Constitution of India
Article 93: The Speaker and Deputy Speaker of the House of the People
Part V — The Union (Chapter II — Parliament, Sub-heading: Officers of Parliament)
Article 93 (single, undivided article — no sub-clauses)
WHAT IT SAYS: The Lok Sabha shall, as soon as may be, choose two of its members to serve respectively as Speaker and Deputy Speaker; whenever either office falls vacant, the House shall choose another member to fill it. WHAT IT MEANS: 1. Election is mandatory — the word 'shall' imposes a constitutional obligation, not a discretion. 2. Both offices must be filled from among sitting Lok Sabha members only. 3. The phrase 'as soon as may be' requires prompt election but does not fix an exact deadline. 4. Vacancies arising mid-term (death, resignation, removal) must also be filled expeditiously. 5. No qualifications are prescribed beyond membership of the House. 6. Election is by simple majority of members present and voting. KEY DOCTRINE: 1. Doctrine of Constitutional Obligation — 'as soon as may be' creates a binding duty, not a mere directory provision. 2. The prolonged non-election of Deputy Speaker (17th & 18th Lok Sabha) has been challenged as a violation of this mandatory language.
Constitutional Inspiration
SOURCE(S): 1. United Kingdom — Speaker of the House of Commons (convention-based, not codified in a single statute) Original provision: The Commons elects a Speaker from among its members at the start of each Parliament; a Deputy Speaker (Chairman of Ways and Means) is also elected. What India kept: The requirement to elect Speaker and Deputy Speaker from among members; the concept of an impartial presiding officer. 2. Government of India Act, 1919 (Montagu-Chelmsford Reforms) — Section 63-A Original provision: Created offices of 'President' and 'Deputy President' of the Central Legislative Assembly, first filled in 1921. What India kept: The elected (not appointed) presiding officer model. 3. Government of India Act, 1935 — Section 22(5) Original provision: Changed nomenclature to 'Speaker' and 'Deputy Speaker'; Speaker did not vacate office on dissolution. What India kept: The nomenclature; Speaker continuing till the new House meets. INDIA'S SPECIFIC ADAPTATIONS: 1. Mandatory election of BOTH Speaker AND Deputy Speaker — UK has no equivalent constitutional mandate for Deputy Speaker. 2. 'As soon as may be' language — creates urgency absent in UK convention. 3. Convention (not constitutional text) of offering Deputy Speaker post to Opposition — to promote bipartisanship. 4. Anti-defection powers (via Tenth Schedule, added 1985) — Indian Speaker acquired quasi-judicial disqualification power unknown in UK.
Constituent Assembly Debate
DEBATED ON: 19 May 1949 (CAD Volume VIII) DRAFT ARTICLE NUMBER: Draft Article 76 KEY SPEAKERS: 1. Dr. B.R. Ambedkar — Moved the article; no substantive amendments were proposed by him. 2. President (Dr. Rajendra Prasad) — Noted that there were no amendments to Draft Article 76 and put it to vote. 3. H.V. Kamath (C.P. & Berar) — Did not oppose Art. 76 itself but raised related procedural points on the Speaker's role in administering oaths under subsequent articles. 4. Naziruddin Ahmad (West Bengal) — Raised only verbal/drafting amendments on related articles, not on Art. 76. MAJOR DISAGREEMENTS: 1. There was NO substantive debate or disagreement on Draft Article 76 specifically. 2. The article was adopted without any amendments. 3. Related debates on Articles 77 (vacation/removal) and 78-A (Speaker not presiding during removal motion) were more contentious. FINAL OUTCOME: Draft Article 76 was adopted as moved, without amendments, on 19 May 1949. AMBEDKAR'S KEY QUOTE (from related discussion on Speaker's authority): "The authority given to the Speaker becomes vested not only in the Speaker but also in the Deputy Speaker, in the Panel of Chairmen or any other person occupying the Chair for the time being."
Landmark Judgments
LANDMARK JUDGMENTS: 1. Keshav Singh v. Speaker, Legislative Assembly, U.P. (1965) — Supreme Court (Presidential Reference) affirmed that legislative privileges are subject to judicial review; Speaker's power to punish for contempt cannot override fundamental rights under Articles 32 and 226. 2. Kihoto Hollohan v. Zachillhu (1992) — Upheld Speaker's power to decide disqualification under the Tenth Schedule (anti-defection law), but held such decisions are subject to judicial review for mala fides or constitutional violations. 3. Raja Ram Pal v. Speaker, Lok Sabha (2007) — While parliamentary proceedings are largely immune from judicial scrutiny, acts violating constitutional provisions can be reviewed by courts; Speaker's expulsion power is not absolute. 4. Nabam Rebia v. Deputy Speaker (2016) — A Speaker facing a pending removal motion is disabled from deciding disqualification petitions under the Tenth Schedule; Governor cannot advance Assembly sessions without aid and advice of Council of Ministers. 5. Shariq Ahmed v. Union of India (2023, PIL) — Highlighted prolonged non-election of Deputy Speaker as a constitutional breach of Article 93's mandatory language. CONTEMPORARY CONTROVERSY: 1. 17th Lok Sabha (2019–2024) — Deputy Speaker post remained vacant for the ENTIRE term — first time in Independent India's history. 2. 18th Lok Sabha (2024–present) — Deputy Speaker post continues to remain vacant as of 2026, raising serious constitutional concerns. NOTABLE DISSENTS: 1. Justice Lalit Mohan Sharma in Kihoto Hollohan (1992) — Dissented, arguing Speaker's decision under Tenth Schedule should NOT be subject to judicial review, to preserve parliamentary sovereignty. SCHOLARS & JURISTS: 1. M.N. Kaul & S.L. Shakdher (Practice and Procedure of Parliament) — The Speaker is the principal spokesperson of the House; impartiality is the cornerstone of the office. 2. Subhash Kashyap (former Secretary-General, Lok Sabha) — The phrase 'as soon as may be' in Article 93 imposes a constitutional duty, and prolonged vacancy of Deputy Speaker is constitutionally impermissible.