The office of the deputy speaker of the Lok Sabha is not just a formal seat, but also a constitutional imperative. Mandatory under Article 93 of the Constitution of India, this role is not only complementary to the Speaker. This is important for the uninterrupted work of the lower house of Parliament. However, in recent years, the position of the deputy speaker has fallen into abnormal and disturbing neglect.
Article 93 clearly states: “People’s home, as soon as possible, choose two members of the House to be speakers and sub -pool respectively….”
“As soon as possible” means urgency, and not conscience. The role of a sub -ooker is not optional; The Constitution places this office on a similar rungs with the Speaker in terms of its need for the parliamentary structure. Article 94 states that the deputy speaker stays in the office until they resign, are removed, or are closed to become a member of Parliament.
The intention is clear: Lok Sabha should never work without a second-in-command, a constitutional security guard to ensure continuity, stability and institutional balance.
The roots of this office can be detected back in the colonial period. This situation originated in the Central Legislative Assembly under British rule, where it was known as Vice President. The first Sachidanand Sinha to hold the post in 1921 was. By the time India gained independence in 1947, the sub -speaker had already become an institutional stability in legislative rule.
See: How is the Deputy Speaker of the Lok Sabha elected?
During the Constitution Assembly (Legislative) sessions, after independence, a deliberate decision was taken to maintain the role before the Constitution was fully adopted in 1950. The first elected deputy speaker of India’s Lok Sabha was Ma Iyengar, a respected MP, who worked as a acting speaker in 1956. Importance of speaker as a ready and competent replacement.
Relevance in parliamentary practice
While the speaker is the Presiding Authority of the House, no speaker can physically preside every session. As mentioned by constitutional expert SC Kashyap in Dadasaheb Mavalankar: The father of the Lok Sabha cannot eventually head action for hours. The deputy speaker takes steps during such absence, ensuring that the proceedings continue without procedural disruption.
But the role of the deputy speaker extends beyond “filling” only. They can preside over critical sessions, preside over specific committees, and even handle sensitive debate that requires neutral and reliable authority. In particular, deputy speakers, like speakers, are expected to function impartially once selected, regardless of party affiliation.
Historically, this office has also put a symbolic significance in promoting bilateral honors. A long-standing conference-although not legally binding-Opposition has been offered to offer the post of deputy speaker. It is not only a balanced power indoors, but also helps in creating confidence and cooperation throughout the corridor. This has been an important practice in strengthening non-Muslim ethos that is to maintain the purpose of the speaker’s office.
A growing constitutional vacuum
Despite its clear constitutional base and historical continuity, the office of the deputy speaker has been vacant for the entire tenure of the 17th Lok Sabha (2019-2024). As this writing, the 18th Lok Sabha, formed after the 2024 general election, has not yet elected a sub -orator. This is not a procedural lapse; This is a constitutional discrepancy.
The office has never been vacant for such an extended time before in India’s parliamentary history. The Constitution does not write a rigorous timeline for the election, but the phrase “may be” as soon as possible “may be interpreted as a convenient”. Delay – Now it has been going on in many years – raises fundamental questions about the adherence to the constitutional mandate and respect for parliamentary norms.
Except for the status of the deputy speaker, reduces the institutional security measures established by the Constitution. It completely centrally central the speaker and procedural power within the ruling party, ending an important imbalance. In an emergency, such as the speaker’s resignation, death, or removal, lack of a nominated second-in-command can also cause confusion or a temporary leadership vacuum in the house.
The delay also indicates a widespread disregard for parliamentary conferences – especially the unwritten rule to offer the post to the opposition. While not mandatory, this practice has historically promoted inclusion and restraint in parliamentary functioning. Failing to fill the post is not just a passive oversight; This is an active rift of consensus politics.
The argument that “no urge” to appoint a deputy speaker, runs a counter for the entire ethos of constitutional democracy. The Frammers of the Constitution removed the importance of excesses under the leadership. Not after posts like deputy speakers – they are fundamental to the flexibility of the system.
In addition, restoring the practice of appointing a Deputy Speaker from the opposition can help in reconstruction of institutional credibility. In the era of increasing polarization, such a gesture will not only honor the Democratic Convention, but will also inject a degree of balance in legislative proceedings.
Need legislative improvement?
The ongoing vacuum raises a big question: should the constitutional language be tightened to set a mandatory time limit for the election of the Deputy Chairman? A specific time limit – for example, within 60 days of the first seating of the new Lok Sabha – can close this flaws of delay and warrant compliance.
Alternatively, on the advice of the Prime Minister or Chairman, a statutory machinery can be introduced to allow the President to initiate the process within the time limit. Either way, the current ambiguity is unstable in a working democracy.
The office of the deputy speaker of the Lok Sabha is neither symbolic nor alternative. It is a constitutionally accepted position designed to maintain integrity and continuity of legislative functioning. It violates the letter of the Constitution, disregarding and reduces the spirit of democratic balance.
This is the time to confirm its honor for constitutional norms and institutional integrity for Parliament. Choosing a sub-orator is not just a formality-this is a test of the House’s commitment to the rule-based governance. The Parliament of India should no longer fail this test.
Vinod Bhanu is the Executive Director of the Center for Legislative Research and Advoche (CLRA), New Delhi. Ravindra Garimella is former Joint Secretary (Vidhan), Lok Sabha, and currently Leader of Opposition, Secretary of Rajya Sabha
Published – April 29, 2025 12:16 AM IST