Office of the Speaker in our history had its origin in 1921 when the Central Legislative Assembly was constituted under the Montague-Chelmsford reforms. At that time, office of the Speaker did not enjoy much importance. But, a significant one, after the Constitution came into force, as is evident from the constitutional scheme of ours, the Speaker enjoys high constitutional status and the Constitution reposes immense faith in him.
For this reason alone, the Speaker is expected to have a sense of elevated independence, impeccable objectivity and irreproachable fairness, and above all absolute impartiality. This expectation is the constitutional warrant; not a fond hope and expectation of any individual or group.
The duty of the Speaker
The Speaker has the duty to see that business of the House is carried out in a decorous and disciplined manner. This functioning requires him to have unimpeachable faith in the intrinsic marrows of the Constitution, constitutionalism and, “Rule of Law”. The faith, needless to emphasise, should be a visible and apparent one.
That is why, possibly, former Speaker of the House of Commons of the United Kingdom, Baroness Boothroyd, stated:-
“When you have been committed all your adult life to the ideals and policies of one party, impartiality is a quality that you have to work at. But if you cannot put aside partisanship you have no right to even think of becoming Speaker.”
The expression can be different if one wishes to choose the metaphor of the ancients. The ancient wisdom would require the Speaker to abandon his “purbashrama” and get wedded to “parashrama”. To elucidate, a Speaker has to constantly remain in company with the cherished values of incarnation of his office and not deviate even slightly from the constitutional conscience and philosophy. His detachment has to have perceptibility.
Removal of the Speaker
For apposite appreciation, we may refer to the Constitutional Assembly debates. The position of the Speaker being different, the procedure for removal is different and, the debate in the Constituent Assembly is indicative of the same:-
To quote:-
“Mr. Mohd. Tahir: Sir, I beg to move: “That in clause (c) of article 158, for the words ‘all the then members of the Assembly’ the words ‘the members of the Assembly present and voting’ be substituted.” Clause (c) runs as follows: “(c) may be removed from his office for incapacity or want of confidence by a resolution of the Assembly passed by a majority of all the then members of the Assembly”.
Sir, so far as I can understand the meaning of the wording, “all the then members of the Assembly”, it includes all the members of the Assembly. Supposing a House is composed of 300 members then, it will mean all the members of the Assembly that is 300. Supposing fifty members of the House are not present in the House, then, those members will not have the right to give their votes so far as this question is concerned.
Therefore, I think that it would be better that this matter should be considered by only those members who are present in the Assembly and who can vote in the matter. If this phrase “all the then members of the Assembly” means the members who are present in the Assembly, then, I have no objection. If it means all the members of which the House is composed, I think it is not desirable to keep the clause as it stands.
With these few words, I move my amendment”.
“Mr. President: The question is:
“That in clause (c) of article 158, for words ‘all the then members of the Assembly’ the words ‘the members of the Assembly present and voting’ be substituted.” The amendment was negatived.”
The factum of negativing the proposed amendment has to be appreciated keeping in mind the wisdom of the founding fathers.
Presently to the anatomy of Article 179(c). The said provision lays focus on two aspects, namely,
(i) resolution of the Assembly, and
(ii) the resolution to be passed by a majority of all the then members of the Assembly.
The first proviso commands that no resolution for the purpose of clause (c) shall be moved unless fourteen days’ notice has been given of the intention to move the resolution.
The fourteen days’ time as mandated by the constitutional provision gives protection to the Speaker. It has a salutary purpose. The Founding Fathers of the Constitution had thought it appropriate that a resolution to be moved for removal of the Speaker is a matter of grave constitutional consequence and, therefore, the “intention to move the resolution”, has to precede the act of moving of the resolution.
Be it stated that the Rules are framed under Article 208 of the Constitution for regulating the procedure of a House of the Legislature of a State and the conduct of its business and said procedures prescribe the manner of expressing the intention to move the resolution.
While prescribing a resolution to be passed by the majority, the framers of the Constitution have also provided for “all the then members of the Assembly”. It indicates the intention of the Founding Fathers that “all the then members of the Assembly” have to be regarded as to be the actual or real figure. A hypothetical argument may be advanced that if a member dies within the prescribed period of 14 days, it may lead to an absurd situation. Similarly, the issue of resignation may arise or some may stand convicted and thereby become disqualified. Death or resignation has to be kept in a different realm.
Reference
Nabam Rebia v. Deputy Speaker (2015)