GS Paper 2 10 marks · 150w 9 min Medium

‘Once a Speaker, Always a Speaker’! Do you think this practice should be adopted to impart objectivity to the office of the Speaker of Lok Sabha? What could be its implications for the robust functioning of parliamentary business in India?

Subtopic: Constitution & Polity · Speaker of Lok Sabha and impartiality of the Chair

Model answer outline

How to structure your answer

Introduction (British convention vs Indian practice) → case for a neutral Speaker: Tenth Schedule adjudication, conduct of business → judicial concerns over partisan Speakers (Kihoto Hollohan, Keisham Meghachandra) → implications for parliamentary functioning → feasibility constraints in first-past-the-post politics → Conclusion

Full model answer

Detailed model answer

200 words · target 150 words · 9 min

Context

In Britain, the Speaker resigns from the party on election, contests the next election simply as 'the Speaker seeking re-election' and is customarily unopposed — hence 'once a Speaker, always a Speaker'. In India, the Speaker (Article 93) usually remains a party member and contests the next election on a party ticket.

Case for adopting the convention

Impartial adjudication: Kihoto Hollohan (1992) treats the Speaker as a tribunal under the Tenth Schedule, yet partisan delays in disqualification cases persist; in Keisham Meghachandra (2020) the Supreme Court even suggested an independent tribunal instead.
Fair conduct of business — allotting time, admitting motions, exercising the casting vote (Article 100) — presupposes a neutral Chair.
Assured tenure would free the Speaker from party pressure; Tenth Schedule para 5 already permits the Speaker to resign party membership, but it has been rare since N. Sanjiva Reddy (1967).

Implications for parliamentary business

A visibly neutral Speaker would deepen Opposition trust, reduce disruptions and cut litigation over rulings, improving legislative productivity.
However, India's constituency-based, first-past-the-post politics makes a guaranteed unopposed return unrealistic; parties would have to concede the Speaker's seat by consensus.

Adopting the spirit of the convention — resignation from the party, backed by an all-party compact on re-election — would materially strengthen the objectivity of the office.

Key points

What an examiner expects to see

British convention: the Speaker resigns party membership and is re-elected unopposed; in India the Speaker stays a party member and contests on a party ticket, inviting doubts of partisanship.
Kihoto Hollohan (1992) makes the Speaker a tribunal under the Tenth Schedule, so impartiality is a constitutional expectation, not a courtesy.
Keisham Meghachandra Singh (2020): the Supreme Court flagged partisan delays in disqualification petitions and mooted an independent tribunal in place of the Speaker.
Tenth Schedule para 5 already exempts a Speaker who resigns party membership from disqualification — a route rarely used since N. Sanjiva Reddy (1967).
A neutral Speaker improves Opposition trust, fair time allocation and reduces disruptions and litigation over rulings.
Feasibility limit: first-past-the-post constituency politics makes an unopposed return unrealistic without an all-party consensus on the Speaker's seat.

Examples to use

Concrete cases, schemes and judgments

Kihoto Hollohan v. Zachillhu (1992) — Speaker as Tenth Schedule tribunal, subject to judicial review
Keisham Meghachandra Singh v. Speaker, Manipur Assembly (2020) — SC suggested an independent tribunal for defection cases
N. Sanjiva Reddy resigned his party membership on becoming Speaker (1967)
Prolonged disqualification proceedings in the Maharashtra Assembly (2022–24) under Speaker's adjudication
UK convention of the Speaker seeking re-election unopposed

Keywords / terms

Terminology to weave into the answer

Speaker of Lok SabhaTenth Scheduleanti-defection adjudicationcasting voteparliamentary conventionimpartiality of the Chair