By Poonam I Kaushish
Fatigued and bored of next week’s consecration of Lord Ram at Ayodhya ? Flip attention to the west coast where a first rate emotion-filled politico-drama is being enacted. Over Maharashtra Assembly Speaker Narwekar taking over 18 months to rule the legislative wing of Shiv Sena led by Chief Minister Shinde with 40 MLAs was the Party and not Thackeray’s faction, but refused to disqualify his 16 legislators.
But post decision, given the high stakes, this order has wider implications as both derive legitimacy from their association with late Babasaheb Thackeray and the Party unit. Undeniably, the Speaker’s ruling has lobbed the ball back to the Supreme Court as it is on slippery grounds when tested against the anti-defection law which is built around a Party, not the legislative unit.
Narwekar maintained he could not ascertain which faction is the “real” Party since the Sena Constitution and leadership structure of 1993 did not provide conclusive answers and discounted Thackeray’s plea that Sena’s amended 2018 Constitution made him Party Chief. He also ignored Supreme Court’s ruling May which held the legislative unit has no existence independent of the Party as it fields candidates who contest on Party symbol. Perhaps he based it on Election Commission’s ruling which granted Shinde the Party symbol.
This mess started in June 2022 when Shinde split with 40 MLAs dethroned the Thackeray-NCP-Congress led MVA and formed a Government with Fadnavis’s BJP. Thackeray, initiated disqualification proceedings and MVA appointed Dy Speaker obliged. Shinde challenged this in Supreme Court which stayed rebels disqualification till it heard the case in totality. It allowed Election Commission to decide which faction would lay claim to original Party.
It is all very well for Shinde to claim Balasaheb’s legacy but it remains to be seen if he can win over cadres since the Sena’s inheritance is the late founder’s memory and the Party has been his extension. Can the new leadership set aside Balasaheb family’s pitch for his legacy?
At one level the battle should serve as a warning for individual/family-centric Parties to set their house in order and streamline functioning including holding organizational elections. At another, defection has become a part of politics. However, fractured verdicts do not give licence for a free-for-all politics of gaddi and gaddari which has become chalti ka nam gaddi, with no stops in sight!
The issue is not whether Thackeray’s Sena moves Supreme Court on Narwekar’s decision as the ruling has politics written all over it, neither that Parties have used Speaker’s post as lollipop to reward and oblige a Party worker. Or, whether a political appointee should continue to be arbitrator in matters pertaining to legislators’ defection? And that it has sounded another death knell of a Constitutional institution. But why Speaker is so important in the Constitutional scheme of things?
If a Party splits the Speaker decides whether it is a “split” or defection case. His ruling is binding. By this one act he can “destroy” a Party and facilitate another’s rule. Recall, Chandra Shekhar’s famous split which led to VP Singh’s Government fall. Worse, its par for the course when MPs-MLAs-Speaker roles are inter-changed at a drop of a hat. Whereby, ruling Party Ministers, MPs and MLAs accept Speakership only to exploit the office for richer political dividends. Whereby, it is increasingly difficult to keep track of Minister’s becoming Speaker’s and vice versa.
From second Speaker Ayyangar who became Bihar Governor on his term’s expiry to GS Dhillon and Manohar Joshi who switched roles from Ministers to Speakers, Balram Jhakar never concealed his identity as Congressman, Rabi Ray lived up to his Janata Party’s expectation and Shivraj Patil who post Speakership, lost the re-election, but was nominated by Congress to Rajya Sabha and anointed Home Minister. In UPA I Congress MP and Minister Meira Kumar became Lok Sabha Speaker in UPA II. Today eyebrows are not even raised.
All, conveniently forgetting the Speaker represents the House, its dignity, freedom and liberty. According to Erskine May, “The House has no Constitutional existence without him.” He has to ensure Opposition has its say even as Government has its way. His rulings and decisions can make or break the ruling Party. His casting vote can swing the balance either way. Expected to be above Party politics and not the ruling Party’s puppet.
Besides, his powers to use, misuse or abuse Anti-Defection Act which bestows the power of deciding whether a representative has become subject to disqualification, post their defection on the Speaker offering ample scope to him to exercise discretion and play political favourites, ignoring the letter and spirit of the Act.
The entirety of a Speaker’s decisions can also be an inducement for abuse. During Parliament’s winter session over 146 MPs were suspended while protesting or during the. monsoon session 2022 when 27 MPs were suspended. Ditto in 2016 when almost all DMK MLAs were evicted en masse from Tamil Nadu Assembly or the violence in erstwhile J&K Assembly resulting in PDP leaders hurling abuses and pedestal fan at the Speaker, raise crucial questions about our democracy’s health.
Such suspensions are increasingly becoming common across Parliament and State Assemblies, with a partisan Speaker in the vanguard of eroding India’s democratic character. Bringing things to such a pass whereby a Speaker seems to have acquired a “larger than life image and role” and has become the primus entre peri.
A kind of a demi-God who can do no wrong and whose actions are unquestionable. Forgotten in the quintessential position, is the Speaker who is essentially servant of the House has fast become its master, thanks to rules of procedure. Highlighting, falling standards in conducting legislative business in Parliament and Assemblies and the need to clearly define these.
Undoubtedly, the Speaker’s position is paradoxical. He contests election for Parliament or State Assembly and then for the post on a Party ticket, and yet is expected to conduct himself in a non-partisan manner, all the while being beholden to the Party for a ticket for the next election.
Confided a former Lok Sabha Speaker: “We are elected on Party tickets with Party funds. How can we claim independence? Moreover, even if we resign on becoming Speaker, we would still have to go back to the Party for sponsorship for next election.”
Where does one go from here? Time to look afresh at the Speaker’s powers, depoliticize his office and promote neutrality. Under Westminster model, Speaker resigns from his Party on his election and is re-elected unopposed in subsequent elections in the House of Commons. Lok Sabha and Assembly Speaker’s impartiality is more important as he has more absolute powers than his House of Commons’s counterpart.
Succinctly, the Speaker is of the House, by the House and for the House. He has to place himself in a judge’s position, not become partisan so as to avoid unconscious bias for or against a particular view thus inspiring confidence in all sections of the House about his integrity and impartiality.
Late CPM MP Somnath Chatterrjee is a beacon. He refused to resign as Lok Sabha Speaker after Left withdrew support to UPA I Government over the Indo-US nuclear deal in July 2008. Saying Speaker’s office was a high Constitutional post and above politics. Like him we need to adopt the maxim: “Once a Speaker, always a Speaker.” What gives?—– (INFA)
Follow our WhatsApp channel
