Parliament – Congress Challenges Rijiju’s 1954 Comparison on Speaker Debate Time
Parliament – A political exchange intensified in the Lok Sabha on Wednesday after the Congress party criticized Union Minister Kiren Rijiju for drawing a comparison between the duration of the current debate on a resolution seeking the removal of the Speaker and a similar discussion held in 1954. The opposition party argued that the historical context cited by the minister was incomplete and overlooked important details about how debate time was distributed during that earlier parliamentary proceeding.
The discussion in the lower house is expected to conclude with a response from Union Home Minister Amit Shah, who will address the motion concerning the Speaker’s position.
Background of the Debate in Parliament
During the debate, Parliamentary Affairs Minister Kiren Rijiju stated that the government had allotted around ten hours for the discussion on the motion seeking the Speaker’s removal. He contrasted this with the debate held in December 1954, when a similar resolution was discussed for only about two and a half hours.
Congress leaders responded by saying that the comparison did not reflect the full circumstances surrounding the 1954 proceedings. According to Congress general secretary Jairam Ramesh, then Prime Minister Jawaharlal Nehru personally attended the debate and actively participated in it.
Ramesh pointed out that Nehru had requested the presiding deputy speaker to allocate most of the speaking time to opposition members so they could present their arguments in detail. This aspect, he said, was not mentioned while citing the shorter duration of the earlier debate.
Congress Highlights Historical Context
The Congress also emphasized the political environment of the 1950s to underline its argument. Ramesh noted that when the motion against the Speaker was first introduced in December 1954, the Congress held a dominant majority in the Lok Sabha with 364 members out of a total strength of 489.
Despite that numerical advantage, he said, the leadership of the time still encouraged opposition voices to receive greater time during the discussion. Ramesh shared excerpts from the parliamentary record on social media to support his claim that Nehru had suggested giving the opposition more space to present its views.
He further noted that on the day the debate was held in 1954, the Deputy Speaker presided over the proceedings because the discussion concerned the Speaker himself.
Issue of the Deputy Speaker’s Post
Another point raised by the Congress during the exchange was the absence of a Deputy Speaker in the current Lok Sabha. Ramesh argued that the position has remained vacant since 2019, which he described as inconsistent with constitutional expectations regarding the functioning of the House.
Historically, he said, the deputy speaker chaired the proceedings whenever a motion concerning the Speaker was discussed, ensuring neutrality in the conduct of the debate.
Government Responds to Criticism
Responding during the debate, Kiren Rijiju defended the government’s position and dismissed criticism from opposition members. He specifically responded to remarks made by senior Trinamool Congress leader Saugata Roy, who had questioned the decision about who should preside during the proceedings.
Rijiju reiterated that the government had allowed two full days for discussion on the motion, which he said demonstrated its willingness to permit extensive debate. Referring again to the 1954 example, he said that after initial demands for a longer discussion, a consensus had been reached at the time for a debate lasting only about two hours.
He argued that comparing a short discussion from the past with a two-day debate in the present showed that the government was not attempting to avoid parliamentary scrutiny.
Opposition and Treasury Benches Clash Over Speaker’s Conduct
The debate also saw broader political disagreements regarding the conduct of the Speaker. Members of the ruling alliance strongly defended the Speaker and argued that the motion seeking his removal was politically motivated and aimed primarily at creating attention.
Opposition MPs, however, raised concerns about what they described as partisan handling of parliamentary proceedings. They claimed certain decisions, including the suspension of some members and restrictions on speaking opportunities, reflected bias.
Some opposition leaders also said the Speaker had not allowed the Leader of Opposition Rahul Gandhi adequate time to raise issues they considered important.
Speaker Absent During Proceedings
Under constitutional provisions, a Speaker facing such a motion is permitted to remain in the House, defend themselves, and participate in voting. However, the current Speaker chose not to attend the proceedings on the day the debate began.
As the discussion nears its conclusion, the final response from the government is expected to shape the outcome of the motion and determine the next steps in the parliamentary process.