The second phase of the 2026 Budget Session opened on Monday with a confrontation the Indian Parliament has witnessed fewer than five times since Independence, and it promptly made itself impossible to conduct. The Lok Sabha could not take up the Opposition’s resolution to remove Speaker Om Birla — listed as the only business of the day — because the same Opposition that had submitted the resolution chose to demand a separate debate on the West Asia crisis first, turning the House into a theatre of competing urgencies. The resolution now moves to Tuesday’s agenda. The underlying reasons for it, however, are not going anywhere.
The Resolution: What It Is and Where It Stands
The no-confidence motion against Speaker Birla carries the signatures of 118 Members of Parliament and was submitted by Congress MPs Mohammad Jawed, Kodikunnil Suresh, and Mallu Ravi. The notice formally accuses Birla of disallowing Leader of the Opposition Rahul Gandhi and other Opposition leaders from speaking in the House, making unwarranted allegations against women MPs belonging to the Opposition, suspending Opposition MPs for entire sessions for raising issues of public concern, and failing to rebuke ruling party members for making “wholly objectionable and derogatory remarks against former Prime Ministers.” The combined conduct, the notice argues, constitutes a danger to the proper functioning of the Lok Sabha and evidence that Birla has “ceased to maintain an impartial attitude necessary to command the confidence of all sections of the House.”
All India Trinamool Congress MPs confirmed they would support the motion in accordance with a direction from party chairperson Mamata Banerjee — a significant development given initial uncertainty about the TMC’s position and one that brings the Opposition’s visible support base for the motion to its widest point.
The constitutional mechanics of such a resolution are specific. Once 50 Members stand in support when the Chair calls upon them, the notice is admitted for discussion and a vote. Birla can be present, defend himself, and cast a vote on the resolution, but cannot preside over the House while the matter is under consideration. Since he does not have a division number in the automated voting system, he would need to cast his vote using a paper slip. Three Lok Sabha Speakers have faced such motions before — G.V. Mavalankar in 1954, Hukam Singh in 1966, and Balram Jakhar in 1987 — all of which were defeated. The current arithmetic is decisive: the NDA holds approximately 335 seats in the 543-member House against the Opposition’s approximately 230, making the resolution’s defeat a near-certainty as a matter of numbers. CNBC
Monday’s Implosion: Why the Resolution Couldn’t Even Be Called
Monday’s proceedings collapsed before the resolution could be moved. The House was adjourned repeatedly due to Opposition protests demanding a full parliamentary debate on the West Asia conflict rather than the suo motu statement delivered by External Affairs Minister S. Jaishankar. When the House reassembled at 3 pm after an earlier adjournment, Jagdambika Pal — who was presiding in Birla’s place — urged Opposition members to allow the resolution to proceed, reminding them that the no-confidence motion was already on the agenda and that their separate adjournment notice demanding a West Asia debate could not be taken up simultaneously. Opposition MPs continued raising slogans, and the House was adjourned for the day.
Parliamentary Affairs Minister Kiren Rijiju publicly noted the irony: the government had accepted the Opposition’s resolution notice and was willing to debate it, but the Opposition was itself preventing the debate from happening. “Their notice to remove Birla from office has already been accepted,” Rijiju said, “and the government is willing to discuss it, but the opposition was disrupting the proceedings.”
JP Nadda, Leader of the House in the Rajya Sabha, characterised the Opposition’s conduct as “utterly irresponsible,” accusing them of staging a walkout precisely at the moment the government was prepared to respond. Congress president Mallikarjun Kharge and Rahul Gandhi staged a protest outside the Lok Sabha alongside SP chief Akhilesh Yadav, demanding a structured debate on India’s response to the West Asia conflict rather than a ministerial statement without questions. CNBC
The Underlying Trigger: What the SIR Controversy Is About
Behind the procedural drama of the Speaker’s removal motion lies the substantive grievance that has been accumulating for months. The Opposition has framed its confrontation with the Speaker as inseparable from its broader charge against the government and the Election Commission over the Special Intensive Revision of electoral rolls.
The SIR is a process under which the Election Commission of India, invoking Section 21 of the Representation of the People Act, 1950, initiated a comprehensive reverification of electoral rolls across multiple states, requiring voters to submit documentary proof of eligibility. Booth Level Officers conducted house-to-house enumeration and cross-referenced entries against identity documents. The ECI’s stated rationale was to eliminate duplicate entries, remove names of deceased voters, and address concerns about illegal migration — rapid urbanisation and frequent migration were also cited as drivers. The process was first conducted in Bihar ahead of its 2025 Assembly elections and subsequently extended to twelve states and union territories including West Bengal, Tamil Nadu, Uttar Pradesh, and Gujarat.
Petitioners before the Supreme Court, including Senior Advocate Kapil Sibal arguing for the DMK, challenged the Bihar SIR by pointing to its scale: approximately 1.82 crore voters were subjected to scrutiny. “How many illegal migrants were actually found? Not one,” Sibal told the court, arguing that mass deletions close to elections could undermine democratic participation and that the exercise lacked data justification. Senior Advocate Prashant Bhushan, representing the NGO Association for Democratic Reforms, argued that the SIR was functioning as an indirect citizenship determination exercise — effectively an NRC-like process — which falls outside the Election Commission’s constitutional mandate.
The Election Commission, represented by Senior Advocate Rakesh Dwivedi, argued that the petitions should be dismissed and defended the SIR as a legitimate exercise grounded in the ECI’s authority under Article 324 of the Constitution and the Representation of the People Act, stating that the exercise was conducted with recorded reasons and proper process. The ECI maintained that Aadhaar and voter identity cards cannot be treated as conclusive proof of citizenship. Arguments from both sides concluded in January 2026, with the Supreme Court bench led by Chief Justice Surya Kant reserving judgment on January 29. Republic World That judgment is awaited.
The Political Stakes
The removal motion, even when it is defeated by the NDA’s commanding numbers — which it will be, almost certainly — serves a purpose that is entirely separate from its outcome. The debate gives the Opposition a formal, constitutionally protected platform to record its specific grievances about how the Lok Sabha has been presided over, attach them to the permanent record of parliamentary proceedings, and extract the government into defending the Speaker’s conduct on the floor of the House rather than leaving the allegations in press statements and social media posts. The government, for its part, has indicated that Home Minister Amit Shah will lead its response to the resolution — a choice that signals the ruling party intends to treat the debate as a political opportunity rather than a defensive exercise.
The motion will be moved. It will be defeated. And when it is, both sides will have added to a body of parliamentary record that is already shaping the language of the next election campaign.
All parliamentary proceedings and Speaker removal motion details are sourced from The Tribune India, Business Standard, India TV News live updates, PTI (via The Federal and News Today), ANI (via News on Air), and The Week, all published March 6–9, 2026. Supreme Court SIR proceedings are sourced from Supreme Court Observer, LiveLaw, ADR India’s official case log, Bar and Bench, and The Tribune, covering hearings through January 29, 2026. Judgment in the Bihar SIR matter was reserved on January 29, 2026 and has not been delivered as of March 10, 2026. All political statements are attributed to named officials in verified news reports.
