Article 181

Article 181 of the Constitution of India establishes a crucial rule of impartiality and fairness in the functioning of the State Legislative Assembly. It specifically deals with the procedure to be followed when a resolution for the removal of the Speaker or Deputy Speaker is under consideration. The article ensures that no presiding officer can influence or preside over proceedings that concern their own removal, thereby upholding the democratic and ethical standards of legislative governance.

Constitutional Context and Purpose

The Speaker and Deputy Speaker are the chief presiding officers of the State Legislative Assembly, elected by its members to maintain order, ensure discipline, and safeguard the legislative process. Given their pivotal role, the Constitution also provides mechanisms for their removal under Article 179(c), accompanied by procedural safeguards under Article 181.
Article 181 was incorporated to maintain procedural integrity and impartiality during such proceedings. By preventing the concerned officer from presiding over discussions relating to their own removal, the Constitution protects the neutrality of legislative deliberations and reinforces the dignity of the Assembly.

Text and Clauses of Article 181

The article reads:

(1) At any sitting of the Legislative Assembly, while any resolution for the removal of the Speaker or the Deputy Speaker from his office is under consideration, the Speaker or the Deputy Speaker, as the case may be, shall not, though he is present, preside, and the provisions of clause (2) of Article 180 shall apply in relation to every such sitting as they apply in relation to a sitting from which the Speaker or the Deputy Speaker is absent.(2) The Speaker or the Deputy Speaker shall, notwithstanding that he is under consideration for removal from his office, have the right to speak in, and otherwise to take part in, the proceedings of, the Legislative Assembly while any resolution for his removal from office is under consideration, and shall, notwithstanding anything in Article 189, be entitled to vote only in the first instance on such resolution and not in the case of an equality of votes.

Key Provisions and Their Explanation

1. Prohibition on Presiding Over Proceedings (Clause 1)

• The Speaker or Deputy Speaker cannot preside over the Assembly while a motion for their own removal is being discussed.
• If they are present in the House during such proceedings, they may participate as ordinary members but cannot occupy the chair.
• In such cases, Article 180(2) applies, meaning another person—either the Deputy Speaker, a designated member, or a member chosen by the Assembly—acts as the presiding officer for that sitting.
• This ensures the proceedings are free from conflict of interest and maintain constitutional propriety.

2. Right to Participate and Vote (Clause 2)

• Even though the Speaker or Deputy Speaker is under consideration for removal, they retain the right to speak and participate in the debate on the resolution.
• They are also entitled to vote in the first instance, like any other member.
• However, unlike their ordinary role as presiding officer, they cannot exercise a casting vote in case of a tie.
• This distinction maintains fairness by allowing the concerned member to defend themselves while preventing undue influence over the outcome.

Significance and Constitutional Rationale

The primary objective of Article 181 is to uphold the impartiality and credibility of legislative procedures. Its constitutional rationale includes:

• Ensuring fairness: It prevents the possibility of bias or misuse of authority during one’s own removal proceedings.
• Maintaining legislative integrity: By applying Article 180(2), it guarantees that a neutral presiding officer conducts the proceedings.
• Balancing rights and responsibilities: It allows the Speaker or Deputy Speaker to participate in their defence, reflecting the democratic principle of natural justice.
• Safeguarding democratic conventions: The provision aligns with the established parliamentary practice that no person should preside over proceedings concerning their conduct or removal.

Relation with Other Constitutional Articles

Article 181 operates in conjunction with several related provisions:

• Article 178: Provides for the election of the Speaker and Deputy Speaker.
• Article 179: Lays down the procedure for their vacation, resignation, and removal.
• Article 180(2): Specifies how another person presides over the Assembly when the Speaker or Deputy Speaker is absent.
• Article 189: Governs voting procedures in the State Legislature and is partially modified by Article 181(2) in cases involving removal motions.

Together, these provisions form a comprehensive framework that balances accountability with procedural justice in the functioning of legislative leadership.

Judicial Interpretations and Case Laws

Although Article 181 has not been a subject of extensive litigation, its principles have been reaffirmed in several landmark judgments concerning the Speaker’s powers, neutrality, and constitutional responsibility:

• State of Uttar Pradesh v. Raj Narain (1975): The Supreme Court emphasised that the Speaker’s office embodies the highest standards of impartiality and procedural discipline in the Assembly, principles that underlie Article 181.
• K. S. E. B. v. State of Kerala (2000): The Court reiterated that presiding officers must act fairly and within constitutional bounds, especially when issues affecting their authority or credibility arise.
• Rameshwar Prasad v. Union of India (2006): The Court examined the Speaker’s powers under extraordinary circumstances, reaffirming that procedural fairness is vital to maintaining democratic integrity within legislative processes.
• K. S. Puttaswamy v. Union of India (2017): While primarily about privacy, this case referenced the broader need for procedural fairness and transparency in all governmental and legislative actions, resonating with the spirit of Article 181.

These interpretations highlight the consistent judicial view that the legislative process must remain fair, impartial, and free from conflicts of interest, particularly when it involves the presiding officer.

Historical Context and Constituent Assembly Debates

The framers of the Constitution debated the need for strict impartiality in the functioning of presiding officers. Dr. B. R. Ambedkar and other members of the Constituent Assembly stressed that the Speaker’s office must be beyond partisan influence. The inclusion of Article 181 was intended to protect this principle, ensuring that even the process of removal would be conducted with objectivity, transparency, and dignity.
This approach mirrored practices from the British parliamentary system, where similar conventions prohibit the Speaker from presiding over proceedings concerning personal conduct or removal.

Comparative Parliamentary Practice

In many Commonwealth and parliamentary democracies, including the United Kingdom, Canada, and Australia, comparable rules exist to prevent presiding officers from influencing proceedings related to their own removal.This global parliamentary norm reflects the principle that neutrality of the chair is foundational to legislative integrity.

Practical and Political Implications

• Preservation of order and decorum: Article 181 ensures that contentious removal proceedings are conducted in a disciplined and impartial environment.
• Protection against misuse of authority: It prevents a Speaker or Deputy Speaker from using their procedural powers to influence voting or debate outcomes.
• Democratic accountability: It upholds the principle that presiding officers, though expected to be impartial, remain accountable to the Legislature.
• Institutional stability: By guaranteeing fair procedure, it sustains the legitimacy of the legislative institution even during politically sensitive transitions.

However, in practice, political polarisation can sometimes test the neutrality of the process. The appointment of an acting presiding officer or the management of debates can become contentious, requiring careful adherence to constitutional and procedural norms.

Significance of Article 181

Article 181 is a cornerstone of legislative ethics and procedural fairness. Its significance can be summarised as follows:

• It upholds the impartiality of legislative institutions by ensuring that presiding officers do not oversee proceedings involving their own removal.
• It guarantees the right to fair participation, allowing the concerned officer to defend themselves within constitutional limits.
• It reinforces the rule of law and democratic transparency in legislative governance.
• It reflects the constitutional morality envisioned by the framers—balancing authority with accountability and procedure with justice.