2
ELECTION OF SPEAKER IN
UK AND INDIA
G.C.
MALHOTRA
On 23 October 2000,
fifty-five-year-old Labour MP and the First Deputy Chairman of Ways and Means1, Mr. Michael John
Martin was elected as the 156th Speaker of the UK House of Commons. This
election was necessitated by the retirement of the incumbent Speaker Miss Betty
Boothroyd. It was the third contested election after 1951, the fourth of the 20th century and the ninth
since the year 1800. The election was unique in two ways; for one, there was an
unprecedented number of candidates; secondly, the considerable amount of the
House time spent on conducting the election led to an urgent inquiry by the
House Procedure Committee into the rules governing the election of the Speaker.
The Procedure Committee, which went on to examine the election process anew, in
its Report, recommended certain changes in the current procedure for electing
the Speaker.
Election of Speaker
The need for choosing a Speaker
of the House of Commons arises when there is a newly-elected House or upon the
resignation, retirement or death of a sitting Speaker or when the sitting
Speaker ceases to be a member of the House for any reason. The election of the
Speaker is held at the start of a new House of Commons, irrespective of whether
or not the Speaker in the previous House has been re-elected as a member. If
the previous Speaker has expressed his or her willingness to continue, the
election becomes a mere formality.
Once a Speaker, Always a
Speaker!
This practice has been
maintained since 1841, when the Liberal sitting Speaker Charles Shaw-Lefevre,
first elected Speaker in May 1839, was unanimously re-elected as Speaker in
August 1841 by a newly-elected Tory-controlled House of Commons. The Tory
leader, Sir Robert Peel argued that it was not necessary that a person elected
to the Chair, who had conscientiously and ably performed his duties, should be
replaced because his political opinions were not consonant with those of the
majority of the House2. Since then, whenever a sitting Speaker has sought
re-election as Speaker, he has always been re-elected. There is, however, no constitutional
or legislative provision that would guarantee re-election of the sitting
Speaker. On 19 February 1835, the candidature of the sitting Conservative
Speaker, Charles Manners-Sutton, the Speaker in seven previous Houses, for
another term was rejected by the House which voted in favour of Mr. James
Abercromby, a Liberal. Since then, till now, this has been the only instance
when the House has rejected a sitting Speaker seeking re-election.
Starting 1835, when the sitting
Speaker of the House was not re-elected as Speaker, till the year 2000, only 17
members have occupied the Office of the Speaker. Mr. Michael J. Martin is the
18th to occupy the Office since 18353.
Speakers and Party
Affiliations
In the general elections in the
past, political parties have fielded candidates against the sitting Speakers.
For instance, in the general elections held in April 1895, the Conservative
Party had pitted a candidate against the sitting Speaker William Court Gully, a
Liberal. Speaker Gully held to his seat by an increased majority even while the
Conservatives won the general elections. The Conservatives who subsequently
formed the government, however, did not put any candidate in the election for
Speakership against the sitting Speaker Gully, who was re-elected Speaker
unopposed on 12 August 1895. Earlier, Mr. Gully was first elected Speaker in a
contested election on 10 April 1895 at the fag end of the previous House. He
was elected Speaker the third time on 3 December 1900. For the next 35 years,
no Speaker was opposed in his constituency. This practice was again broken in
1935 when the Labour Party decided to field a candidate against Speaker Edward
A. FitzRoy belonging to the Conservatives. Speaker FitzRoy won in the general
elections and was re-elected as the Speaker for another term. The Labour Party
once again contested the Speaker’s seat in the general election held in 1945.
In spite of Labour’s mammoth victory, the sitting Speaker, Clifton Brown, a
Conservative, retained his seat and was re-elected Speaker. In the 1964 general
elections, Speaker Sir Harry Hylton-Foster (Conservative) was opposed in his
constituency by candidates of the Labour and Liberal Parties. While the Labour
Party got a majority, Speaker Hylton-Foster retained his seat and was re-elected
as the Speaker unanimously. Two factors in particular have been crucial in
securing the continuity of the Office. Firstly, during the period of what may
be termed modern Speakership, no Speaker seeking re-election in his
constituency has ever been defeated at the polls; secondly, during the same
period, no incoming majority following a change of government has ever given in
to the temptation to replace a sitting Speaker4.
The first contested election of
the 20th century took place in 1951 when two candidates – Mr. W.S. Morrison and
Major James Milner – were proposed for Speakership5. The Conservative Party
candidate
Mr. Morrison was elected as the Speaker by 318 votes as against 251 votes for
the Labour Party candidate, Major James Milner6. The second occasion
for a division to decide the Speaker arose in 1971 when the name of a genuinely
unwilling second candidate, Sir Geoffrey de Freitas, a prominent Labour back
bencher was proposed in order to have a vote and express the back benchers’
dissatisfaction and protest against the lack of prior consultation of back
benchers, on both sides of the House, preceding the nomination of the
Conservative Member, Mr. Selwyn Lloyd as Speaker. Speaking against the way in
which the election procedure had been handled, Mr. John Pardoe, the Liberal
Party M.P., argued that ‘the Speaker in so far as he is a servant, and only a
servant, of the House, he ought to be, and ought to be seen to be, a servant of
the whole House and of the House itself, and not of the Executive or of the two
Front Benches. Such can be the case only if the Speaker is elected in a proper
democratic manner’7. He went on to say that ‘Parliamentary democracy does not
reside on the Opposition Front Bench; it does not reside on the Treasury Bench;
nor does it reside in some spiritual “never-never land” suspended in the ether
somewhere half-way between the two. It resides in this House, in the unfettered
rights of individual members to be consulted and to speak their minds on a
matter of this importance’8. Conservative MP, Mr. Robin Maxwell-Hyslop, supporting the
objection raised by Mr. Pardoe, proposed the name of prominent Labour
backbencher, Sir Geoffrey de Freitas as a candidate to have a division. In the
subsequent division, Mr. Lloyd was elected by securing 294 votes to 559. Sir Geoffrey had not
been consulted about his candidature, and before the division was taken, he
expressed his embarrassment and said that he would support Mr. Lloyd10.
