Article 96

Article 96 of the Constitution of India provides for the procedure and safeguards to be followed when a resolution for the removal of the Speaker or Deputy Speaker of the Lok Sabha is under consideration. It ensures fairness, neutrality, and procedural integrity in the proceedings by prohibiting the presiding officer from conducting the House when their own position is in question.
This Article reflects the constitutional commitment to maintaining the impartiality and dignity of parliamentary offices by eliminating any potential conflict of interest during such sensitive proceedings.

Constitutional Framework and Purpose

The offices of the Speaker and Deputy Speaker are central to the functioning of the Lok Sabha (House of the People). They are responsible for maintaining order, interpreting rules, and ensuring the smooth and impartial conduct of business. However, since these positions are filled by elected members of the House, there exists the theoretical possibility that they may lose the confidence of the majority.
Article 96 provides the mechanism to handle such situations fairly and transparently, ensuring that the proceedings for their removal are conducted by a neutral authority and that the rights of both the House and the presiding officer are protected.

Key Provisions of Article 96

The Article consists of two main clauses:

1. Clause (1): Prohibition on Presiding During Removal Proceedings
   • The Speaker or Deputy Speaker shall not preside over the House when a resolution for their removal is under consideration.
   • During such proceedings, the House is presided over by another member as provided under Article 95(2), which stipulates that in the absence of both officers, a member determined by the rules of procedure or elected by the House shall act as Speaker.

   This ensures that the person facing removal has no influence over the debate, voting, or conduct of proceedings.

2. Clause (2): Right to Participate and Vote
   • The Speaker or Deputy Speaker retains the right to speak and participate in the discussion concerning their removal.
   • They may also vote on the resolution in the first instance, like any other member, but do not possess a casting vote in the event of a tie.

   This provision balances fairness and participation — allowing the concerned officer to defend themselves, while preventing them from exercising decisive control over the outcome.

Objectives and Rationale

The framers of the Constitution introduced Article 96 to preserve the impartiality and accountability of the Speaker’s office. Its objectives include:

• Ensuring impartiality: Preventing the Speaker or Deputy Speaker from presiding over debates concerning their own removal upholds the principle of natural justice.
• Maintaining integrity: Guarantees that removal proceedings are free from any perception of bias or manipulation.
• Balancing rights: Allows the presiding officer to defend their conduct while ensuring that the proceedings are controlled by a neutral authority.
• Upholding parliamentary discipline: Reinforces the dignity of the House by prescribing a structured and fair process.

In essence, Article 96 ensures that even the highest officers of the Lok Sabha remain accountable to its members, while protecting them from arbitrary or politically motivated actions.

Relationship with Other Constitutional Provisions

Article 96 operates in conjunction with several related provisions that govern the offices of the Speaker and Deputy Speaker:

• Article 93: Mandates the election of the Speaker and Deputy Speaker.
• Article 94: Prescribes the vacation, resignation, and removal of these offices.
• Article 95: Details the procedure for performing the duties of the Speaker or Deputy Speaker during vacancies or absences.
• Article 100: Regulates voting procedures in the House, including the principle of the Speaker’s casting vote (which is suspended in the context of Article 96).

These interconnected provisions create a comprehensive constitutional framework for the orderly functioning, accountability, and continuity of parliamentary leadership.

Significance of Article 96

Article 96 plays a vital role in maintaining the credibility and neutrality of the parliamentary process. Its significance lies in the following aspects:

• Prevents conflict of interest: By prohibiting the presiding officer from chairing the session concerning their removal, it guarantees objectivity.
• Ensures procedural fairness: The right to participate but not preside provides a balance between self-defence and impartial adjudication.
• Promotes democratic accountability: Reflects the principle that even high constitutional offices are subject to legislative confidence.
• Strengthens parliamentary ethics: Reinforces the Speaker’s image as a neutral guardian of the House rather than a partisan figure.
• Maintains institutional stability: Provides a defined process for resolving leadership disputes within the Lok Sabha.

Procedure for Removal under Article 96

The removal of the Speaker or Deputy Speaker is carried out through a resolution in the Lok Sabha as per the procedures established under Article 94 and the Rules of Procedure and Conduct of Business:

1. Notice of Resolution: A resolution for removal must be given with at least 14 days’ notice.
2. Listing for Discussion: The motion is included in the business of the House and scheduled for debate.
3. Presiding Authority:
   • If the Speaker is the subject, the Deputy Speaker or another designated member presides.
   • If the Deputy Speaker is the subject, the Speaker or another member presides.
4. Participation: The Speaker or Deputy Speaker under consideration may speak during the debate but cannot preside.
5. Voting: The resolution must be passed by a majority of all the then members of the Lok Sabha.
6. Outcome: Upon adoption of the resolution, the concerned officer immediately vacates office.

This systematic procedure ensures that the removal process remains transparent, participatory, and constitutionally sound.

Judicial Interpretation and Case Law

Although Article 96 has not been the subject of direct judicial interpretation, related case law and judicial commentary provide context on the Speaker’s responsibilities and neutrality:

• K. S. Puttaswamy v. Union of India (2017): While focused on privacy, the judgment reaffirmed that all constitutional authorities must uphold procedural fairness and accountability.
• Rajendra Singh v. State of U.P. (2007): Emphasised the importance of due process and impartiality in legislative and administrative proceedings.
• K.S.E.B. v. State of Kerala (2009): Reiterated that the Speaker’s role in maintaining order and fairness within the legislature is fundamental to democratic governance.

Collectively, these principles reinforce the constitutional philosophy underlying Article 96 — that impartiality is the cornerstone of parliamentary authority.

Comparative and Historical Context

The principle enshrined in Article 96 is derived from the British parliamentary convention, where the Speaker of the House of Commons must withdraw from the chair when their conduct or position is under discussion.
During the Constituent Assembly Debates, members such as Dr. B.R. Ambedkar and Gopalaswami Ayyangar emphasised that similar safeguards were necessary in India to preserve the impartiality of the Speaker’s office and to prevent any misuse of procedural powers.
The Article thus reflects India’s adaptation of Westminster traditions within a constitutional framework that values democratic accountability.

Practical Application

In practice, Article 96 has been invoked on rare occasions when motions for the removal of the Speaker or Deputy Speaker have been introduced in the Lok Sabha. In each instance, the proceedings have been conducted by another designated member, ensuring neutrality.
While no Speaker has ever been successfully removed from office, the existence of this constitutional safeguard acts as an effective check on the misuse of power and reinforces the Speaker’s responsibility to maintain neutrality and decorum in the House.

Contemporary Relevance

In the current political landscape, where parliamentary proceedings often reflect intense partisanship, Article 96 remains essential for preserving institutional trust and procedural legitimacy.

• It ensures that motions of removal are handled impartially, free from influence by the office-holder.
• It reminds presiding officers of their constitutional duty to act as impartial guardians of the House.
• It continues to be a model for ensuring accountability in legislative institutions at both the national and state levels.

Conclusion

Article 96 of the Indian Constitution is a safeguard of fairness, neutrality, and democratic accountability within the Lok Sabha. By preventing the Speaker or Deputy Speaker from presiding over their own removal proceedings while allowing them to participate and vote as members, it ensures that the process is both transparent and balanced.