Post of Deputy Speaker: A Constitutional Imperative Ignored
Vacant by design, not oversight. The continued absence of a Deputy Speaker in the Lok Sabha since 2019 is no benign institutional delay—it is a serious erosion of constitutional morality, allowing majoritarian impulses to undermine a structure explicitly designed for bipartisan governance. This wilful neglect is both an affront to Article 93 of the Indian Constitution and a betrayal of parliamentary democracy's delicate scaffolding. Constitutional offices, by their very definition, are not discretionary. Yet, political expediency has reduced the Deputy Speakership—a vital position safeguarding institutional checks and balances—to a bargaining chip held hostage to the ruling dispensation's convenience.
The Institutional Design Under Attack
Article 93 mandates that the Lok Sabha "shall, as soon as may be, choose two members to be, respectively, Speaker and Deputy Speaker." The use of the obligatory "shall" reflects the framers' intent: this position was deemed essential to the functioning of the House. Nonetheless, the Constitution is silent on specific timelines, and the Rules of Procedure and Conduct of Business in Lok Sabha exacerbate this architectural loophole by failing to prescribe a time-bound framework for the election. Unlike other high offices that must meet strict timelines—a President within six months of vacancy under Article 62(2), for instance—the post of Deputy Speaker dangles in perpetual ambiguity.
Historically, this institution's roots lie in the Government of India Act, 1919, which introduced the post of Deputy Speaker (then called Deputy President) to institutionalise a measure of neutrality and bipartisanship. Since independence, conventions strengthened this democratic ethos: G.V. Mavalankar, the first Lok Sabha Speaker, set the precedent of allocating the Deputy Speaker post to the Opposition, fostering collaborative politics. The abandonment of this tradition marginalises dissent and enfeebles parliamentary checks on executive authority.
Why the Void Matters
Centralisation of power and partisan bias: The Speaker of the Lok Sabha, typically drawn from the ruling party, wields significant authority over the House's functioning—from admitting motions to interpreting procedural rules. The absence of an Opposition-nominated Deputy Speaker directly threatens procedural neutrality. A stark example is the recent controversy over expedited legislation: data from PRS India shows that over 40% of bills in the current Lok Sabha were passed without scrutiny in parliamentary committees between 2019 and 2023. The Opposition’s institutional voices were systemically weakened in an already majoritarian ecosystem.
Functional risks: In parliamentary systems, continuity is key. Without a Deputy Speaker, an abrupt resignation or incapacitation of the Speaker (as hypothetical but plausible scenarios) could lead to leadership vacuums. This is hardly theoretical—in 1969, when Speaker N. Sanjiva Reddy resigned to contest the presidency, the smooth transition owed much to an active Deputy Speaker. Today’s void is a crisis waiting to erupt.
Breaking constitutional morality: Critics may dismiss the vacancy as procedural, but its implications are normative. The Constitution’s framers equipped parliamentary systems with institutional counterbalances to neutralise executive overreach. Keeping this post vacant for over six years signals a deliberate trivialisation of those foundational principles. The ministry contends that “it is not constitutionally time-bound,” but the normative force of “as soon as may be” cannot be ignored. Its deliberate misinterpretation emboldens unchecked executive power.
Counter-Argument: Legal Ambiguity or Political Expediency?
Defenders of the Deputy Speaker’s vacancy argue that Article 93's lack of explicit deadlines permits legislative discretion. Procedural autonomy, they claim, is a hallmark of democracy. Moreover, in practical terms, the absence of a Deputy Speaker has not paralyzed the House. The Speaker, equipped with extensive powers under Article 94, has effectively discharged all constitutional and statutory responsibilities thus far.
While this argument superficially appears valid, it ignores constitutional morality. "As soon as may be" cannot be construed to mean "as long as politically expedient." Autonomy, in this case, has been misused to dilute the opposition's role in parliamentary democracy. Unlike the judiciary or the Election Commission, Parliament has no independent watchdog to enforce accountability—a vacuum this delay exploits. Procedural empowerment must work as a supplement to, not a substitute for, democratic values.
The Westminster Example: Emergency Proofing Their Parliaments
A pointed contrast is the UK Parliament, whose House of Commons appoints multiple Deputy Speakers (known as Chairmen of Ways and Means). Unlike in India, the first Deputy Speaker often comes from the Opposition benches by convention, ensuring bipartisan representation. Elections are prompt: under Standing Order No. 2A, the election of Deputy Speakers happens within 14 days post the first sitting of a newly-elected House. Efficiency is underpinned by clarity. Canada follows a similar model, ensuring appointments within weeks after the speaker’s selection. These democracies recognize the necessity of such safeguards to ensure institutional stability. India must move beyond opacity to embrace similar clarity-backed accountability measures.
Fixing Accountability: Where Do We Go from Here?
With the Lok Sabha in its final legislative year, meaningful institutional reengineering appears unlikely in the immediate term. However, structural fixes are non-negotiable if parliamentary impartiality and constitutional integrity are to endure:
- Time-bound amendments: Parliament must amend its Rules of Procedure to institute a statutory timeline, mandating the Deputy Speaker’s election within 60 days of a Lok Sabha forming.
