The functioning of Kultar Singh Sandhwan as Speaker of the Punjab Legislative Assembly has increasingly become a subject of political debate, particularly regarding his handling of opposition parties during recent sessions of the House. The Speaker’s constitutional role is to act as a neutral custodian of the Assembly, ensuring fair debate, protecting the rights of both treasury and opposition benches, and maintaining decorum during proceedings. However, several recent developments in the Punjab Assembly have led opposition leaders to question whether the Speaker has maintained the expected level of neutrality, especially during special sessions convened by the government.
One of the major controversies arose during recent Assembly proceedings when opposition members accused the Speaker of restricting their ability to raise key public issues. Leader of Opposition Partap Singh Bajwa repeatedly alleged that opposition MLAs were not being given adequate time to speak during debates and that several motions brought by them were not allowed to proceed. In one heated exchange, Bajwa openly challenged the Speaker in the House, arguing that if the opposition was not going to be heard, it would be better to simply expel them from the Assembly. The opposition maintained that meaningful parliamentary debate requires equal opportunity for both sides, and they argued that such restrictions weaken the democratic character of legislative proceedings.
The controversy intensified during a recent special session of the Assembly when the conduct of Congress MLA Sukhpal Singh Khaira was referred to the Privileges Committee. The resolution was moved by members of the ruling Aam Aadmi Party government and eventually passed by a voice vote despite strong objections from opposition legislators. During the debate, opposition members accused Speaker Sandhwan of acting in a partisan manner and alleged that he refused to allow their counter-resolution against Chief Minister Bhagwant Mann regarding remarks made outside the House. The Speaker repeatedly disallowed the opposition motion, which further fueled allegations that the chair was favouring the ruling party.
Another point of criticism relates to the increasing reliance on short “special sessions” instead of longer, regular legislative sittings. Opposition leaders have argued that such sessions often lack important parliamentary mechanisms such as Question Hour or Zero Hour, which are essential for holding the government accountable. According to opposition claims, the reduction in the number of full sessions has limited opportunities for scrutiny of government policies and administrative actions. Bajwa even wrote formally to the Speaker urging him to ensure at least 40 sittings of the Assembly annually, warning that excessive reliance on special sessions was undermining the institution of the legislature and weakening democratic oversight.
Financial concerns have also been raised regarding the cost of these special sessions. In one instance, opposition leaders highlighted that a brief sitting of the Assembly reportedly lasted only around eleven minutes yet cost nearly ₹1 crore of public money—roughly ₹9 lakh per minute according to their estimates. Critics described the exercise as a waste of taxpayers’ money and accused the government of staging political events rather than conducting serious legislative business. They argued that despite the significant expenditure involved in convening these sessions, they often fail to produce concrete legislative outcomes or meaningful policy debate.
Political tension in the Assembly has frequently resulted in protests, sloganeering, and walkouts by opposition MLAs, further highlighting the strained relationship between the chair and the opposition benches. On several occasions, Congress legislators have staged walkouts after their motions or adjournment requests were rejected, claiming that the Assembly was being run in a manner that suppresses dissenting voices. Meanwhile, the ruling party has defended the Speaker’s actions, arguing that maintaining order in a highly charged political environment requires firm decisions from the chair. Nevertheless, the repeated disruptions have contributed to the perception that the Assembly is becoming more of a political battleground than a forum for structured democratic debate.
In conclusion, the tenure of Speaker Kultar Singh Sandhwan has become politically contentious due to ongoing allegations from opposition parties that the Assembly’s proceedings are increasingly controlled in favour of the ruling government. Critics argue that special sessions have consumed crores of rupees of public funds without delivering significant legislative achievements, while opposition voices are often restricted during debates. Supporters of the government, however, maintain that the Speaker is simply enforcing procedural discipline and ensuring that the dignity of the House is maintained. The broader debate highlights the delicate role of the Speaker in parliamentary democracy: balancing order, neutrality, and the right of the opposition to hold the government accountable
ਮਜ਼ਬੂਤ ਬਣਾਇਆ ਜਾ ਸਕੇ।