March 10, 2026
Mahua Moitra’s speech on no-confidence motion against the Speaker
Thank you, hon. Chairperson, Sir. I would just like to point out that I have 16 to 17 minutes and I would be very obliged if I could finish my allotted time. Today, I stand on behalf of my party, the All India Trinamool Congress, with a heavy heart but with a complete clarity of purpose to support the Motion of No-Confidence against the Speaker of the 18th Lok Sabha for presiding over the liquidation of the functioning of the parliamentary democracy. It is richly ironic. It is a divine karma actually that I, the lady MP, was illegally witch-hunted by this … Government, wrongly expelled by the Ethics Committee, which had no power to expel, after a motion in which I was not allowed to speak, where the Speaker in violation of every principle of natural justice did not allow me to defend myself. Today, I am opening the debate for my party in a Motion of NoConfidence against that very Speaker. You cannot run away from karma. Dr. Ambedkar said that Parliament belongs to the Opposition and the Government should always be on trial to ensure accountability, on the anvil, he called it. The role of the Speaker is that of a neutral arbiter and a keeper of the order of the House. This is absolutely vital to the function of Parliament. John Bercow, the Speaker of the UK House of Commons, said “I never aspired to be Speaker of the House of Commons simply so I could say, ‘I am the Speaker of the House of Commons’ and tell my children that.” It cannot be a matter of ego; it cannot be a matter of personal legacy. The post is far beyond that. It is a fitting tribute to the vibrancy of India’s democracy and the strength of India’s dissenting voices that a Motion of No-Confidence was moved against the very first Speaker of the Lok Sabha, G.V. Mavalankar in 1954. He was accused of openly espousing the cause of the official spokesperson of the Ruling party in all matters and constituted a serious danger to the functioning of the Lok Sabha. Pandit Nehru, who was PM then, participated in the debate and he said that more time should be allotted to the Opposition than to the Government benches. Pandit Nehru, as Prime Minister, said this. What is the tradition we are following today? In the next decade, in 1966, there was a second Motion of No Confidence against a sitting Speaker, Shri Sardar Hukum Singh. And there it was claimed that he was arbitrarily disallowing questions likely to cause acute embarrassment to the Prime Minister, to Ministers, to top leaders and Government officials. Does it sound familiar or not? Sir, 20 years later, in 1987, again a motion was moved against the then Speaker, Shri Balram Jakhar. Moving the motion was a future Speaker, Somnath Chatterjee, and he said that Parliament is as much in danger from a muted Parliament than from Executive authoritarianism. This is what Somnath Chatterjee said. The resolution was critical of Jakhar’s rulings, which denied MPs the right to move adjournment motions. What do we have today? We have the hon. Speaker who has not allowed a single adjournment motion. Every morning, we come here and like a stuck record, what do we hear? तकसी भी स्थगन प्रस्िावी का अनमोदन ु नहं तदया गया है। Every morning, we hear this. In the previous three instances, something was different. What happened? In each of the three previous instances, there was a Deputy Speaker to preside over the proceedings. In Mavalankar’s case, there was Ananthasayanam Ayyangar, who was then Deputy Speaker of the Lok Sabha in 1954. In 1966, in Hukum Singh’s case, the then Deputy Speaker was S. V. Krishnamoorthy Rao. He did not get a chance to preside over the proceedings because the person who brought the motion, Madhu Limaye, failed to get the requisite 50 people, so the motion failed. In 1987, in Balram Jakhar’s case, Deputy Speaker, M. Thambidurai presided. But today, what do we see? There is no Deputy Speaker. In the 17th and 18th Lok Sabhas, for the past seven years, the post of the Deputy Speaker has been kept vacant. Article 93 of our Constitution very clearly says that the House of the People shall – the word ‘shall’ is used – as soon as may be, choose two Members of the House to be Speaker and Deputy Speaker respectively. If the post becomes vacant, immediately another one shall be filled. Then there is Article 95(2) of the Constitution. What does it say? It says, “During the absence of the Speaker from any sitting of the House of the People, the Deputy Speaker or, if he is also absent, any other person who can be determined by the House”. Today, when the debate started, what did we see? No disrespect to the current Chairperson sitting there, but there was no consensus, there was no spirit of the House that was taken into account. The hon. Speaker of the 18th Lok Sabha, has achieved many firsts. Unfortunately, all of them have been less than graceful benchmarks. He keeps talking about the wanted ‘garima’ of the House, but it has come to a point that the minute the Speaker comes into the House, ‘garima’ leaves the House. That is where we are today. I am first going to analyse the hon. Speaker’s inglorious record at a macro level, and then I am going to dissect it at a micro level. So, let us look at the macro point – Suspensions under Rule 374A of the Rules of Procedure and Conduct of Business in Lok Sabha. Now what did we have before? First, we had Rule 374, which required any suspension to go through a formal motion. In 2001, during Atal Ji’s Government, you brought in Rule 374A, which gives the Speaker, in case of a grave disorder, the right of immediate suspension without moving a formal motion. And