The Lok Sabha on Tuesday admitted a resolution moved by the Opposition seeking the removal of Speaker Om Birla from office. It triggered a heated debate in the House over constitutional provisions as well as parliamentary procedure.It also raised the question as to who should preside over the proceedings while the motion is under consideration.Congress deputy leader in the Lower House Gaurav Gogoi, while initiating the discussion on the motion, referred to a landmark Supreme Court judgment. “In the Supreme Court judgment in the Nabam Rebia case, the court clearly stated that the Speaker is expected to demonstrate elevated independence, impeccable objectivity, and above all, absolute impartiality. These are the standards expected of the presiding officer of the House,” he said.He questioned the constitutional procedure regarding who should preside when a motion seeking the Speaker’s removal is under discussion.“Article 96 clearly states that the Speaker or the Deputy Speaker shall not preside when a resolution for their removal is under consideration. The Speaker may remain present in the House but cannot preside over the proceedings. If a panel of chairpersons exists, how was it decided that honourable Jagdambika Pal should preside? The House has no record indicating how this decision was made. We register our strongest protest,” he said.Responding to the objections, Home Minister Amit Shah argued that the Speaker’s office could not remain vacant and the House must continue to function.“The word ‘preside’ refers to conducting the proceedings of the House. Even when the election for the Speaker takes place, the functioning of the office continues. The House cannot be left without a presiding authority,” Shah said.Gogoi further argued that the absence of a Deputy Speaker had complicated the situation.“Under Article 95, the House must determine who will act as the Speaker in such circumstances. That determination has not been made. Historically, whenever a motion was brought against a Speaker, the Deputy Speaker presided. Today, despite the House functioning for several years, there is still no Deputy Speaker. The nation must know how Parliament is being run,” he said.“The Speaker is not the voice of the government but the custodian of the rights of the entire House. Constitutional morality demands impartiality. Unfortunately, opposition leaders are often denied adequate opportunity to speak, and interruptions from the treasury benches disrupt the discussion,” Gogoi said.Gogoi also cited instances where the Leader of the Opposition allegedly faced interruptions while attempting to raise critical issues, including discussions related to trade negotiations and agricultural concessions.Later, participating in the discussion on the motion, Chandigarh Congress MP Manish Tewari said the House was not only of the government but also of the Opposition.The motion, he said, was not against any individual but had been brought to ensure that the parliamentary system continued to run in an impartial manner.Congress MP Priyanka Gandhi Vadra, while intervening in the discussion on the motion, said in the Lok Sabha that Leader of the Opposition Rahul Gandhi was the only leader who had refused to bow before the government and who always spoke the truth.She said it was nice to see Parliamentary Affairs Minister Kiren Rijiju appreciate former PM Jawaharlal Nehru and quote him while speaking about parliamentary decorum, something which the NDA government hadn’t done in the past 12 years.Her remarks came after Rijiju quoted Nehru’s observations made in 1954 while opposing a motion to remove then Speaker GV Mavalankar. Nehru had described the resolution a “vicious thing”, and had questioned whether those who had signed it had even read it carefully.Meanwhile, Rijiju criticised the Opposition for bringing a motion against the Speaker, calling the move “unfortunate” and accusing it of attempting to dictate the functioning of the Speaker’s office.Rijiju also targeted Rahul, alleging that his conduct in the House reflected immaturity. He claimed that Rahul frequently skipped parliamentary proceedings to travel abroad and often left the House immediately after delivering his speech, ignoring established parliamentary rules. He said Priyanka might prove to be a more effective Leader of the Opposition than Rahul.