The Procedure Committee of
1971-72
As a result of the back bench
protest against lack of consultation
before the 1971 Speaker’s election, the Procedure Committee examined the
procedure for electing the Speaker and presented its report on 26 January 1972.
It recommended that the retiring Speaker should, if possible, occupy the Chair
until his successor is elected and that on all other occasions, including the
re-election of a Speaker at the beginning of a new Parliament or when the
Speaker has ceased for whatever reason to be a member of the House, the House
should meet under the Chairmanship of “that member of the House and not being a
Minister of the Crown, who has served for the longest period continuously as a
Member of this House” and not by the Clerk of the House of Commons as had been
the practice till then. Such Member is popularly known as the Father of the
House. Since then, the Father of the House presides from the lower Chair, the
Clerk’s place at the Table. The Father of the House enjoys all those powers
which may be exercised by the Speaker during the proceedings to choose a
Speaker. On the contrary, the Clerk of the House, presiding over the
proceedings to elect a Speaker, had no power to speak or deal with points of
order under the Standing Orders, thus putting the whole House in a vulnerable
position.
The Procedure Committee also
recommended that a question should be put to the House in the event of a single
candidate; and the question on any other candidates should be put as amendments
to the original motion. The Committee’s proposals were accepted by the House on
8 August 1972, and are now enshrined in Standing Order No. 1. The assumption
was that a ‘vetting’ of suitable candidates would take place behind the scenes
by the Government in consultation with the Opposition and others, with a view
to putting a sole candidate, or at the most two, before the House. The 1972
reforms were not intended to deal with a situation in which a multiplicity of
candidates stood for election11. The idea of having voting first on the second candidate put
forward as an amendment to the original motion, was to measure the support he
or she enjoyed in the House. If the amendment was defeated, a unanimous
election of the first or another candidate might be achieved12.
In case of a vacancy during the
session, the House is acquainted by a senior Minister with Her Majesty’s leave
to elect a Speaker. The Chair calls a member to propose a candidate and another
member to second that candidate. Then the Chair proposes the question “that....
do take the Chair of this House as Speaker” which may be followed by a debate,
at the end of which the member proposed will make the customary speech
submitting himself to the House. At the end of the debate, if no other
candidate has been proposed, the Chair puts the question. However, before any decision
is taken by the House on the first nominee, another member may be proposed
which should be moved as an amendment to the original motion, to leave out the
name in that motion and insert the other name. The Chair then proposes “that
the amendment be made”, which is followed by a debate. Then the member so
nominated will indicate his or her willingness to accept the office. If the
amendment is carried, no further amendment can be moved and the Chair puts the
main question as amended, i.e. that the member named in the successful
amendment take the Chair as Speaker. The House may divide on that question. If
the amendment is not carried, further amendments may be moved in like manner.
If and when all amendments have been negatived and no further amendments are
forthcoming, the Chair puts to the House the main question unamended. Once the
Speaker is elected, the Father of the House relinquishes the Chair.
Putting an alternative
candidate as an amendment
The new procedure as enshrined
in Standing Order No. 1 came into operation for the first time on 6 March 1974
when Speaker Lloyd was unanimously re-elected to the Chair. However, the new
procedure for putting an alternative candidate as amendment to the motion for
the first candidate was put into operation for the first time in April 1992. On
27 April 1992, after the name of Mr. Peter Brooke was proposed and seconded,
followed by a debate and submission to the House by the candidate, an amendment
proposing the name of Miss Betty Boothroyd was carried by 372 to 238 votes13. Thereafter, the main
question, as amended, was put and agreed to without division. This was the
third contested election of the 20th century14.
Election of British Speakers,
1951-2000
The Procedure Committee of
1971-72 had expressed the hope that the Speakers would choose to retire in the
middle of a session, giving at least ten days’ notice of his or her impending
retirement, rather than at the end of a Parliament. There is an advantage in
doing this as members would have some knowledge about the qualities of the
potential candidate as someone from the present House and whom they are
familiar with.
Since 1971, three Speakers,
Speaker Horace Maybray King (1971), Speaker Selwyn Lloyd (1976) and Speaker
Betty Boothroyd (2000) retired during the tenure of the House of Commons.
However, Speaker George Thomas (1983) and Speaker Bernard Weatherill (1992)
retired only at the end of their tenures. For Speakers of the House of Commons
since 1951, the dates of their election, party in power, party to which the
Speaker belonged to at the time of election, etc., see
Table I.
