Unlike British Parliamentary practices,where the post of Speaker is apolitical, in India it was the political person elected to the post of Speaker.He is first elected on a party ticket, then unimously or through election, elected to the post of Speaker. Once he is elected, he holds the constitutional position. He should become apolitical in terms of running the Parliament. One cannot expect the Speaker to cut off all his relationship with the Party which elected him to the parliament. This is asking for too much. He will definitely have allegiance to the party, but then through his conduct in the House he would demonstrate that he is neutral to the proceedings,favouring none,leave alone his party members. Today a different situation has arisen in which Karat chose to include the name of the Speaker in the list of party MPs withdrawing the support. Karat was right or wrong in including the name of the Speaker, is debatable.When time comes, parliamentary niceties apart,the Speaker can tender his resignation and rejoin the opposition or treasury bench to save or oppose the Govt. There no impropriety involved. Karat was right when he included his name and Somnath was equally right when he refused to toe the party line. As an individual he held certain views or principles based on which he has acted. It may be differences with Karat on certain issues or he does not wish to vote along with the communal forces. Nobody has read his mind,these are just an observation of the issue.
RE:The Speaker is a constitutional position - Somnath was right
by Prem Mohan on Jul 20, 2008 08:01 PM Permalink
Mr Somnath Chatterji can stay on in parliament and cast his vote in case of a tie.
In Britain too the speaker is first elected to parliament on a party ticket.
