerations, it does not permit indefinite postponement or the option to forego the election altogether. Rule 8 of the Rules of Procedure and Conduct of Business of Lok Sabha provides for the election of the deputy speaker. Deputy speakers have been elected right from 1952 when M.A. Ayyangar was elected as the first deputy speaker. Until 2014, deputy speakers were appointed for each and every Lok Sabha term. Post May 25, 2019, there has been an unprecedented and sharp break with parliamentary convention.

Some have argued that the phrase “as soon as may be” in Article 93 allows for the separate election of the Speaker and deputy speaker. However, this interpretation runs counter to the spirit and letter of the Constitution. Article 93 clearly envisions the election of both positions as part of a single, cohesive process. The use of the word, “respectively”, reinforces this understanding, indicating that both positions should be filled concurrently. While for practical purposes, this may not be feasible and, therefore, a gap of maybe a week would not be contrary to Article 93.

Article 93 should not be interpreted in a narrow sense. The Supreme Court emphasised the importance of adhering to constitutional provisions in letter and spirit. It is settled law that the provisions of the Constitution are not to be construed in a narrow pedantic sense.

It is crucial to note that no practice, precedent, convention, or past transgression can override an explicit constitutional mandate such as the one on the election of deputy speaker in Article 93.

Why is the Deputy Speaker important?

The role of the deputy speaker is not merely ceremonial but serves as an essential component of parliamentary democracy. In the absence of the Speaker, the deputy speaker assumes their responsibilities, ensuring the continuity of legislative functions.

The deputy speaker, as the potential substitute for the Speaker, shares the Speaker’s responsibility of being guardians of the rights and privileges of the House, its members and committees. The failure to elect a deputy speaker, therefore, weakens the institutional framework of the parliament and stultifies its functioning.

M.N. Kaul and S.L. Shakdher, in their book, Practice and Procedure of Parliament, published by the Lok Sabha Secretariat, refer to the Speaker. And by extension the deputy speaker, as the conscience and guardian of the House who represents its collective voice. Pertinently, when presiding over a House sitting, the deputy speaker wields authority equal to that of the Speaker. Operating independently rather than subordinately, the deputy speaker answers solely to the House itself. This position carries full parliamentary powers, mirroring those of the Speaker during official proceedings.

Over the years, various cases concerning the decision-making of the presiding officers of legislative institutions have led to significant judicial interventions including and not limited to Mayawati v. Markandeya Chand and Ors AIR 1998 SC 3440, Jagjit Singh v. Haryana, (2006) 11 SCC 1; D. Sudhakar v. D.N. Jeevaraju and Ors. 2012 (1) SCALE 704; Balchandra L. Jarkiholi and Ors. v. B.S. Yediyurappa, (2011) 7 SCC 1; Shrimanth Balasaheb Patil v. Speaker, Karnataka Legislative Assembly, (2020) 2 SCC 595; Keisham Meghachandra Singh v. Hon’ble Speaker, Manipur Legislative Assembly and Ors, (2020) SCC OnLine SC; Subhash Desai v. Principal Secretary, Governor of Maharashtra & Ors, W.P (C) No. 493 of 2022), to catalogue the significant ones.

These are cases where the Hon’ble Supreme Court has frowned upon the lax decision-making of the presiding officers concerned. Thus a slow erosion of parliamentary conventions has brought us to a tipping point where parliamentary propriety demands that these anomalies be corrected.

The Supreme Court’s order dated February 13, 2024, to issue notice in Writ Petition (C) No. 126/2023 which sought a writ of mandamus directing the Union of India and the Speaker, Lok Sabha, to initiate the process of election of the deputy speaker underscores the gravity of this issue. However, the matter is yet to come to fruition in terms of a judicial adjudication.

The election of a deputy speaker is not a matter of political expediency but a constitutional obligation. It is imperative that the Lok Sabha fulfills this duty promptly to uphold the principles of democratic governance and constitutional supremacy. Failure to do so not only contravenes the explicit provisions of the Constitution but also undermines the institutional integrity of the parliamentary system itself.