Office of the speaker in India

In a Parliamentary form of the Government the office of the Speaker is held in a very high esteem. His authority is supreme in the House, and his decisions and orders are unchallengeable. He is the guardian of the House and the rights of the minorities. The British Speakership, for example, is noted for impartiality. For this cause, the founding fathers of the Indian Constitution, preferred this institution of Speaker to be transplanted in the Indian soil and the nomenclature 'President' changed to 'Speaker' in 1947.

In this study, an attempt has been made to analyse the procedure adopted for the elec tion of the Speaker in the pre-independence Central Legislative Assembly and the present Lok Sabha. Briefly, it compares the Indian Procedure of Election' with the procedures adopted by the UK and the USA.

Our speakers retain party affiliations during their term. In India, neither the Speaker nor the party-in-power has taken the initiative in establishing sound conven tions. Moreover, the Constitution too has not provided requisite provisions to make this institution effective and impartial. As such, the Indian Speaker is the nominee of the party-in-power, and invariably a prominent politician with high political ambitions. As the Speaker is elected by the majority party without consultation of the opposition, the speaker has been unable to win the con fidence of the opposition. This extensive and exhaustive study contains all materials and developments that have weakened the posi tion of our Speakers both at the Centre and in the States.

The author has focussed on the future trends associated with the Speakership in India with regard to election, powers and position. Various recommendations and suggestions have been put forward to improve the tarnished image of the Indian Speakers.