Miss Boothroyd, who was first
elected in the contested election in 1992 and re-elected unanimously in 1997,
had announced on 12 July 2000 her retirement that would become effective
“immediately before the House returns from the summer recess” on 23 October
2000. While announcing her intention to relinquish the Office of Speaker, Miss
Boothroyd said that there was a clear advantage in a new Speaker being elected during
the course of a Parliament. It ensured that all members were familiar with the
qualities of potential successors. She added that her decision would give her
successor a run-in before the general election16. This announcement
meant that when the House would meet after the summer recess on 23 October
2000, there would be no sitting Speaker and the election of the new Speaker
would be held, as provided in Standing Order No. 1 of the House of Commons,
under the chairmanship of the Father of the House.
Questioning the British
Election Procedure
Following the announcement of
retirement by Speaker Boothroyd, a large number of members started showing
interest in becoming the next Speaker of the House of Commons or was projected
by others as good candidates. Some members even pleaded with the outgoing
Speaker to stay on for long enough to enable the rules surrounding the
Speaker’s election to be changed to accommodate a field for not one or two
candidates, but as many as ten or more. The Leader of the House, however,
resisted the proposals about making time available for rule changes17.
The main concern appeared to be
the limited opportunity for the House to consider the election process and
suggest possible changes to the existing process before the election. Members
also raised queries about the suitability of the existing process as contained
in Standing Order No. 1 to provide them with a full and free choice of
candidates. It was expressed that none of the candidates expressing interest in
the post would be put to the test of his or her popularity before going forward
to a full debate in the House. Consequently, a candidate with the support of
just a few members of the House stood as much chance as those rated highly of
being put forward in the House debate. It was also contended that the situation
under the present system gets complicated as no one knows how the Chair would
decide which of the candidates to call first as it is his discretion. Those
called first may have a better chance of winning than those who do not catch
the Chair’s eye. Thus, it was felt that a candidate at No. 10 or No. 12 was
unlikely to be chosen. Therefore, many members of the House of Commons
expressed dissatisfaction over the present election procedure and termed it as
discredited and undemocratic. In 1996, the Procedure Committee also had
admitted some inherent weaknesses in the system of election of the Speaker as
laid down in Standing Order No. 1, in particular the burden laid on the Father
of the House to decide who was to catch his eye to move the first candidate.
However, it recommended no change in the existing procedures for the election
of the Speaker as, according to its view, there was no better system.
Election Process
The House met at 2.30 P.M. on
23 October 2000 to choose the new Speaker and since there was no sitting
Speaker, the Father of the House, Sir Edward Heath took the Chair. After Sir
Edward explained the procedure of election, veteran Labour MP, Mr. Tony Benn
proposed a ballot system for the election of the Speaker and requested the
Chair to allow the House to decide his proposal. According to the proposal,
ballot papers would be printed for all candidates and after a debate, members
would vote for their preferred candidates. Only the top two candidates would go
to a run-off and there would be a division to decide the candidate with the
largest number of votes to become the Speaker. The proposal was supported by
many Members from both sides of the House who were advocating a free, fair,
open and democratic ballot.
At a husting organized on the
morning of the election day by the Labour MP, Mr. Gordon Prentice and attended
by approximately 150 members, there was near unanimity to go for a ballot of
the candidates.
While expressing sympathy with
the anxiety shown by members about the present system, the Father of the House,
said that his powers under the Standing Order did not extend to presiding over
a debate and a decision on other possible methods of election. Besides, it
would become very confused if an attempt to change the rules was made in the
middle of the election process. However, with a view to assisting the House,
Sir Edward announced, in advance, the order in which he would call members to
propose candidates. He said that the list was not exhaustive. Members might
catch his eye to put forward other candidates if no amendment moved by a Member
whose name was on the list was carried. If any amendment was carried and the
main question as amended was agreed to, no subsequent amendments could be
proposed.
The Father of the House then
announced the list of 12 candidates whose names had been notified to him. Sir
Edward said that he had decided the order of the candidates at his discretion.
He said that this had always been the case in the past but his predecessors never
announced in advance the names and their placings. Rejecting the demand for a
change in the election process, Sir Edward said that the announcement of the
names of candidates and their proposers and seconders would give the House far
more information than it had ever had in the past which might enable it to take
a decision.
Election of Michael Martin as
Speaker
The actual process of election
of the Speaker began at 2.58 P.M. and continued until about 9.15 P.M. Mr. Peter
Snape, commending the name of Mr. Martin, proposed: “that Mr. Michael J. Martin
do take the Chair of this House as Speaker.” Ms. Ann Keen seconded the motion.
Mr. Martin then submitted himself to the House. Thereafter, eleven amendments,
one after the other proposing and seconding names of other candidates, were
negatived by the House one by one. The main motion proposing the name of Mr.
Martin was then put to the House, and on a division, Mr. Michael J. Martin,
securing 370 votes against 8, was elected as the 156th Speaker of the House of
Commons. Sir Edward Heath then left the Chair. Mr. Martin was taken out of his
place and ‘dragged’ to the Chair as per convention by Mr. Peter Snape and
Ms. Ann Keen, the proposer and seconder, respectively of his candidature.
Before resuming the Chair, the
Speaker-elect, standing on the upper step, thanked the members for reposing
confidence in him. He assured the House that he would try to prove himself
worthy of that confidence and to maintain the high traditions of the House.
