Rahul Narwekar, Speaker of the Maharashtra Legislative Assembly, joined The Indian Express, Mumbai, for a wide ranging interaction during the ongoing Budget Session, addressing key issues from the delay in appointing a Leader of the Opposition to concerns over Assembly functioning, anti-defection law reforms, and the recently passed anti-conversion legislation. In the conversation, Narwekar also spoke about maintaining neutrality in a politically charged environment, scrutiny of the Speaker’s role, and administrative challenges within the House. Edited excerpts:Why has Maharashtra not yet appointed a Leader of the Opposition LoP, despite a proposal pending before you?If we genuinely want to uphold parliamentary democracy, we must begin with discipline. There has to be order, adherence to rules, and respect for institutional processes. The Constitution provides the framework, and the Vidhan Sabha has its own rules for functioning. Alongside this, precedent plays a crucial role in guiding decisions.In the present situation, the central question is whether a Leader of the Opposition can be appointed when the largest opposition party does not meet the 10 per cent strength threshold. There are precedents suggesting that without this minimum strength, appointing an LoP may not be appropriate. Even Parliament operates on a similar understanding.However, this is not a straightforward issue. There have been differing interpretations at different points in time. Therefore, rather than rushing into a decision, it is important to consult widely and take a well reasoned view. Whatever decision is taken today will not just resolve the current situation, it will become a precedent for future Speakers.Given the ruling coalition’s overwhelming majority, does the absence of an LoP risk making Assembly functioning one-sided?That is a legitimate concern. In our system, justice must not only be done but must also be seen to be done. Public perception matters greatly.Today, the numbers in the Assembly are clearly lopsided, with over 232 members on the ruling side and about 56 in the Opposition. In such a scenario, the responsibility of the Speaker becomes even more critical. It is my duty to ensure that this numerical imbalance does not translate into procedural or functional imbalance.Story continues below this adIn practice, I have consciously tried to ensure that Opposition members are given sufficient opportunities whether during Question Hour, Zero Hour, or through calling attention motions. Even though parties like the BJP have significantly higher numbers compared to the Congress, I have ensured that smaller opposition parties are also given space to raise issues and question the government. The goal is to ensure that the Assembly functions in a truly democratic manner, irrespective of the numbers.Is there a time frame for your decision on the LoP?There is a fine balance to be maintained. Justice delayed is justice denied, but justice hurried is justice buried. We want to avoid both extremes. I am conscious of the need for timely action and will take a decision soon.You have been appointed to head a committee of presiding officers to examine the Tenth Schedule and the anti defection law. What prompted the formation of this committee, and what key challenges and reforms is it looking to address?Story continues below this adThe Tenth Schedule, which deals with defection, has evolved significantly over the years. Initially, it allowed one third of members to split and form a separate group. This was later tightened to require two-thirds majority and mandatory merger, making the law more robust.Despite these improvements, several ambiguities remain. For instance, the definition of leader is unclear. Does it refer to the leader chosen by the legislative party or the political party. These ambiguities create challenges for presiding officers when adjudicating defection cases. Recognising these issues, a committee was constituted to review the provisions, examine precedents, and recommend necessary amendments.One major concern is the absence of a defined time frame for deciding anti-defection petitions. This often leads to judicial intervention, which ideally should not be the case since defection is within the exclusive jurisdiction of the Speaker. At the same time, prescribing a rigid time frame externally can be problematic because cases vary in complexity. Some may require detailed examination beyond a fixed period.Therefore, I believe the law itself should specify a reasonable minimum and maximum time frame. This would provide clarity, reduce arbitrariness, and strengthen the intent of the anti-defection framework.Story continues below this adWith the anti-conversion bill passed in the Assembly, would it not have been more prudent to wait for the Supreme Court’s ruling on similar laws in other states, or to refer the bill to a select committee for further scrutiny?I don’t think there is any contradiction here. In fact, the Supreme Court itself has, in multiple judgments, made it clear that the state has a duty to ensure that every individual is able to protect their faith and that conversion is not the result of compulsion. The court has effectively placed an obligation on states to enact laws that prevent misuse of the conversion process.This legislation is in line with that mandate. It is clear and specific in its intent. It does not seek to stop conversion altogether but it seeks to prevent conversion through coercion, fraud, deceit, or any form of undue influence. The law is not targeted at any one religion or community. It applies uniformly to all religions and all citizens.On the contrary, the law actually removes ambiguity. In the absence of a legal framework, allegations such as “love jihad” or forced conversion can arise without any formal mechanism to verify them. Under this law, if an individual chooses to convert out of free will, they can simply state so before the competent authority. Once that declaration is made, the matter is settled. There