‘Once a Speaker always a speaker’! Do you think this practice should be adopted to impart objectivity to the office of the speaker of Lok Sabha? What could be its implication for the robust functioning of parliamentary business in India? (Answer in 150 words)

The suggestion that a former Speaker should remain permanently associated with the office seeks to protect neutrality, continuity and institutional memory in the Lok Sabha.

• A former Speaker may act with greater independence from party pressures after leaving office.
• Institutional memory can improve procedural rulings, committee functioning and parliamentary training.
• Retaining experienced presiding officers may strengthen conventions and reduce partisan disruption.

In India, the Speaker is elected for the life of the House and conventionally ceases to hold office when the House is dissolved. A permanent or quasi-permanent status could create ambiguity regarding authority, remuneration and accountability. It may also entrench an individual beyond the democratic mandate and conflict with the principle that each new House should elect its presiding officer.

Objectivity would be better secured through election by consensus, a convention of resignation from party membership, security of tenure, transparent rulings, independent secretariat support and restricted judicially reviewable grounds for removal. A consultative council of former Speakers could provide continuity without diluting parliamentary accountability.

Lok Sabha Speaker; neutrality; parliamentary conventions; anti-defection; institutional memory; presiding officer; parliamentary reform.