Thereafter, members congratulated the Speaker-elect, at the end of which Prime
Minister,
Mr. Tony Blair announced Her Majesty’s pleasure that this House should present
their Speaker at 11.15 P.M. in the House of Peers for Her Majesty’s Royal
Approbation. The sitting of the House was accordingly suspended at 9.44 P.M. On
resuming at 11.18 P.M., Mr. Speaker reported to the House of Commons about Her
Majesty’s Royal Approbation and assured his entire devotion to the service of
the House. The House was then adjourned.
Speaker Michael Martin: A Brief
Profile
Born on 3 July 1945, Mr.
Michael John Martin joined the Labour Party in 1969. He was elected Councillor
for Fairfield Ward, Glasgow in 1973 and for Balornock Ward, Glasgow in 1975.
Elected to the House of Commons in 1979, he served with distinction in various
House Committees. Mr. Martin was the Deputy Leader of the Labour Party from
1980 to 1983, and a member of the Speaker’s Panel of Chairmen, 1987. He was
also the Chairman, Scottish Grand Committee, 1987 and the Chairman of the Administrative
Select Committee, 1992. Before his election as the Speaker of the House of
Commons, Mr. Martin was the First Deputy Chairman of Ways and Means.
Procedure Committee of
2000-2001
Following the election of Mr.
Michael Martin as Speaker and taking into consideration the issues that were
raised at the time of the election, there was an enquiry by the Procedure
Committee into the election procedure for the Office of the Speaker. The
Procedure Committee, headed by the Conservative MP, Mr. Nicholas Winterton, in
its Report, made several recommendations of far-reaching importance. As
mentioned earlier, since the year 1835 when a sitting Speaker was not
re-elected as Speaker of the House of Commons, no sitting Speaker has been
opposed in the election to the Office. The Procedure Committee of 2000-2001
pointed out that since the middle of the 19th century, there has been a presumption that a Speaker, once
elected by the House, is not subsequently challenged. The Committee felt that
if it were to become accepted that a change in the composition of the House
following a general election were, as a matter of course, to lead to a change
in the occupancy of the Chair, there was a grave danger that the Office itself
would be destabilised and in danger of becoming politicised. Equally important
was that the House should not be denied the right to change its Speaker,
however unlikely it may be that that right would be exercised18. The Committee,
therefore, proposed that there should be no automatic ballot at the start of a
new House in the circumstances where a sitting Speaker seeking re-election to
the Chair had been returned to the House. Instead, a single unamendable motion
should be moved, and the question put by the Presiding Member, that that person
do take the Chair of this House as the Speaker. It would be open to the House in
extremis to negative that motion19.
While discussing the procedure
involving the election of the Speaker by the House, the Procedure Committee
recommended replacing of the 1972 system of electing the Speaker with a
ballot-based system20. The Committee recommended that each candidate’s nomination
should receive the support of 12 other members, of whom at least three should
not be members of his or her party. At a suitable interval after the
nominations were closed and immediately before holding the ballot, candidates
should have the opportunity to address the House in support of their
candidatures. The proposers and the seconders were not to make speeches on this
occasion. The Committee recommended a secret ballot and preferred the
Exhaustive Ballot as the electoral system in which a candidate receiving more
than 50 per cent of the votes was elected, adding that the question of whether
the ballot be secret or open should be the subject of a specific and separate
decision by the House. If no candidate did so, candidates polling less than 5
per cent of the total votes cast should be eliminated after the first ballot.
The House would then vote again on the reduced slate of candidates and would continue
doing so until one candidate received more than half of the votes or only two
candidates remained in the fray. Voters could even amend their preferences in
each round when they see the outcome of the previous round. In this system,
candidates who had not been eliminated would be allowed to withdraw between
rounds, thus shortening the process by a few rounds. The results, including the
number of votes received by each candidate, would be announced by the Presiding
Member.
The Committee felt that it should
be possible to complete the whole process in the course of a single sitting
day. The Committee also felt that using this system, the House could continue
to elect Speakers who would maintain the high traditions of their Office, in
particular those of complete political impartiality and devotion to the service
of the House.
The Report of the Procedure
Committee has since been approved by the House of Commons on 22 March 2001.
Earlier, in a separate voting on that day, the House also decided by 84 to 82 votes
in favour of a secret ballot for electing the Speaker.
Election of Speaker in India
In India, whenever the Office
of the Speaker of Lok Sabha falls vacant, the Deputy Speaker performs the
duties of the Office till a new Speaker is elected. According to the second
proviso to Article 94 of the Constitution, the sitting Speaker remains in
office even after the dissolution of the Lok Sabha and until immediately before
the first meeting of the new House, irrespective of the fact whether or not he
has been re-elected as a member. Thus, the Speaker of a dissolved House ceases
to be the Speaker the moment the new House meets. When the Offices of both the
Speaker and the Deputy Speaker fall vacant, the duties of the Office of the
Speaker are performed by such member of the Lok Sabha as the President of India
may appoint for the purpose [Article 95(1)]. Normally, the senior-most member
of the House is appointed and the person so appointed is known as the Speaker pro
tem. He takes oath as a member before the President and later administers
oath/affirmation to the newly-elected members of Lok Sabha and conducts the
election of the Speaker. In contrast to the practice in the U.K. House of
Commons, the Speaker pro tem in India presides from the Speaker’s Chair.
