New Delhi, March 10 (NationPress) Trinamool Congress MP Mahua Moitra remarked on Tuesday that Speaker Om Birla has mastered the technique of silencing microphones for Opposition MPs.

She advocated for the motion of no confidence against Lok Sabha Speaker Om Birla, raising multiple concerns regarding parliamentary conduct during the House debate.

Moitra asserted, 'It appears that the Speaker has mastered the technique of silencing the microphones for Opposition representatives.'

She alleged that members of the ruling party are permitted to speak indefinitely, while the time allotted to Opposition members is frequently restricted when they attempt to address the Assembly.

'The Speaker has systematically suppressed the voice of the Opposition, and consequently, the voice of 410 million Indians,' she stated.

During her remarks, Moitra pointed out that the consensus of the Lok Sabha had not been sought regarding who would oversee the proceedings during the discussion on the motion.

She highlighted that the Constitution requires that the positions of Speaker and Deputy Speaker be filled promptly upon vacancy, yet there is currently no Deputy Speaker in the Lok Sabha.

Initiating the debate for the Trinamool Congress, Moitra expressed, 'I stand in this House today with a heavy heart but with a clear purpose to support the no-confidence motion against the Speaker of the 18th Lok Sabha for presiding over the dismantling of parliamentary democracy.'

She also made reference to her expulsion from the Lok Sabha in the previous Parliament, stating that this current debate holds a sense of irony for her.

'It is profoundly ironic, almost a divine karma, that I, the female MP who was unjustly targeted by this misogynistic government, expelled without due process by the ethics committee—which lacked the authority to do so after a motion where I was not permitted to speak. The Speaker, in violation of all principles of natural justice, did not allow me to defend myself. Today, I am initiating the debate for my party on the no-confidence motion against that very Speaker. You cannot escape karma,' she asserted.

Moitra emphasized that the motion aligns with a long-standing parliamentary tradition, citing previous instances when similar resolutions were brought against Lok Sabha Speakers.

'This is a fitting tribute to the vitality of India's democracy and the strength of dissenting voices that a no-confidence motion was initiated against the first Speaker of the Lok Sabha, G.V. Mavalankar, in 1954. He was accused of officially representing the ruling party's spokesperson in all matters and endangering the functioning of the Lok Sabha,' she noted.

Regarding the ensuing debate, Moitra mentioned that then-Prime Minister Jawaharlal Nehru participated and suggested that the Opposition should receive more speaking time than the government during discussions.

'Pandit Nehru, as Prime Minister, participated in the debate and insisted that the Opposition should be allotted more time than the government benches. What tradition are we following today?' she questioned.

The Trinamool MP also cited two other occasions when similar motions had been tabled against Lok Sabha Speakers, referring to the second motion in 1966 against Speaker Sardar Hukum Singh and another in 1987 against Speaker Balram Jakhar.

'The resolution criticized Jakhar’s rulings that barred Opposition MPs from proposing adjournment motions. And what do we witness today? We have a Speaker who has not permitted a single adjournment motion,' she stated.

Moitra reiterated that the Constitution demands both Speaker and Deputy Speaker positions to be promptly filled, but remarked that the Deputy Speaker's role currently remains unoccupied.

She also accused that the House was not consulted on the decision regarding who would preside over the proceedings concerning the motion.

During her address, Moitra accused Speaker Om Birla of orchestrating the largest mass suspension of MPs in Indian Parliament history.

'This single incident represented over 40 percent of all Lok Sabha suspensions since 2004,' she declared, adding that these suspensions occurred when MPs were calling for a government statement on a breach of Parliament security.

She also claimed that 'not a single suspension' was levied against a ruling party member.

Her statements drew objections from BJP members in the House, after which Krishna Prasad Tenneti, who was presiding over the proceedings, indicated that a controversial term used by Moitra would be expunged from the record.

During this exchange, Moitra responded to a marshal whose voice could be heard through the Speaker's microphone, instructing him to stop speaking and stating, 'he is seated in the chair, not you.'

She continued her commentary regarding the suspensions of MPs, but Tenneti interjected to clarify that MPs are suspended by the House, not directly by the Speaker.

In response, Moitra acknowledged, 'I appreciate that you are reminded of this by the marshal, and I will take your point,' thanking the marshal again before amending her statement to say that the Speaker oversaw the House during the suspensions.

In a lighter moment, she suggested that perhaps the marshal should be included as the 'tenth member of the panel of chairpersons.'

This remark incited further protests from BJP members. BJP MP Bhartruhari Mahtab urged Tenneti to caution Moitra regarding such comments, deeming them inappropriate.

Tenneti concurred with the objection, noting that Moitra's comments were directed against the Chair.

Moitra responded, 'We are moving a no-confidence motion against the Chair; naturally, the comments will address the Chair.'