List of Lok Sabha Speakers Against Whom No-Confidence Motion Were Moved

In India’s parliamentary democracy, the office of the Lok Sabha Speaker is designed to be impartial, authoritative, and above party politics. Once elected, a Speaker is expected to rise above political affiliations and act as the custodian of the House’s dignity, procedure, and fairness. Yet, history shows that there have been rare but significant moments when the Opposition has formally challenged the Speaker’s neutrality by moving a no-confidence or removal motion. These episodes, though few, reveal deep political tensions and evolving democratic norms within India’s Parliament.

Constitutional Framework: How a Speaker Can Be Removed

Unlike a no-confidence motion against the government under Article 75, a motion against the Speaker follows Article 94(c) of the Constitution of India. A Speaker can be removed only by a resolution passed by a majority of all the then members of the Lok Sabha, after giving at least 14 days’ notice. Importantly, the Speaker does not preside over the House during the discussion on their own removal.

Because this threshold is high and politically sensitive, such motions are extremely rare and historically unsuccessful. However, their symbolism often matters more than their outcome.

G. V. Mavalankar: Setting the First Precedent (1954)

G. V. Mavalankar, independent India’s first Lok Sabha Speaker, laid down many of the conventions that still govern parliamentary conduct. Ironically, he was also the first Speaker to face a removal motion.

In 1954, members of the Opposition accused Mavalankar of favouring the ruling Congress Party in procedural matters. The motion was introduced not so much with the expectation of removal, but to register dissent and assert the Opposition’s right to question neutrality.

The motion was defeated, but it established a critical precedent: the Speaker, despite constitutional stature, was not beyond parliamentary scrutiny. Mavalankar himself defended the institution rather than his personal position, reinforcing the idea that the Speaker’s authority flows from the House, not above it.

Sardar Hukum Singh: Turbulence of the 1960s (1966)

The 1960s were marked by political instability, economic stress, and the gradual erosion of Congress dominance. Sardar Hukum Singh, who served as Speaker during this volatile period, found himself at the center of Opposition ire.

In 1966, Opposition parties moved a removal motion accusing him of procedural bias and arbitrary decisions. The motion reflected the growing assertiveness of non-Congress forces and a Parliament that was no longer deferential to authority.

Although the motion failed numerically, it underscored a shift in parliamentary culture: Speakers were increasingly viewed through a political lens, especially when ruling majorities began to shrink.

Balram Jakhar: The 1987 Showdown

Perhaps the most famous removal motion against a Lok Sabha Speaker was directed at Balram Jakhar in April 1987. This episode occurred during Rajiv Gandhi’s tenure, when allegations of corruption and authoritarian tendencies were intensifying political polarization.

The motion was spearheaded by veteran CPM leader Somnath Chatterjee, who accused Jakhar of acting as an extension of the executive rather than as an independent referee. Opposition MPs argued that frequent disruptions, suspensions, and rejection of adjournment motions reflected partisan functioning.

Despite a long and heated debate, the motion was decisively defeated due to the Congress party’s overwhelming majority. Yet, the event left a lasting imprint on parliamentary history. It demonstrated that even a powerful Speaker backed by a strong government could be publicly and formally challenged on the floor of the House.

Om Birla: Contemporary Politics and Institutional Strain (2026)

The most recent instance came in February 2026, when Opposition parties submitted a notice seeking a removal motion against Speaker Om Birla. The charges included allegations of selectively allowing debates, frequent suspension of Opposition MPs, and refusal to admit certain motions.

This episode must be understood in the context of highly polarized politics, frequent disruptions, and declining consensus between treasury and Opposition benches. Unlike earlier eras, today’s parliamentary confrontations are amplified by media scrutiny and social media narratives.

Whether or not the motion is admitted or debated fully, its filing itself signals a crisis of trust between the Speaker’s chair and the Opposition—a serious concern for institutional democracy.

Why No Removal Motion Has Ever Succeeded

Several structural and political reasons explain why no Lok Sabha Speaker has ever been removed:

  1. High Constitutional Threshold – A majority of the entire House, not just those present and voting.
  2. Ruling Party Numbers – Speakers typically belong to the ruling party, which controls the numbers.
  3. Institutional Hesitation – MPs are cautious about weakening the authority of the Speaker’s office.
  4. Symbolic Intent – Most motions are intended to send a political message rather than effect removal.

Democratic Significance of These Motions

While unsuccessful, these motions play an important democratic role:

  • They assert Opposition rights in an otherwise majoritarian system.
  • They serve as a warning signal against excessive partisanship.
  • They create historical records of parliamentary dissent.
  • They reinforce the idea that constitutional offices are accountable, not ornamental.

At the same time, frequent or frivolous use of such motions can risk eroding respect for the Speaker’s office, making balance essential.

Conclusion: Between Authority and Accountability

The history of no-confidence or removal motions against Lok Sabha Speakers is not a story of institutional failure, but of democratic assertion. From G. V. Mavalankar to Om Birla, these episodes reflect changing political cultures, shifting power balances, and evolving expectations from constitutional authorities.

In a healthy democracy, the Speaker must command authority without authoritarianism, and the Opposition must exercise dissent without delegitimization. The rare but pointed use of removal motions serves as a reminder that in India’s Parliament, no office is above accountability, and no challenge is outside constitutional bounds.

Comments are closed.