The procedure for electing the
Speaker of Lok Sabha is enshrined in rule 7 of the Rules of Procedure and
Conduct of Business in Lok Sabha. Rule 7(1) says that the election shall be
held on such date as the President may fix, and the Secretary-General, Lok
Sabha, shall send to every member notice of this date. Another feature of the
Indian procedure is that the names of the candidates for the Office of the
Speaker are known before the election. At any time before noon on the day
preceding the date so fixed for election, any member may give notice in
writing, addressed to the Secretary-General, of a motion that another member be
chosen as the Speaker of the House. The notice shall be seconded by a third
member and shall be accompanied by a statement by the member whose name is
proposed in the notice that he is willing to serve as Speaker, if elected [rule
7(2)]. All the notices of motions which are in order are entered in the List of
Business in the order in which they are received in point of time. A member in
whose name a motion stands on the List of Business, unless he states that he
does not wish to move the motion, moves the motion when called upon to do so.
In either case, he shall confine himself to a mere statement to the effect that
he moves the motion or that he does not intend to move the motion [rule 7(3)].
The motions which have been moved and duly seconded are put one by one in the
order in which they have been moved, and decided, if necessary, by division. If
any motion is carried, the Chair, without putting later motions, declares that
the member proposed in the motion which has been carried, has been chosen as
the Speaker of the House [rule 7(4)].
Election of Indian Speakers,
1952-1999
Table II lists the names of Speakers
of Lok Sabha since 1952, the dates of their election, party in power, party to
which a Speaker belonged to at the time of election, etc.
British and Indian systems: A
Comparison
Unlike in the House of Commons,
the Presiding Officer in the Lok Sabha does not call upon the proposers of a
motion at his discretion. In the Lok Sabha, proposers are called upon to move
the motions in the order in which they are listed in the List of Business. The
proposer and seconder of a candidate also do not make any speech while
proposing and seconding a candidate. The candidate also does not make a speech
expressing his willingness to accept the Office.
In India, unlike in UK, it is
not customary for the mover and seconder to be private members. On several
occasions, the motion was moved by the Prime Minister and seconded by another
Minister. In fact, objection was raised to this during the election of the
Speaker of the First Lok Sabha itself. While felicitating Shri G.V. Mavalankar
on his election as Speaker of the First Lok Sabha, Shri Shankar Shantaram More,
who also contested the election, pointed out this departure from the British
practice. Referring to the British convention of proposing and seconding the
names of candidates for Speakership by back benchers, Shri More said:
…by observing this convention, a sort of
assurance is given to the minority that their interests will be protected and
that the Speaker will deal with the minority in an impartial
manner…Unfortunately, in this House, the Hon. Leader of the House thought it
fit to propose your name and another Hon. Minister thought it advisable to
second it. I believe that if some back benchers – and there is no dearth of
back benchers on their side – had been selected for proposing your name, there
would have been the proper procedure to emphasise your impartiality21.
During the election of the
Speaker of the Fourth Lok Sabha, an Opposition member, Shri Madhu Limaye also
raised objection to the sponsoring of the name of Dr. N. Sanjiva Reddy for
Speakership by Ministers22. The Speaker pro tem, Dr. Govind Das, said that it
was clear in rule 7 of the Rules of Procedure and Conduct of Business in Lok
Sabha that any member could propose the name of another member for
Speakership, adding a Minister did not mean that he was not a member of the
House23.
Once a candidate is declared
elected as Speaker of Lok Sabha, he is conducted to the Chair by the Prime
Minister and the Leader of the Opposition, and not by the mover and seconder as
in the House of Commons. The Speaker, thereafter, conducts the proceedings as
the Speaker of Lok Sabha and not as Speaker-elect and does not require
recognition by any other authority as in UK where Royal Approbation is granted
to the Speaker-elect.
The Speaker’s election in a
newly elected Lok Sabha is held only after members are administered the
oath/affirmation whereas in a newly elected House of Commons, members are
administered oath after the Speaker is chosen. In fact, the Speaker of the
House of Commons, standing upon the upper step of the Chair, takes the Oath of
Allegiance only after his or her Royal Approbation, followed by other members.
While the first business of a newly elected House of Commons is the election of
the Speaker, in a newly elected Lok Sabha, the first business is the
administration of oath/affirmation to the members-elect.
Ever since the constitution of
the First Lok Sabha in 1952 till the present House, elections to the Office of
the Speaker of Lok Sabha have been held 17 times. Barring four occasions, the
elections have been unanimous. Interestingly, the very first election – to the
office of the Speaker of the First Lok Sabha – held on 15 May 1952 was a
contested one. Three motions proposing the name of Shri G.V. Mavalankar,
Speaker of the Central Legislative Assembly, the Constituent Assembly
(Legislative), and the Provisional Parliament – the predecessors of Lok Sabha –
were moved in the House. Two motions proposing the name of another member, Shri
Shankar Shantaram More were also moved. The first motion moved by the Prime
Minister, Shri Jawaharlal Nehru and seconded by the Minister of Parliamentary
Affairs, Shri S.N. Sinha was adopted by the House by 394 Ayes to 55 Noes24.
The second contested election
was held on 17 March 1967 to elect the Speaker of the Fourth Lok Sabha. There
were seven motions before the House, one proposing the name of Dr. N. Sanjiva
Reddy, five proposing the name of Shri T. Viswanathan and one proposing the
name of Shri R.K. Khadilkar. However, only six motions were moved. The motion
proposing the name of Shri Khadilkar was not moved. The motion proposing the
name of Dr. Reddy, moved by the Minister of Parliamentary Affairs, Dr. Ram
Subhag Singh and seconded by the Minister of State of Finance, Shri K.C. Pant
was adopted, after a division, by 278 to 207 votes25.
