The no-confidence motion against Lok Sabha Speaker Om Birla was never going to succeed. Everyone in Parliament — treasury benches, Opposition ranks, even casual observers of arithmetic — knew that. And after the date fiasco — with the motion reading 2025 instead of 2026 — the conclusion was even more obvious.

The ruling alliance has the numbers, the Chair has institutional backing, and the motion’s fate was sealed long before it was moved. Yet Birla’s response to it has been curiously triumphant, almost performative, as though surviving an impossible challenge were a badge of moral victory rather than a moment for introspection.

Indeed, he has come forward to 'rectify' errors in the motion in order to hasten its progress through the Lok Sabha.

Technically, he is right to lean on procedure. Technicalities matter in Parliament. Rules, precedents and the Speaker’s authority form the scaffolding of the House. But hiding behind those technicalities while ignoring the political meaning of the motion risks turning a serious institutional rebuke into a spectacle of virtue signalling.

Speaking of the technical flaws in the Opposition’s notice — points that Birla’s supporters highlighted as proof of procedural superiority — the key objections included:

Incorrect date references: The........

© National Herald