In an unprecedented development during the 2026 Budget Session, Narendra Modi did not deliver the Prime Minister’s customary reply to the Motion of Thanks on the President’s Address in the Lok Sabha — a break from tradition not seen in over two decades. The Motion was passed amid chaotic protests by Opposition members, primarily from the Congress-led bloc.
What followed was a controversial revelation by Lok Sabha Speaker Om Birla, who stated that he had personally advised the Prime Minister not to attend the House, citing “concrete information” received 24 hours earlier about a possible “unexpected” or “unprecedented” act by some Opposition MPs. “I received credible information that some members of the Congress party could have approached the Prime Minister’s seat and caused an unforeseen incident,” Birla said, adding, “If such an incident had occurred, it would have severely damaged the dignity of the nation. That is why I urged the Prime Minister not to come to Parliament.”
Union Minister Giriraj Singh escalated the narrative, alleging that Opposition MPs had a pre-planned strategy to “attack members of the treasury benches.” While some ruling party supporters amplified claims of a direct threat to the Prime Minister’s safety, credible reports frame the concern as potential disruption — such as surrounding the PM’s seat or creating chaos — rather than an assassination plot.
The Opposition, led by Congress, dismissed these claims as a “ploy” to shield the Prime Minister from tough questioning. Leader of the Opposition Rahul Gandhi had been poised to raise sensitive issues, including displaying an unpublished memoir by former Army Chief General M.M. Naravane (allegedly suppressed in India) and references to the Epstein files. Priyanka Gandhi Vadra called the threat narrative an “absolute lie,” accusing the Prime Minister of “hiding behind the Speaker.” “The PM is hiding behind the Speaker,” she said, adding, “What nonsense is this? There is no discussion because the government doesn’t want it.”
Notably, PM Modi did deliver his reply in the Rajya Sabha the next day, where protests were less intense and Rahul Gandhi was absent.
This episode raises serious questions about the conduct of Speaker Om Birla: Was his intervention a neutral act to preserve decorum, or a partisan move to protect the ruling dispensation?
The Speaker’s Constitutional and Conventional Duties
The Speaker of the Lok Sabha is not merely a presiding officer but the “impartial custodian” of the House, entrusted with upholding its dignity, rights, and privileges. This role is rooted in constitutional conventions and the Rules of Procedure and Conduct of Business in Lok Sabha.
Impartiality as a Core Convention: Though not explicitly mandated in the Constitution, Indian parliamentary tradition — drawing from Westminster — expects the Speaker to transcend party loyalties. As noted in parliamentary commentary, the Speaker “guards the rights and privileges of the House” and must act above party politics to maintain credibility. In practice, Speakers often resign from their party upon election, though this is not always enforced. Critics argue that recent Speakers, including those from the ruling party, have faced accusations of bias, undermining this convention.
Maintenance of Order and Decorum: Under Rules 373–374, the Speaker has extensive powers to regulate proceedings and maintain order. If members cause “grave disorder,” the Speaker can direct them to withdraw (Rule 374) or suspend them (Rule 374A). The Speaker alone interprets the Rules and decides questions of order (Rule 376), with decisions being final.
Responsibility for the House’s Dignity and Security: As the presiding officer, the Speaker is responsible for the smooth functioning of the House, including its physical security through the Parliament Security Service. The Speaker must ensure that disruptions do not escalate into threats to members’ safety or the House’s dignity.
If a genuine security threat exists — particularly one endangering the Prime Minister, who represents the nation’s executive — protocol demands escalation to security agencies, the Ministry of Home Affairs, or even an internal probe. Filing an FIR or identifying culprits would be standard if the intelligence was credible.
Speaker Birla’s decision to advise the Prime Minister against attending appears to prioritise one side’s comfort over parliamentary confrontation. By publicly attributing the cancellation to Opposition “plots” without naming members, providing evidence, or initiating disciplinary action, the Speaker effectively levelled an accusation against the entire Opposition bloc. This risks eroding the convention of impartiality, as it frames the ruling party as victim and the Opposition as disruptor — a narrative beneficial to the treasury benches.
If the information was indeed “concrete,” why was no preventive action taken against the alleged MPs? Rules empower the Speaker to suspend members for disorderly conduct, yet none were named or penalised. No commission of inquiry was announced, no formal report to security agencies publicised, and no FIR lodged. This inaction suggests the “threat” was more anticipated protest than criminal conspiracy.
Furthermore, allowing the Prime Minister to skip the Lok Sabha while addressing the Rajya Sabha undermines equality between the two Houses and denies Lok Sabha members — including the Leader of the Opposition — their right to direct engagement. Rahul Gandhi’s repeated assertions that he was silenced on national security issues reinforce perceptions of selective facilitation.
Historical precedent exists — in 2004, Prime Minister Manmohan Singh faced a similar inability to reply due to disruptions — but the Speaker’s proactive shielding of the Prime Minister sets a troubling new benchmark