The third contested election
took place on 5 January 1976 to fill the vacancy caused by the resignation of
the sitting Speaker Dr. G.S. Dhillon on 1 December 1975. Three motions
proposing the names of Shri B.R. Bhagat, Shri Samar Guha and Shri Jagannath Rao
Joshi, respectively, were included in the List of Business dated 5 January
1976. The motion proposing the name of Shri Guha was not moved, while the two
other motions were moved. The motion proposing the name of Shri Bhagat moved by
Prime Minister, Smt. Indira Gandhi and seconded by the Minister of
Parliamentary Affairs, Shri K. Raghuramaiah was adopted by 351 votes in favour
and 60 against it26.
The fourth and the last
contested election was held on 24 March 1998 to elect the Speaker of the
Twelfth Lok Sabha. While the motion proposing the name of Shri P.A. Sangma,
Speaker of the Eleventh Lok Sabha, was negatived by the House, the motion
proposing the name of Shri G.M.C. Balayogi – moved by the Prime Minister, Shri
A.B. Vajpayee and seconded by the Minister of Home Affairs, Shri L.K. Advani –
was adopted by a voice vote27.
Five Indian Speakers, namely
Shri M.A. Ayyangar, Dr. N. Sanjiva Reddy, Dr. G.S. Dhillon, Dr. Bal Ram Jakhar
and Shri G.M.C. Balayogi have been chosen for a second time. While four of them
were chosen in successive Lok Sabhas, Dr. Reddy was elected for a second time
after a gap of 10 years of his first election. Unlike the Speakers of House of
Commons, many of whom have been re-elected three times or more, no Speaker of
Lok Sabha in Independent India has so far been elected to the Office of Speaker
for a third time.
Only on four occasions, were
elections held to the Office of Speaker during the on-going life of the Lok
Sabha due to death or resignation of sitting Speakers. The election to the
Office of Speaker during the tenure of the First Lok Sabha was held for a
second time on 8 March 1956 following the death of the sitting Speaker Shri
Mavalankar. Election was held on 8 August 1969 (Fourth Lok Sabha) and again on
26 March 1977 (Sixth Lok Sabha) due to the vacancy caused by the resignation of
the sitting Speaker, Dr. N. Sanjiva Reddy. On both occasions, Dr. Reddy had
resigned to contest the Presidential election. While in 1969 Dr. Reddy lost the
election by a narrow margin, he was elected President of India in 1977.
Election was also held on 5 January 1976 to choose a successor to Dr. G.S.
Dhillon who had resigned from the Speakership to be sworn in as a Cabinet
Minister.
Dr. Bal Ram Jakhar was the only
Speaker of Lok Sabha who had the distinction of presiding over two successive
Lok Sabhas for their full term (1980-89). The second term of Dr. N. Sanjiva
Reddy as the Speaker was the shortest period (3 months, 17 days). For the
period 1951-2000, Speakers of the House of Commons have, on an average, held
office for a period of a little over seven years, whereas in India, the figure
is around four years for the period 1952-1999. Among the House of Commons
Speakers since 1951, Speaker Weatherill, presiding over two full Houses, had
the longest tenure of a little over 9 years, whereas the tenure of Speaker
Lloyd with a little over 5 years was the shortest period.
When Shri G.M.C. Balayogi was
elected Speaker of the Twelfth Lok Sabha on 24 March 1998, he was the youngest
member so far (46 years) to have been elected to the high Office while Shri
K.S. Hegde was the oldest member (68 years) to be elected as Speaker.
There have been 13 general
elections each in India since 1952 and in UK since 1951 to constitute their
popular Houses. As in the case of the Lok Sabha, in the House of Commons also,
elections to the Office of Speaker have been held 17 times during this period.
The number of contested elections is also four in both countries for the same
period. While eight Members have been chosen to the Office of the Speaker of
the House of Commons since 1951, the number is 12 in the case of India since
1952.
Speakers and General Elections
In modern times, no sitting
Speaker of the House of Commons has lost his seat in a general election. In
contrast, in India, there are cases of Speakers losing their seats in general
elections. Dr. G.S. Dhillon, the Speaker of the Fifth Lok Sabha, had resigned
from the Office on 1 December 1975 and was sworn in as a Cabinet Minister. He,
however, was defeated in the 1977 general elections. Shri B.R. Bhagat, who
succeeded Dr. Dhillon as the Speaker of the Fifth Lok Sabha, also lost in the
general elections in 1977. Dr. Bal Ram Jakhar, the Speaker of the Seventh and
the Eighth Lok Sabha was defeated in the general elections held in 1989.
In many cases, even when
Speakers have been elected to succeeding Lok Sabhas, their names were not
proposed as candidates for the Office of the Speaker. The names of Shri M. A.
Ayyangar, Shri Rabi Ray and Shri Shivraj V. Patil were not proposed as
candidates for the Office of Speaker even when they had been re-elected to the
next Lok Sabha. Shri P.A. Sangma was the only Speaker (Eleventh Lok Sabha)
whose name was proposed by the Opposition for Speakership of the next House.
Shri Sangma was, however, not re-elected in a contested election for the Office
of Speakership of the Twelfth Lok Sabha.
