Somnathda is experiencing Hamlet’s dilemma of ‘to be or not to be’ with regard to his resignation as the Speaker. This issue has generated a furious controversy in which certain basic aspects about the Speaker’s office are overlooked. Unlike in the UK an MP elected as a Speaker in India is not required to give up membership of his political party. Nonetheless, once a member is elected Speaker, he represents the House. He belongs to all the members or belongs to none. This was laid down by our Supreme Court in its judgment in Holohon. Therefore, the demand for his resignation after withdrawal of support by CPI(M) suffers from the fallacy that the Speaker is the nominee of the CPI(M) after his election as Speaker. If the CPI(M) issues a whip to its members to vote against the trust motion, the Speaker is not bound by it because he is not expected to vote one way or the other. His function is to declare the result after ascertaining the votes.

However, a piquant situation can arise if there is equality of votes in which case the Constitution permits the Speaker to cast his vote. In that event will the Speaker be bound by the party whip? This is a grey area. However, the possibility of such a situation highlights the necessity for the Speaker at this stage to maintain silence, which is not merely an option, but a prudential compulsion. Let people speculate and the bookies make hay. The Speaker must display the inscrutable face of the sphinx.

... contd.