this rule, the way it has been abused by the current Speaker, is the very antithesis of democracy. It is all that democracy should not be In December 2023, Birla ji ordered the largest mass suspension in the history of Indian Parliament, suspending 100 Opposition MPs. This one episode alone accounted for over 40 per cent of all Lok Sabha suspensions since 2004. In the last 20 years, he suspended 40 per cent of the total Opposition MPs in one day. Why did he do this? What was our grave error? We wanted a statement from the Government on the breach of the parliamentary security. Was this not a matter of national importance? You tell us. Let this be a fair and neutral debate. Now, while these MPs were suspended, Birla ji presided over the passage of three Criminal Amendment Bills, without any substantive discussion. I would say that he is … complicit in … But this incident was not a one-off for him. … I have listened to all of you, Mr. Pal. … Sir, please expunge it. … Suresh ji, please let me speak. … Please remove it. It will make him no less a … . Please remove it. … But this incident was not a one-off moment for the Speaker. … (Interruptions) Between 2004 and today, about 245 suspension actions were recorded in the Lok Sabha, and half of this total, that is, 120 suspensions were done by Birla ji alone. That is not all. He is the only Speaker who has suspended only the opposition MPs. … He suspended 100 per cent of these 120 MPs. … About 112 MPs were suspended in the 17th Lok Sabha…., आप नहं। … आप माइक पर बिाना बद कीतजए। … So,120 suspensions have been done by Birla ji alone. They were all Members of the Opposition, and none from the NDA. … Let us now look at the numbers regarding suspensions under previous Speakers. The country has a right to know these statistics. In Shri Somnath Chatterjee’s time, that is from 2004 to 2009, only five MPs were suspended. Never once was Rule 374A used. Four were suspended due to irregularities in MPLADS, and one was suspended due to some impropriety on an MP tour. Shri Somnath Chatterjee was a UPA nominee. He presided over turmoil in the House. Advani ji was the LoP at that time. But he never suspended the NDA MPs. He never throttled their voices. He was called Headmaster because he always used to scold MPs. He even went so far as to say that you all are misbehaving so much that not a single penny of public money should be spent on you. But even then, he never suspended anyone. Then, we come to Meira Kumar ji’s time. She was also a UPA nominee. She was the Speaker from 2009-2014, when Sushma Swaraj ji was the LoP. … Sir, … I will take your point. Yes, Sir. I would say that he presided over it. I will change my terminology; …. Thank you very much. … Perhaps, we should add a tenth member to the panel. We should add a tenth member to the panel. … Sir, I am joking. … Okay, Sir, I apologize. Please let me go back. Sir, that is fine. Please expunge it. … Sir, we are moving a No Confidence Motion against the Chair. Obviously, the comments will be against the Chair. … Suresh ji, please let me finish. Venugopal ji, please let me finish. … Venugopal ji, please let me speak. … Sir, Meira Kumar ji was also a UPA nominee. She was the Speaker from 2009-2014, and Sushma Swaraj ji was the LoP. She suspended a total of 45 MPs but 70 per cent of them were from the UPA. They were mostly Congress MPs. This is because they were protesting against the bifurcation of Andhra Pradesh. Only 30 per cent were from other parties. Sumitra Mahajan ji during 2014-19, suspended 73 MPs during her tenure, of which 25 MPs were Congress MPs, that is 33 per cent, over the Lalit Modi issue. Remaining 67 per cent were AIADMK MPs suspended over the Cauvery issue and TDP MPs suspended over the Andhra Pradesh special status issue. Sir, the second macro point. Yes, the second macro point. … The second macro point is the decline in the number of Bills being sent for scrutiny to Parliamentary Standing Committees under the guardianship of the Speaker. Let me change my terminology. Parliamentary Standing Committees were formed in 1993 for what? To scrutinise Bills. The 14th and 15th Lok Sabhas, with the UPA Governments in the plus, sent 60 per cent and 71 per cent of Bills respectively to the Parliamentary Standing Committee. What happened from 2014 to 2019? During the 16th Lok Sabha, only 27 per cent of Bills were sent. What happened in the last Lok Sabha? Sir, 16 per cent of Bills were sent. The way it is going in this Lok Sabha, God knows what will happen. It will become single digit probably. Now, let us look for a more detailed dissection. The Office of the Leader of the Opposition in the Lok Sabha was accorded statutory recognition under the Salary and Allowances of Leaders of Opposition in Parliament Act, 1977. It is equivalent to that of a Cabinet Minister in rank. Ram Subhag Singh from Buxar, Bihar was the first recognised LoP in the 4 th Lok Sabha from the Congress, which was the Kamaraj, Morarji Desai Syndicate. That was the first time any party had won 10 per cent of seats in the Parliament. Now, the first statutory LoP was C. M. Stephen. He was MP from Idukki in Kerala. Since the post was given statutory recognition, there have been 12 LoPs. Three times, the term has been vacant. Of these 12, six were from Congress, five were from BJP, and one was Babu Jagjivan Ram from the Janata Party. So, it has been pretty evenly distributed. Each of the BJP LoPs, L. K. Advani ji, Atal Bihari Vajpayee ji, Sushma Swaraj ji, has had more than their fair share of parliamentary time and spotlight in the correct spirit that the Opposition owns the House. It was not denied to them. In 2012, Sushma