is no scope for further dispute or speculation.Story continues below this adIn fact, many of the concerns you are referring to will be addressed and reduced because of this clarity. The Constitution guarantees freedom of religion, freedom of faith, and the freedom to choose one’s beliefs. However, that same freedom also includes the right to be protected from forced or induced conversion.This law is consistent with that constitutional principle. The right to practise or adopt a religion also implies that no individual should be compelled, pressured, or deceived into changing their faith. Therefore, the legislation strengthens, rather than restricts, the constitutional guarantee of religious freedom.One of the most criticised provisions in the conversion bill is the clause on inducement through “brainwashing” via education. For instance, could writing or reading a book on a religion potentially invite police action? Does this risk overreach?Any law, once enacted, is ultimately subject to judicial interpretation. The intent of this legislation is not to penalise legitimate expression or academic engagement, but to ensure that no individual is subjected to undue pressure or coercion that leads to a decision made under duress or through unacceptable means.Story continues below this adThat is precisely why laws are accompanied by a statement of objects and reasons. The provisions must be read in that context. Courts will interpret the law in line with its intent and ensure that it is applied appropriately.I do not believe this should pose a problem.There have been growing complaints from legislators across party lines about the absence of officials and, at times, even ministers in the Assembly. How serious is this issue, and how are you addressing it?Bureaucrats are expected to be present in the House, usually seated in the officers’ gallery, to assist ministers with responses and to take note of proceedings. I do agree that for some time, the attendance of senior officials had become a concern. I raised this issue in the House recently, and over the past few days, I have seen an improvement in their presence.The Parliamentary Affairs Minister has also taken this matter seriously, and I am confident that the situation will improve.Story continues below this adAs for ministers, we must keep in mind that Maharashtra has a bicameral legislature. Ministers are required to attend both Houses, and there can be occasions when a particular minister is not present. However, there have been instances in this session where proceedings had to be adjourned due to the absence of a member of the Executive. That is not desirable and must be avoided.There was also the unprecedented suspension of an IAS officer. Was that intended as a message on accountability?At that time, the presiding officer in the Chair took the decision based on the sense and mood of the House. However, suspension should always be a measure of last resort and not a routine practice.Subsequently, the government reviewed the matter in detail. The officer clarified that there was no such intent, and the suspension was revoked.Has the quality of debate in the Assembly declined?Maharashtra has a rich tradition of dignified legislative functioning. While there is some increase in rhetoric due to the current media environment, that is part of evolving politics.There may be emotional moments, but we have not crossed the line. The decorum of the House remains intact.Story continues below this adThe Speaker’s chair has always been under scrutiny and it seems to have intensified in recent years. Given your political journey across parties before joining the BJP, do you feel any added pressure to demonstrate neutrality or compensate for that perception?I actually see my political journey as an advantage because it builds trust across parties. Ultimately, the Assembly functions on rules that have a constitutional mandate, along with established precedents.Every ruling I have given has been backed either by a rule or a precedent. None of my decisions have been arbitrary. If you are able to justify your decisions within that framework, I do not think there should be any issue or distrust within the House.If there is trust in your functioning, why do political opponents continue to criticise both your conduct inside and outside the House, including during the BMC elections?Politics is inherently driven by perception. You are scrutinised not only for your official role but also for actions that may not even be connected to your duties as Speaker. As Speaker, I am expected to conduct proceedings fairly, and I do so. But I also represent a constituency and have responsibilities towards it.In the case of the BMC elections, every MLA in Mumbai accompanies their party candidates during nominations. I have done nothing beyond that norm. Supporting candidates during nominations does not violate any principle. At the end of the day, I too face elections, and they must be free and fair. If I notice any misuse of authority or privilege, I am duty bound to raise it with the appropriate authorities.You faced criticism over multiple members of your family being fielded in the BMC elections. How do you respond to charges of promoting dynasty politics?The nominations were based on merit, not relationships. My brother, Makrand Narwekar, has been a corporator for nearly 17 years, even before I became an MLA, and has consistently won with significant margins.My sister-in-law has also been an elected representative since 2017. These are individuals with established public records. In fact, denying them tickets solely because they are related to me would have been unfair. They were given tickets based on their performance and merit, just like other sitting corporators. As for the third candidate, she is a practising doctor with strong local connect and popularity. Her candidature was also merit based. The focus should be that all three are well educated, accomplished individuals, not merely their relationship to me.