- Court Mandates: The Supreme Court, which admitted a writ petition in 2021, must fast-track adjudication and spell out enforceable guidelines. Judicial intervention, while extraordinary, seems necessary to plug this gaping constitutional void.
- Codifying Opposition Representation: The convention of reserving the Deputy Speaker’s seat for the Opposition must be codified into law, much like the Leader of Opposition is statutorily recognised under the Salary and Allowances of Leaders of Opposition Act, 1977.
Conclusion: No Room for Institutional Ambiguity
The Deputy Speaker’s six-year-long absence is symptomatic of a broader malaise: the politicisation of constitutional mandates for short-term gains. Without systemic corrections, India’s parliamentary system risks becoming increasingly reminiscent of an executive-annexed assembly rather than a forum of deliberative democracy.
Restoring the post is not merely an act of institutional housekeeping. Instead, it is a public reaffirmation of India's commitment to cooperative and accountable governance. Failure to do so risks reducing constitutional offices listed in Articles 93 and 94 to symbolic forms devoid of functional substance—a regression no democracy can afford.
Practice Questions
- Which of the following constitutional provisions mentions the post of Deputy Speaker of the Lok Sabha?
- a) Article 93
- b) Article 93 (Correct Answer)
- c) Article 89
- d) Article 96
- The role of the Deputy Speaker of the Lok Sabha does NOT include:
- a) Presiding over the House during the Speaker’s absence
- b) Voting in case of a tie
- c) Deciding questions of disqualification under the Tenth Schedule (Correct Answer)
- d) Overseeing select Parliamentary Committees
Practice Questions for UPSC
Prelims Practice Questions
- Article 93 makes the election of a Deputy Speaker a mandatory constitutional requirement, even though it does not prescribe a specific deadline.
- The absence of a time-bound framework in the Lok Sabha’s rules can enable prolonged political delay in filling the office.
- Because Article 62(2) prescribes a six-month deadline for electing a President after vacancy, Article 93 must be interpreted to impose the same deadline for the Deputy Speaker.
Which of the above statements is/are correct?
- The vacancy can weaken procedural neutrality because the Speaker is typically from the ruling party and exercises significant control over the House’s functioning.
- The vacancy is functionally irrelevant because a Speaker’s resignation or incapacitation cannot create a leadership vacuum in a parliamentary system.
- The article suggests that legal permissibility cannot be the sole test; constitutional morality is relevant in judging prolonged delays.
Which of the above statements is/are correct?
Frequently Asked Questions
Why is the continued vacancy of the Deputy Speaker in the Lok Sabha portrayed as a constitutional issue rather than a routine procedural delay?
Article 93 uses the mandatory term “shall” and expects the House to choose a Speaker and Deputy Speaker “as soon as may be,” signalling a constitutional duty, not an optional step. Keeping the post vacant weakens a designed bipartisan check, thereby undermining constitutional morality and parliamentary democracy’s balance.
How do constitutional text and Lok Sabha rules together create space for prolonged delay in electing a Deputy Speaker?
While Article 93 mandates the choice of a Deputy Speaker, it does not prescribe an explicit deadline, creating ambiguity. The Rules of Procedure and Conduct of Business in Lok Sabha also do not establish a time-bound mechanism, allowing political discretion to stretch “as soon as may be.”
What is the democratic rationale behind the convention of offering the Deputy Speaker’s post to the Opposition, and what is the impact of abandoning it?
The convention, traced to early parliamentary practice after independence, aimed to institutionalise neutrality and bipartisanship by giving the Opposition an office of procedural significance. Abandoning it can marginalise dissent and reduce parliamentary checks on executive authority, especially when the Speaker is typically from the ruling party.
In what ways can the absence of a Deputy Speaker affect procedural neutrality and day-to-day functioning of the Lok Sabha?
The Speaker exercises significant control over House functioning, including admitting motions and interpreting procedure, so the absence of an Opposition-nominated Deputy Speaker may tilt institutional balance. The article links this to concerns about expedited law-making, citing that over 40% of bills between 2019 and 2023 were passed without committee scrutiny.
How does the article respond to the argument that the vacancy is legally permissible because Article 93 is not time-bound and the Speaker can manage under Article 94?
It accepts that the lack of an explicit deadline creates legal ambiguity and that the House has not been formally paralysed. However, it argues that this reading ignores constitutional morality, because “as soon as may be” cannot be reduced to political convenience, especially in the absence of an external parliamentary watchdog.
About LearnPro Editorial Standards
LearnPro editorial content is researched and reviewed by subject matter experts with backgrounds in civil services preparation. Our articles draw from official government sources, NCERT textbooks, standard reference materials, and reputed publications including The Hindu, Indian Express, and PIB.
Content is regularly updated to reflect the latest syllabus changes, exam patterns, and current developments. For corrections or feedback, contact us at admin@learnpro.in.