Till the year 1996, Speakers of
Lok Sabha always hailed from the ruling party. This practice was broken in 1996
when Shri P.A. Sangma, a member of the main opposition party – Congress – was
unanimously chosen as the Speaker of the House. Again, in 1998 and 1999, Shri
G.M.C. Balayogi, belonging to a regional party, the Telugu Desam Party,
supporting the BJP-led Government from outside, was elected as the Speaker of
the Twelfth and the Thirteenth Lok Sabhas, respectively.
Unlike Speakers of the House of
Commons, Indian Speakers are not made members of the other House of Parliament
after they demit office. In UK, normally, a Speaker, on his retirement, is
elevated to the House of Lords.
Indian Speakers and Party
Politics
The British convention of
re-electing the sitting Speaker unopposed has not found much favour in India
for a variety of reasons. The desirability of leaving the Speaker’s seat
uncontested in a general election and getting him re-elected unopposed as the
Speaker has been discussed in various Conferences of the Presiding Officers of
Legislative Bodies in India held from time to time. There has been a strong
feeling among the Presiding Officers that the seat from which the Speaker
stands for re-election should not be contested. Simultaneously, they have also
stressed that the Speaker should not take part in party politics.
In 1967, the Conference of
Presiding Officers held in New Delhi decided to constitute a Committee to
examine the whole gamut of the functioning of representative institutions in
the country in the context of changes perceived to be taking place in the
political climate. The Committee devoted a considerable time to issues relating
to the office of the Speaker. The Committee was originally headed by the then
Speaker of the Mysore Legislative Assembly, Shri B. Vaikunta Baliga. Shri V.S.
Page, the then Chairman of the Maharashtra Legislative Council, was appointed
as the Chairman of the Committee on the passing away of Shri Baliga in June
1968. The Page Committee considered it desirable that a convention should be
established to the effect that the seat from which the Speaker stands for
election or re-election to the House should not be contested in the elections.
The Committee suggested that if the Speaker had functioned impartially and
efficiently during his tenure of office, he should be continued as a matter of
course. Before the general elections, the ruling party should try to seek a
consensus among all political parties on the candidature of the sitting
Speaker. Once there was a consensus based on majority decision, all parties
should be debarred from putting up candidates against him and should agree to support
him against any possible independent candidate. In the event of failing to
reach a consensus before the election, all parties would be free to put up
candidates for the Speaker’s seat. The existing Speaker, in that case, would be
free to contest on a party ticket. Once
re-elected as member, he must not contest or otherwise become the Chief
Minister or a Minister; he should, however, be eligible for election as Speaker
uncontested.
A British-type convention of
‘once a Speaker, always a Speaker’, is yet to be established in India and
sitting Speakers have been seeking re-election on party tickets subjecting
themselves to the compulsions of party-politics. Indeed, the position of the
Indian Speaker is paradoxical: he has to contest election on a party ticket but
is expected to conduct himself in a non-partisan manner once elected Speaker.
Thereafter, he is still dependent on his party for a ticket for contesting the
next election. Furthermore, the increasing presence of a large number of
political parties in the House in recent years particularly has a strenuous
effect on the functioning of the Office of the Speaker as the Speaker has to
assure all of them of his complete neutrality and fairness and seem to be
acting in all fairness all the time. This issue was discussed at the 63rd Conference of Presiding
Officers of Legislative Bodies in India held in Hyderabad in May-June 2000. As
decided at the Conference, the Speaker of Lok Sabha and the Chairman of the Conference
of Presiding Officers of Legislative Bodies in India, Shri G.M.C. Balayogi
constituted a Committee of Presiding Officers under the Chairmanship of Shri
P.M. Sayeed, the Deputy Speaker of Lok Sabha, to go into all aspects of the
Office of the Speaker under the prevailing political conditions. The Committee
is presently looking into the matter.
Table I
Election of Speakers of House of Commons – (1951-2000)
Sl. Year of Date
of Reasons for Presiding Speaker
Contested/ Ruling Party
to which
No. General Election Election Officer15 Elected Uncontested Party Speaker
belonged Election at
the time of
election
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9
1. 1951 31.10.51 New House Sir
Frederic Mr. William Contested Conservative Conservative
William
Metcalfe, Shepherd
Clerk
of the Morrison
House
of Commons
2. 1955 7.06.55 New House Sir
Edward Mr. William Re-elected Conservative Conservative
Fellowes,
Clerk Shepherd unanimously
of
the House of Morrison
Commons
3. 1959 20.10.59 New House Sir
Edward Sir Harry Elected Conservative Conservative
Fellowes,
Clerk of Braustyn unanimously
the
House of Hylton-Foster
Commons
4. 1964 27.10.64 New House Sir
Thomas Sir Harry Re-elected Labour Conservative
George
Barnett Braustyn unanimously
Cocks,
Clerk of Hylton-Foster
the
House of
Commons
5. — 26.10.65 Death of Sir Thomas Dr.
Horace Elected Labour Labour
Speaker George Maybray unanimously
Hylton-Foster Barnett Cocks, King
on
2.09.1965 Clerk of the
House
of Commons
6. 1966 18.04.66 New House Sir
Thomas Dr. Horace Re-elected Labour Labour
George
Barnett Maybray unanimously
Cocks,
Clerk of King
the
House of
Commons
7. 1970 29.06.70 New House Sir
Thomas Dr. Horace Re-elected Labour Labour
George
Barnett Maybray unanimously
Cocks,
Clerk of King
the
House of
Commons
8. — 12.01.71 Retirement Sir Thomas Mr.
