Revision summary
The Speaker is meant to embody the House’s freedom of debate and the dignity of its rules. Indian Speakers certify money bills, run question hour, and decide defection. Kihoto Hollohan made defection rulings reviewable. Delay in disqualification and partisan adjournments contradict the ideal. The statement is a constitutional ethic that courts now partly enforce against the chair.
Model answer
Introduction
The Speaker is the House’s presiding officer. In Westminster theory the office stands for the House’s freedom against the executive and for the dignity of its procedure. In India, Article 93 and the anti-defection Tenth Schedule have strained that theory.
Body
The Westminster claim
- The Speaker represents the House, not the government. Freedom means the right of members to speak, question, and oppose under rules.
- Dignity means orderly debate, protection of minorities in the House, and custody of privileges.
- Erskine May and Indian practice expect the Speaker to be impartial after election, even if the person came from a party.
Indian constitutional design
- The Speaker is elected by the Lok Sabha or Vidhan Sabha. The office is not a presidential nominee.
- Casting vote, adjournment, and referral of money bills (Article 110) are powers that can decide legislative fate.
- The Tenth Schedule made the Speaker the first judge of defection, which mixed the referee with party-break politics.
- Kihoto Hollohan (1992) held that the Speaker’s defection order is judicially reviewable, a limit that protects freedom of the House from a partisan chair.
- Nabam Rebia (2016) and later Keisham Meghachandra (2020) pressed time-limits and constitutionality when Speakers sat on disqualification.
Examination
- When the Speaker protects question hour, opposes sudden adjournment to save the government, and recognises the opposition, the office does represent freedom and dignity.
- When the Speaker certifies ordinary bills as money bills to bypass the Rajya Sabha, or delays defection cases until a term ends, the office represents the majority, not the House.
- A. V. Dicey’s parliamentary dignity assumed a culture of restraint. Anti-defection and tight whips reduced the member’s freedom that the Speaker is said to incarnate.
- State Assemblies have seen mass disqualification and floor tests where the Governor and the Court, not the Speaker’s neutrality, restored a kind of dignity, as in some Bommai-line cases.
Conclusion of the examine
- The sentence is a norm, not a description. The Speaker ought to represent the House’s freedom and dignity.
- Law has had to review the Speaker because practice often failed the norm.
- Strengthening impartiality—faster defection decisions, less inventive money-bill certification—would make the sentence true again.
Flow diagram
flowchart TD SP[Speaker] --> F[Freedom of speech in House] SP --> D[Dignity of procedure] T10[Tenth Schedule] --> RISK[Partisan chair] KH[Kihoto Hollohan] --> REV[Judicial review]
Conclusion
The Speaker is designed as the symbol of the House’s freedom and dignity. Tenth Schedule partisanship and procedural abuse have often made the office the majority’s tool. Kihoto and later cases restored review so that dignity is not whatever the chair says.
Quick related
Students also ask
-
Discuss the policy initiatives of the Fourteenth Finance Commission aimed towards promoting and strengthening agricultural development in India
Next question in the 2022 paper (Q7). View answer →
-
Is the Indian Speaker as impartial as the British Speaker?
Conventionally less so. The British Speaker leaves party permanently. Indian Speakers usually remain politically aligned.
-
Does review of the Speaker weaken the House?
It weakens an unchecked chair. It can protect the House’s freedom against a partisan referee.
PYQ trend
When UPSC asked this
Related PYQs from other years, newest first. Open a question to read it.
-
2022 · Q4(b) · PSIR GS 1 · 15 marks
"The Panchayats with Gram Sabhas should be so organised as to identify the resources locally available for the development in agricultural and industrial sectors." Examine the statement in the context of Gram Swaraj -
2022 · Q5(a) · PSIR GS 1 · 10 marks
Analyse the workers' movement in India in the pre-Independence period. -
2022 · Q5(c) · PSIR GS 1 · 10 marks
Legislative Council is a house without any effective powers. Comment. -
2022 · Q8(a) · PSIR GS 1 · 20 marks
Ethnicity is the underlying cause which poses a great challenge in the resolution of the problems in the North-East region of India. Comment -
2021 · Q5(a) · PSIR GS 1 · 10 marks
"The Constitution of India is a product of a historical process, rich with constitutional antecedents." Comment. -
2021 · Q5(d) · PSIR GS 1 · 10 marks
Analyze the Marxist perspective of the nature of Indian National Movement. -
2021 · Q5(e) · PSIR GS 1 · 10 marks
Underline the significance of the first constitutional amendment. -
2021 · Q6(c) · PSIR GS 1 · 15 marks
Do you think that despite having significant limitations the Panchayati Raj Institutions have strengthened the process of democratic decentralization? Give your views
More from this paper
Q1(a) · UPSC Mains 2022 · PSIR GS 1 · 10 marks
Systems Approach.
Political Theory
Easton treated politics as authoritative allocation inside a system of inputs, conversion, outputs, and feedback. Almond restated conversion as interest and rule functions plus political culture. The method compared new states by function, not by legal text alone. Critics charge equilibrium bias and neglect of class, ideology, and silent power. It remains a map of process, not a theory of justice.
Q1(b) · UPSC Mains 2022 · PSIR GS 1 · 10 marks
Cultural Relativism.
Political Theory
Cultural relativism asks that meaning be read inside a culture, against racial ranking. Boas and Herskovits are the canonical names. As method it blocks ethnocentrism; as absolute ethics it can protect domination. Parekh and Kymlicka keep culture with exit and equality. Indian minority rights sit beside Article 17, which relativism cannot erase.
Q1(c) · UPSC Mains 2022 · PSIR GS 1 · 10 marks
"Revolution in Permanence".
Political Theory
Trotsky’s revolution in permanence refuses a long bourgeois stage in late societies. Democratic and socialist tasks are chained; the process is international. The formula opposes Stalin’s socialism in one country. Marx’s 1850 phrase is the ancestor; 1905 and 1917 are the cases. The limit is neglect of peasantry, nation, and post-revolutionary law.
Toppers' copies
Toppers' copies for this question will be uploaded soon.