Article 96

Speaker or Deputy Speaker Barred from Chair During Removal Motion

Official heading: “The Speaker or the Deputy Speaker not to preside while a resolution for his removal from office is under consideration”

Check this article against the official editionAwaiting human legal review

Source edition: The Constitution of India (as on 1 May 2026)
Source locator: Part V, Article 96, printed page 43
Last human source-link check: Not yet checked
Last human legal review: Not yet reviewed

Open official PDF at this article Report a text or source error

AI-assisted source comparisons are noted with the citations below; the check date remains pending until a human confirms the link. The report link opens your email app; you choose whether to send it.

1. In One Sentence

Article 96 bars the Speaker or Deputy Speaker from presiding over Lok Sabha while a resolution for their removal is under consideration, but guarantees them the right to speak and vote in the first instance.

2. What It Means in Everyday Language

Article 96 applies the rule of procedural fairness to the presiding officers of the Lok Sabha. Under clause (1), while a resolution for the removal of the Speaker is under consideration, the Speaker cannot preside, even if present in the House. The Deputy Speaker or an authorized chairperson must preside instead.

Clause (2) outlines the unique voting rights of the Speaker during such proceedings. Unlike ordinary sittings where the Speaker has only a casting vote in a tie (Article 100), during a removal motion the Speaker has the right to vote in the first instance as an ordinary MP.

However, to prevent any conflict of interest, the Speaker has no casting vote if the House is equally divided on the removal resolution.

3. Practical Illustrative Example

Everyday Scenario:

A resolution seeking the removal of the Speaker is taken up for discussion in the Lok Sabha.

Core takeaway: Under Article 96(1), the Speaker vacates the Chair and takes a seat on the floor among regular MPs.

Illustrative Notice: The Speaker may vote in the first instance on the resolution, but cannot cast a second or deciding casting vote in the event of an equal tie.

4. Important Limits, Qualifications & Exceptions

Article 96 balances the Speaker’s rights as an elected representative with impartiality of the Chair.

Disqualification from presiding while a personal removal resolution is under consideration.
Right to participate: Speaker may speak and defend their official conduct.
First-instance vote: Speaker votes as a regular MP on the resolution.
No casting vote: Barred from exercising a tie-breaking vote.

5. Operative Constitutional Text

(1) At any sitting of the House of the People, while any resolution for the removal of the Speaker from his office is under consideration, the Speaker, or while any resolution for the removal of the Deputy Speaker from his office is under consideration, the Deputy Speaker, shall not, though he is present, preside, and the provisions of clause (2) of article 95 shall apply in relation to every such sitting as they apply in relation to a sitting from which the Speaker, or, as the case may be, the Deputy Speaker, is absent. (2) The Speaker shall have the right to speak in, and otherwise to take part in the proceedings of, the House of the People while any resolution for his removal from office is under consideration in the House and shall, notwithstanding anything in article 100, be entitled to vote only in the first instance on such resolution or on any other matter during such proceedings but not in the case of an equality of votes.

Transcription for reference; compare with the linked official editionNot yet verified by a human legal reviewer

6. Sources & Historical Assembly Deliberations

Assembly quotations are withheld until wording, dates, and attribution have been checked against the primary record.

Sources & Citation Metadata

•
Constitutional TextThe Constitution of India (as on 1 May 2026)Cited PDF page
Government of India (Legislative Department, Ministry of Law and Justice) • Part V, Article 96, printed page 43 • Human source-link check pending
Primary PDF accessed and transcribed with AI assistance on 14 October 2026. Formatting and amendment annotation markers are omitted; operative wording is retained. This is not human legal review. Later amendments and commencement notifications have not been comprehensively checked.

Human legal review is pending; compare the text with the cited editionNon-partisan educational resource