‘Once a Speaker, Always a speaker’! Do you think this practice should be adopted to impart objectivity to the office of the Speaker of Lok Sabha? What could be its implication for the robust functioning of parliamentary business in India? (150 words)

There are both arguments for and against the adoption of the practice of “once a Speaker, always a Speaker” for the office of the Speaker of the Lok Sabha (lower house of the Indian Parliament).

One argument in favor of this practice is that it would impart objectivity to the office, as the Speaker would not be swayed by political considerations or the desire to be re-elected. This could improve the impartiality and independence of the Speaker, and enhance the functioning of parliamentary business.

However, there are also concerns that this practice could lead to a lack of accountability for the Speaker, as the threat of being voted out of office would be removed. Additionally, the practice could limit opportunities for other members to hold the office and bring their perspectives to the role, leading to a lack of diversity and representation in the office of the Speaker.

In conclusion, while the practice of “once a Speaker, always a Speaker” could impart objectivity to the office, it could also have negative implications for accountability and diversity.