Participating in the debate in the Lok Sabha, Shah said the motion raises broader concerns about democratic norms and the respect accorded to constitutional offices.
“After about 4 decades, Lok Sabha speaker facing no-confidence motion,” Shah said, adding that “this is unfortunate for both the house and the speaker.”
Shah noted that the discussion had seen wide participation from lawmakers across parties. “Over 42 parliamentarians have participated in the discussion,” he said.
Taking aim at the opposition, Shah accused them of questioning the neutrality of the Speaker and undermining the dignity of the office.
“Opposition raising questions on speaker’s integrity,” he said, adding that the “opposition has insulted the office of speaker.”
Shah also argued that such a motion sends the wrong message internationally about India’s democratic institutions. “No-confidence motion raises questions on India’s democracy in a global level,” he said.Emphasising the importance of parliamentary rules and conventions, Shah said members must respect the authority of the Speaker in conducting proceedings. “No one has right to say anything against Lok Sabha rules,” he said.
Highlighting his party’s past conduct in Parliament, Shah said the BJP and the NDA had never moved such a motion even when they were in the opposition. “NDA never brought no-confidence against speaker when in opposition,” he said.
He added that the BJP believes the Speaker’s integrity should not be questioned. “BJP thinks we should never raise questions on speaker’s integrity,” he said.
Shah also underlined the constitutional safeguards in place to ensure the Speaker can function independently. “Constitution protects speaker so that they can work,” he said.
Explaining the functioning of the House, Shah said members communicate through the Speaker and must adhere to its authority. “We communicate in Lok Sabha through speaker,” he said.
He also defended the Speaker’s authority to regulate parliamentary language. “Speaker has the right to remove words from proceedings if those words are unconstitutional,” Shah said, noting that “rules regarding unconstitutional words has not been made today or under one certain rule, it is there since the beginning.”
He further remarked that the Speaker’s authority extends even to intervening during speeches if members deviate from the subject under discussion. “If i talk about something different than what is being discussed, speaker will stop me,” Shah said.
