‘Parliament Is Not A Circus’: Amit Shah Slams Congress Over No-Trust Motion Against Speaker

Speaking during the debate in the Lok Sabha, Shah said the House was witnessing an unusual situation, noting that a motion against the Speaker had come after several decades.

“More than ten hours of discussion has taken place. Nearly 13 hours of debate has been held by Parliament from both the treasury and Opposition benches,” he said.

Source : ANI

Show Quick Read

Key points generated by AI, verified by newsroom

Union Home Minister Amit Shah on Tuesday criticised the Opposition over the motion seeking the removal of Om Birla as Lok Sabha Speaker, describing the development as an “unfortunate” moment for parliamentary politics.

Speaking during the debate in the Lok Sabha, Shah said the House was witnessing an unusual situation, noting that a motion against the Speaker had come after several decades.

VIDEO | Delhi: “Sadan koi mela nahi hai. Parliament runs according to rules. Everyone speaks according to the rules. No one has the right to disobey Parliament’s rules and speak. To those who say this is happening because of the BJP, let me tell them that these rules were not… pic.twitter.com/viE3NE6Wo0

— Press Trust of India (@PTI_News) March 11, 2026

“This is not an ordinary moment,” Shah said, adding that it had been “nearly four decades” since such a motion had been brought before the Lok Sabha Speaker.

‘Speaker Belongs To The House, Not Any Party’

Shah told the House that the Speaker’s position was above party lines and that the office represents the entire House.

“I also want to say that for parliamentary politics and for this House, it is an unfortunate event, because the Speaker does not belong to any party, he belongs to the House,” he said.

He added that the Speaker is also the guardian of the rights of all members of the House.

“The Speaker is the protector of the rights of all members of the House. Therefore, a no-confidence motion before the Speaker is not an ordinary event,” Shah said.

Over 13 Hours Of Debate In The House

Referring to the discussion on the motion, Shah said the matter had already seen extensive debate in Parliament.

“More than ten hours of discussion has taken place. Nearly 13 hours of debate has been held by Parliament from both the treasury and Opposition benches,” he said.

According to Shah, more than 42 Members of Parliament participated in the debate.

Speaker’s Appointment Had Support From Both Sides

Shah also reminded the House that when the Speaker was appointed, leaders from both sides of the aisle had together escorted him to the Chair.

“I want to tell the entire House that when the Speaker was appointed, leaders of both sides together placed him in the Chair,” he said.

According to Shah, this reflected the expectation that both the ruling side and the Opposition would support the Speaker in performing his duties and provide a free environment for the discharge of responsibilities.

‘Disagreement Possible, But Speaker’s Decision Final’

Shah said that while members could express disagreement with the Speaker’s decisions, parliamentary tradition recognises the Speaker’s ruling as final.

“Today, there may be disagreement with the Speaker’s decision,” he said.

“But the decision of the Lok Sabha Speaker has been considered final.”

He accused the Opposition of going beyond disagreement and questioning the Speaker’s integrity.

“However, contrary to this tradition, the Opposition has raised question marks over the Speaker’s loyalty,” Shah said.

‘Questions Raised Globally About India’s Democracy’

Shah also warned that allegations against the Speaker could have wider implications for the country’s democratic image.

“The world recognises the strength and prestige of India’s democratic system. When allegations are made against the head of this House, questions are raised not only within the country but also globally about our democratic processes,” he said.

He added that such motions against the Speaker are rare because members can raise concerns directly with the presiding officer.

“That is why, generally, a no-confidence motion against the Speaker is rarely brought. Members can go to the Speaker’s chamber and discuss their concerns. The Speaker listens to members from both sides,” Shah said.

He described the current situation as unusual.

“However, a very strange situation has been created here, when members go to the chamber, an atmosphere is created as if the Speaker’s security itself is under threat. Nothing could be more unfortunate than this. What kind of system do they want?” Shah said.

‘Speaker Meant To Act As Neutral Mediator’

Reiterating the constitutional role of the Speaker, Shah said the position was designed to function above political divisions.

“The position of the Speaker has been placed above party lines and is meant to function as a neutral mediator. Yet, questions are now being raised about the very person entrusted with this mediating role,” he said.

He also referred to the evolution of parliamentary institutions in the country.

“For 75 years, both Houses of Parliament have strengthened the foundations of our democracy to great depths. Today, however, the Opposition has raised a serious question mark over it,” Shah said.