Model Answer

Introduction

The practice of “Once a Speaker, Always a Speaker” implies that the Speaker should not return to active party politics even after their term ends. This approach aims to impart objectivity and neutrality to the office of the Speaker, which is crucial for maintaining the integrity of parliamentary proceedings.

Potential Benefits

1. Impartiality: Adopting this practice would reinforce the impartiality of the Speaker, as they would not be beholden to any political party during or after their term. This could lead to fairer decision-making and a more balanced approach to managing parliamentary debates.
2. Strengthening Democracy: Ensuring the neutrality of the Speaker would contribute to a healthier democratic process by promoting fair debate and discussion in the house. A non-partisan Speaker can facilitate a more inclusive environment for all political parties.
3. Enhancing Credibility: The perception of the Speaker as an unbiased figure would enhance the credibility of the office and boost public trust in the parliamentary process. This trust is essential for the effective functioning of democracy.

Potential Implications

1. Restriction of Political Career: The practice could be seen as a limitation on the political career of the individual serving as the Speaker, as they would not be able to return to active politics after their term. This might deter experienced politicians from accepting the role.
2. Reduced Incentive for Qualified Candidates: The prospect of not being able to rejoin their party after their term might discourage qualified individuals from taking up the position of the Speaker, potentially leading to a lack of experienced leadership in this critical role.
3. Detachment from Political Realities: A Speaker permanently detached from active politics might lose touch with the evolving political landscape, which could hinder their ability to effectively manage parliamentary proceedings and respond to the needs of the members.
4. Constitutional Challenges: Implementing such a practice might face constitutional challenges, as it could be perceived as an infringement on the individual’s right to participate in political activities, raising questions about the balance between impartiality and political freedom.

Conclusion

Balancing the need for impartiality with the individual’s right to engage in political activities and the practical realities of the political landscape is crucial for ensuring the robust functioning of parliamentary business in India. An alternative approach could be to focus on strengthening the existing norms and conventions that govern the office of the Speaker, rather than imposing a permanent restriction on their political career.