Swaraj ji, then the BJP’s leader in the Lok Sabha, even said, “Not allowing Parliament to function is also a form of democracy like any other form.” That we have also seen. So, in the Lok Sabha, past Speakers have allowed not just the LoP, but also senior Members to intervene in debates. For example, former Prime Minister Chandra Shekhar ji, when he came back in 1996 as the sole Member of the Samajwadi Janata Party, often stood up and was allowed to speak. In March 1997, Biju Patnaik ji intervened. There was a Madhya Pradesh BJP MP called Sundarlal Patwa, who asserted that the mandate was not actually for Deve Gowda, but the mandate was that of the BJP’s nationalism, and the BJP should be allowed to form the Government, and Biju Patnaik intervened very sharply and he said, “You people talk of nationalism. Do you know what is nationalism? You cannot know it. His rashtrawad is breaking-up the nation into 20 pieces.” Patnaik was neither asked to sit down, nor was the House adjourned by the then Speaker. Contrast that with the current Speaker. In the last Lok Sabha, the 17th, he perfected the art, or under his guardianship, the art of switching off the mics of Opposition Members mid-sentence, of ensuring Sansad TV paid for by tax payer money blacks us all out. And when we stand up, when he says this is a technical glitch, that is okay. We believe it, but I am just pointing it out. It has become a joke within us Opposition Members, that when we stand up for a zero hour or a supplementary question, we are cut off in 30 seconds saying, ‘सक्षं ेप मंबोतलए’। And for treasury benches, people are allowed to speak endlessly, make unfounded allegations, lies against all of us. The Government has made a … of parliamentary democracy, and if the Speaker is going to concede to being a complicit … it is a very sad day for Indian democracy, a very sad day. In March 2025, a delegation of INDIA Bloc MPs met the hon. Speaker. We submitted a letter raising 12 issues, including the failure to appoint a Deputy Speaker, the denial of opportunities for the Leader of the Opposition and other leaders to speak, and the disregard of the decisions of the BAC. During his tenure, the hon. Speaker has systematically throttled the voice of the Opposition and, by default, the representative voice of 41 crore Indians – 410 million Indians – whom we represent in this House. He did not allow a discussion on Manipur. We had to move a No-Confidence Motion just to secure a discussion on that issue. Do you remember? I remember the hon. Member from Manipur, Dr. Bimol Akoijam. He stood up close to midnight and, with great anguish in his voice, told us that the State of Manipur had been excluded from the national consciousness to the point of invisibility. He had to be given time at midnight to say that. When BJP MP Ramesh Bidhuri stood in this House and called Danish Ali, another fellow Member of Parliament – and I will repeat these words because the country needs to remember that they were said in this House – …, a ‘Muslim’ …, Birla ji did nothing. You failed not only Danish bhai but also 200 million Muslims of this country who place their heads on this soil of this nation. Ramesh Bidhuri continued the rest of the term merrily; he was never suspended. Birla ji did not allow a discussion on the Special Intensive Revision in Bihar and permitted only a larger discussion on electoral reforms. On every matter of national importance, adjournment motions and debates have been disallowed. … I am not yielding; he is an MP, he is not a Minister, and I am not yielding to him. On each matter – on the Hindenburg issue and the alleged AdaniGovernment nexus – the motion was disallowed. On Chinese aggression into our territory, the motion was disallowed. On the one-sided Indo-US trade deal, we had to learn from the US President that there had been such a trade deal. The Government did not tell us, and the motion was disallowed. On the Epstein files, where a sitting Cabinet Minister’s name reportedly appears 430 times and where heads across the world have rolled, again no discussion was allowed. Every time we, MPs from West Bengal, asked why the Central Government was starving West Bengal of funds and why our people were being deprived of their rightful dues, the Speaker allowed the Treasury Benches and Ministers to systematically heckle, dishonour, and humiliate us. On 2nd February, Birla ji disrupted the Leader of the Opposition’s speech on Motion of Thanks on the President’s Address, citing Rules 349 and 353 to bar the quoting of an article from the memoirs of the ex-Chief of the Army Staff. First, they said the LoP should authenticate it; then they barred him from authenticating it. Yet on 4th February, a BJP MP – designated as the prime heckler by the Treasury Benches – furnished books in the House and continued speaking for three minutes. Then Rule 349 was not applicable. It is an absolutely incredible display of partisanship, when the hon. Speaker informed the House that he had advised the Prime Minister not to come to the House as there was a danger from women MPs. The Prime Minister is too … to come to this House, and the Speaker is covering up for him in this ridiculous manner, denigrating women without any substance. Speaker sahib, you are no longer fit to conduct the affairs of this House. I will end by saying to the hon. Speaker what Oliver Cromwell said to the Rump Parliament in 1653 and what UK Conservative backbencher Leo Amery told the British Prime Minister Neville Chamberlain in 1940: “You have sat too long here for any good you have been doing. Depart, I say, and let us have done with you. In the name of God, go.” Thank you.
