THE BIAS OF BEING BIASED

When rules are applied evenly but one side finds itself restricted more often due to its own misconduct, charges of bias quickly follow. Enforcement of procedure is portrayed as 'discrimination', and insistence on maintaining order is recast as 'political hostility'.

- KARTIKEYA SHARMA

On the opening day of the current Winter Session, India's newly elected VicePresident and Rajya Sabha Chairman, Shri C.P. Radhakrishnan, walked into the chambers to take the chair. The air was thick with ceremony-and, quietly, with suspicion. Opposition leaders used the occasion not simply to extend courtesy, but to issue premature warnings about "impartiality," signalling in effect that the moment the Chair begins its duty, its every action will be viewed through a lens of partisan mistrust. Media headlines echoed the sentiment: the Opposition insisted that Shri Radhakrishnan needed to "maintain neutrality," implicitly suggesting they would treat any enforcement of procedure with scepticism.

This expectation was not left to goodwill. It was secured through deliberate design. Ambedkar supported safeguards that insulated the office from casual attack: special procedures for removal, strict limitations on discussing the conduct of the Chair except by substantive motion, and financial security independent of executive discretion. The Speaker or Chair was thus conceived as a constitutional safeguard, not a partisan instrument—an office defined as much by restraint as by authority.

They arise instead when the Chair enforces the rules of the House-by disallowing notices that do not meet procedural requirements, insisting on order during proceedings, curbing repeated disruptions, or applying standing rules uniformly to all members. These decisions are procedural, not political. They do not decide legislative outcomes; they decide whether Parliament can function with discipline and dignity.