The phrase "Once a speaker, Always a speaker" suggests that individuals who have held the position of Speaker of Lok Sabha (the lower house of the Indian Parliament) should retain their role as speakers throughout their life. Adopting this practice might aim to bring objectivity and impartiality to the office of the Speaker. However, there are several implications that need to be considered for the robust functioning of parliamentary business in India.

1. Perceived Bias: Continuing in the role of Speaker for life may lead to a perception of bias or favoritism towards a particular political party or ideology. The longevity of the Speaker's tenure could create doubts about their ability to maintain neutrality and fairness.

2. Lack of Fresh Perspective: Having a Speaker who remains in the position for life may result in a lack of fresh ideas, perspectives, and adaptability. New challenges, concerns, and dynamics arise over time, and the office of the Speaker could benefit from individuals with diverse experiences and knowledge.

3. Diminished Accountability: If the practice of lifelong Speaker is adopted, it could reduce the level of accountability that the Speaker has towards their constituents. In a democratic setup, elected representatives should be accountable to the people they represent, and holding the position of Speaker indefinitely may weaken this accountability.

4. Stagnation of Leadership: Regular rotation of the Speaker's position enables new leaders to gain experience and contribute their unique style of presiding over the house. Continuity in the same individual may hinder the exploration of different leadership styles and approaches, potentially stagnating the growth of leadership within parliamentary proceedings.

5. Overcentralization of Power: Having a Speaker for life could centralize power within a single individual over time. This concentration of power might hinder the healthy functioning of parliamentary democracy, as it may undermine the checks and balances necessary for effective governance.

To ensure the robust functioning of parliamentary business in India, it is crucial to strike a balance between the need for institutional stability and the introduction of fresh perspectives. Hence, a more appropriate approach might involve setting a specific and limited term for the Speaker, allowing for a rotation of individuals with diverse backgrounds and ensuring accountability through periodic elections or reappointments.

The statement "Once a speaker, always a speaker" refers to the principle of keeping the position of the Speaker of Lok Sabha above partisan politics. This principle aims to ensure the Speaker's impartiality and objectivity in presiding over parliamentary proceedings. While the intention is noble, adopting this practice in India might have complex implications.

Arguments for:

• Objectivity and impartiality: A permanent Speaker would be free from the pressures of seeking re-election, potentially leading to more impartial rulings and fair conduct of debates.
• Institutional strength: A permanent speaker could build stronger institutional memory and expertise, leading to a more stable and effective House.
• Increased respect and authority: A permanent Speaker might command greater respect and authority, potentially leading to more disciplined and respectful behavior among MPs.

Arguments against:

• Loss of accountability: A permanent Speaker would be less accountable to the elected representatives, potentially leading to a less responsive and representative House.
• Political bias: Even if a permanent Speaker aims to be impartial, their past political affiliations might subconsciously influence their decisions.
• Lack of dynamism: A permanent speaker might become entrenched, hindering the introduction of new ideas and perspectives.
• Practical challenges: The long tenure of a permanent Speaker might lead to power imbalances and the emergence of a strong, potentially autocratic figure.

Implications for Parliamentary Business:

• Smooth functioning: A permanent Speaker with greater experience and knowledge of parliamentary procedures might contribute to a smoother and more efficient functioning of the House.
• Increased productivity: Reduced political maneuvering and procedural delays might lead to increased productivity and the passage of more legislation.
• Potential for stagnation: A permanent Speaker might stifle dissent and innovation, leading to a less dynamic and less responsive Parliament.

Conclusion:

While the "Once a speaker, always a speaker" principle aims for objectivity, its implications in the Indian context are complex and potentially problematic. The current system of electing a Speaker for a fixed term allows for a balance between experience, accountability, and dynamism.

It is crucial to consider alternative solutions to enhance the objectivity and impartiality of the Speaker, such as strengthening the independent powers of the office, instituting ethical guidelines for Speakers, and fostering a culture of respect and decorum within Parliament. The focus should be on ensuring a strong and independent Speaker who can effectively preside over parliamentary proceedings while remaining accountable to the elected representatives.

The phrase "Once a speaker, Always a speaker!" suggests that once an individual has held the office of the Speaker of Lok Sabha, they should continue to maintain a degree of objectivity and impartiality, even after leaving the office. This practice can have both positive and negative implications for the robust functioning of parliamentary business in India.

Positive implications:

1. Continuity and consistency: With the Speakers' impartiality and expertise, they can continue to provide guidance and wisdom to the Lok Sabha, ensuring continuity and consistency in parliamentary proceedings.
2. Enhanced integrity: By maintaining objectivity, former Speakers can uphold the dignity and reputation of the office, which can strengthen public trust in the institution.
3. Mentorship: Ex-Speakers can share their valuable experience and expertise with new Speakers, facilitating a smooth transition and ensuring that parliamentary traditions are preserved.

Negative implications:

1. Overreach of authority: If an ex-Speaker continues to wield significant influence, it may lead to an overreach of authority, undermining the powers of the current Speaker and potentially creating conflicts.
2. Interference in current proceedings: Ex-Speakers may interfere with ongoing parliamentary proceedings, potentially disrupting the functioning of the House and creating confusion among Members of Parliament (MPs).
3. Blurring of lines: The distinction between the Speaker's office and other parliamentary positions may become blurred, potentially leading to confusion among MPs and the public about the roles and responsibilities of different officials.

Counterarguments:

1. Institutional memory: The accumulated knowledge and experience of former Speakers can be leveraged to improve the functioning of the Lok Sabha, without unduly interfering with current proceedings.
2. ** checks and balances**: The Speakers' impartiality can serve as a check on the executive's power, ensuring that the government does not overstep its bounds.

To strike a balance, consider the following measures:

1. Establish a council of former Speakers: This council can provide guidance and advice on parliamentary procedures, without interfering with current proceedings.
2. Clearly define the role of ex-Speakers: Parliament can establish clear guidelines for ex-Speakers' engagement, ensuring that their contributions do not compromise the authority of the current Speaker.
3. Encourage knowledge sharing: Former Speakers can share their expertise through lectures, workshops, or publications, without directly influencing ongoing parliamentary business.

In conclusion, adopting the practice of "Once a speaker, Always a speaker!" can have both positive and negative implications for the robust functioning of parliamentary business in India. To mitigate potential drawbacks, it is essential to establish clear guidelines, ensuring that former Speakers' contributions are constructive and do not undermine the authority of the current Speaker.