New Delhi, March 10 (NationPress) During a session in the Lok Sabha on Tuesday, Congress MP Gaurav Gogoi presented both procedural and constitutional challenges regarding the ongoing no-confidence motion against Speaker Om Birla. In his remarks, Gogoi referenced parliamentary regulations, stating that the Speaker should recuse themselves from presiding over discussions that involve a resolution for their removal.

He further questioned the decision-making process behind Jagdambika Pal's presiding role during this critical debate, highlighting a lack of “official record” from the chairpersons’ panel that clarifies the choice. Gogoi insisted that it is essential for the House to understand the basis for Pal’s position during such a significant discussion.

In response, Jagdambika Pal asserted that he had previously ruled on this matter, arguing that since the Speaker's position was not vacant, the Speaker’s appointments retained their validity, and thus, the decision regarding who presides falls within his authority.

Gogoi contested this interpretation, questioning how the Speaker could maintain authority to appoint a presiding officer while simultaneously being unable to lead the discussions concerning their own removal.

Union Home Minister Amit Shah subsequently entered the debate, asserting that the Speaker's powers endure even during times such as elections, and accused the Opposition of “misinterpreting” the term 'preside'. He elaborated that while the Speaker cannot oversee discussions about their own removal, the office itself remains intact.

Furthermore, Pal supported this assertion, emphasizing that the Speaker's authority is valid even after the dissolution of the Lok Sabha, continuing until a new government is formed and a new Speaker is elected.

Gogoi reiterated his stance, claiming that the presiding of a panel member appointed by the Speaker during this debate violates the Constitution. He also noted that in the last three instances where resolutions for the removal of a Lok Sabha Speaker were introduced, a Deputy Speaker was present, unlike the current situation where the role remains unfilled.

Stating that the Opposition does not harbor any “personal animosity” towards Om Birla, Gogoi clarified that the issue at hand concerns the operational integrity of the Chair and the management of the House proceedings. He pointed out the absence of a Deputy Speaker despite the INDIA Bloc comprising nearly 200 members in the Lok Sabha, highlighting the need for transparency regarding the House's operations.

Continuing his criticisms, Gogoi expressed concerns over the House's microphone system, alleging it was being “weaponized” to favor members of the Treasury Benches while denying Opposition MPs, especially Rahul Gandhi, access to speak. He accused the leadership of allowing the Leader of the Opposition to remain silent on pressing national security matters.

“The country is suffering from a cowardly leadership,” Gogoi declared, attributing the lack of speaking opportunities for the Opposition to these leadership issues. At this point, Pal interjected, claiming these remarks constituted “slanders.”

Gogoi dismissed this accusation, asserting that these were not mere allegations but pertinent issues related to the resolution under discussion, emphasizing that the Opposition was being systematically “disallowed” from accessing speaking opportunities in the House.