Selwyn Contested Conservative Conservative of
Speaker George Barnett Lloyd
King Cocks, Clerk of
the
House of
Commons
9. 1974
6.03.74 New House Mr. George Mr.
Selwyn Re-elected Labour Conservative
(February) Russell
Strauss, Lloyd unanimously
Father
of the
House
10 1974 22.10.74 New House Mr.
George Mr. Selwyn Re-elected Labour Conservative
(October) Russell
Strauss, Lloyd unanimously
Father
of the House
11. — 3.02.76 Retirement Mr. Selwyn Mr.
George Elected Labour Labour
of
Speaker Lloyd, Speaker of Thomas unanimously
Lloyd the House
12. 1979 9.05.79 New House Mr.
John Mr. George Re-elected Conservative Labour
Parker,
Father Thomas unanimously
of
the House
13. 1983 15.06.83 New House Mr.
James Mr. Bernard Elected Conservative Conservative
Callaghan,
Father Weatherill unanimously
of
the House
14. 1987 17.06.87 New House Sir
Bernard Mr. Bernard Re-elected Conservative Conservative
Richard
Brain, Weatherill unanimously
Father
of the
House
15. 1992 27.04.92 New House Sir
Edward Heath, Miss Betty Contested Conservative Labour
Father
of the Boothroyd
House
16. 1997 7.05.97 New House Sir
Edward Heath, Miss Betty Re-elected Conservative Labour
Father
of the Boothroyd unanimously
House
17. — 23.10.00 Retirement of Sir Edward Heath, Mr.
Michael Contested Labour Labour
Speaker Father of the J. Martin
Boothroyd House
______________________________________________________________________________________________
Table
II
Election of Speakers of Lok Sabha – (1952-1999)
Sl. Year of Date
of Reasons for Presiding Speaker Contested/ Ruling Party
to which
No. General Election Election Officer Elected Uncontested Party Speaker
belonged Election at
the time of
election
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9
1. 1952 15.05.52 New Lok Sh.
B. Das, Sh. G.V. Contested Congress Congress
Sabha Speaker pro tem Mavalankar
(died
in office
on
27 February
1956)
2. — 8.03.56 Death of Sardar Hukam Sh.
M.A. Elected Congress Congress
Speaker Singh, Speaker Ayyangar unanimously
Mavalankar pro tem by
a voice vote
3. 1957 11.05.57 New Lok Dr.
Govind Das, Sh. M.A. Re-elected Congress Congress
Sabha Speaker pro tem Ayyangar unanimously
by
a voice vote
4. 1962 17.04.62 New Lok Dr.
Govind Das, Sardar Elected Congress Congress
Sabha Speaker pro tem Hukam Singh unanimously
by
a voice vote
5. 1967 17.03.67 New Lok Dr.
Govind Das, Dr. N. Contested Congress Congress
Sabha
Speaker pro tem Sanjiva Reddy
(resigned
on
19.07.69)
6. — 8.08.69 Resignation of Sh. R.K. Dr.
G.S. Elected Congress Congress
Speaker Khadilkar, Dhillon unanimously
Reddy Dy.Speaker by
a voice vote
7. 1971 22.03.71 New Lok Dr.
Govind Das, Dr. G.S. Re-elected Congress Congress
Sabha Speaker pro tem Dhillon unanimously
(resigned
on
1.12.75)
8. — 5.01.76 Resignation Shri G.G. Swell, Sh.
B.R. Contested Congress Congress
of
Speaker Dy.Speaker Bhagat
Dhillon
9. 1977 26.03.77 New Lok Shri
D.N. Tiwari, Dr. N. Sanjiva Elected Janata
Party Janata Party
Sabha Speaker pro tem Reddy unanimously
(resigned
on
13.07.77)
10. — 21.07.77 Resignation Sh. Godey Sh.
K.S. Elected Janata Party Janata Party
of
Speaker Murahari, Hegde unanimously
Reddy Dy.Speaker
11. 1980 22.01.80 New Lok Sh.
Jagjivan Ram, Dr. Bal Ram Elected Congress Congress
Sabha Speaker pro tem Jakhar unanimously
12. 1985 16.01.85 New Lok Sh.
Jagjivan Ram, Dr Bal Ram Re-elected Congress Congress
Sabha Speaker pro tem Jakhar unanimously
13. 1989 19.12.89 New Lok Prof.
N.G. Ranga, Sh. Rabi Elected Janata Dal Janata
Dal
Sabha Speaker pro tem Ray unanimously
14. 1991 10.7.91 New Lok Sh.
Indrajit Gupta, Sh. Shivraj V. Elected Congress Congress
Sabha Speaker pro tem Patil unanimously
15. 1996 23.05.96 New Lok Sh.
Indrajit Gupta, Sh. P.A. Elected BJP Congress
Sabha Speaker pro tem Sangma unanimously
16. 1998 24.03.98 New Lok Sh.
Indrajit Gupta, Sh. G.M.C. Contested Coalition led Telugu
Sabha Speaker pro tem Balayogi by BJP and Desam
supported Party
by
TDP (TDP)
17. 1999 22.10.99 New Lok Sh.
Indrajit Gupta, Sh. G.M.C. Re-elected NDA led Telugu
Sabha Speaker pro tem Balayogi unanimously by
BJP Desam
Party