SC considers question of timeline for Speakers to decide on defections

 SC considers question of timeline for Speakers to decide on defections.

The Supreme Court is examining whether it possesses the authority to mandate a specific timeframe for Speakers of legislative assemblies to resolve defection petitions under the Tenth Schedule of the Constitution. This inquiry arose from petitions filed by Bharat Rashtra Samithi leaders concerning the delayed decisions by the Telangana Assembly Speaker on disqualification proceedings against MLAs who switched to the Congress party. Previously, the apex court had only suggested that Speakers resolve these matters within a "reasonable time," without defining that period. The court questioned whether constitutional bodies are powerless to direct Speakers to fulfill their constitutional duties regarding such petitions. Arguments presented to the court highlighted concerns about potential political bias influencing Speakers' decisions and the practice of delaying rulings until the end of a House's term. The petitioners' counsel argued that while courts cannot impede a Speaker's power, they can instruct the timely exercise of this constitutional authority, even suggesting a four-week deadline for these decisions.

• Anti-Defection Law (Tenth Schedule): Constitutional provisions aimed at preventing political defections by elected legislators.
• Disqualification Petitions: Formal requests filed with the Speaker seeking the removal of a legislator from their seat based on alleged defection.
• Speaker of the Legislature: The presiding officer of a legislative assembly, who also acts as a quasi-judicial authority in matters of defection.
• Quasi-Judicial Tribunal: An entity, like the Speaker in defection cases, that has powers and procedures resembling those of a court of law but is not part of the judicial branch.
• Judicial Review: The power of the courts to examine the actions of the legislative and executive branches (and quasi-judicial bodies) to determine their constitutionality.
• Constitutional Mandate: The duties and responsibilities explicitly outlined in the Constitution for a particular office or authority.
• Reasonable Time: A duration that is fair and appropriate under the given circumstances, a concept that the Supreme Court has previously used regarding the Speaker's decision on defection petitions.
• Political Partisanship: Bias or favoritism shown towards a particular political party or ideology.

Some Important Questions.

1. Consider the following statements regarding the Tenth Schedule of the Indian Constitution:

1. The Tenth Schedule was added to the Constitution by the 52nd Amendment Act, 1985.

2. It deals with the disqualification of Members of Parliament (MPs) and Members of Legislative Assemblies (MLAs) on the grounds of defection.

3. The decision of the Speaker on disqualification petitions is subject to judicial review by the courts.

Which of the above statements are correct?

• (a) 1 and 2 only

• (b) 1 and 3 only

• (c) 2 and 3 only

• (d) 1, 2, and 3

Answer: (d) 1, 2, and 3
Explanation:

• The Tenth Schedule was introduced through the 52nd Amendment Act of 1985 to address the issue of political defections.

• It provides for the disqualification of MPs and MLAs on the grounds of defection.

• While the Speaker acts as a quasi-judicial authority in deciding disqualification petitions, the decision is subject to judicial review as established by the Supreme Court in the Kihoto Hollohan case (1992).

---

2. The concept of judicial review in the context of disqualification under the Tenth Schedule implies:

• (a) Courts can directly disqualify a member without referring to the Speaker.

• (b) Courts can direct the Speaker to decide on disqualification petitions within a specified period.

• (c) Courts cannot interfere in the Speaker’s decision.

• (d) Courts can only suggest guidelines to the Speaker without imposing a deadline.

Answer: (b) Courts can direct the Speaker to decide on disqualification petitions within a specified period.
Explanation:

• The Supreme Court has the authority of judicial review to ensure that the Speaker acts in accordance with the Constitution.

• While courts cannot directly disqualify members, they can ensure the Speaker exercises their powers within a reasonable timeframe, maintaining constitutional accountability.

---

3. In the context of the Indian Constitution, which of the following correctly describes the Speaker’s role under the Tenth Schedule?

• (a) The Speaker functions as an independent constitutional authority with no accountability to the judiciary.

• (b) The Speaker performs a quasi-judicial role while deciding disqualification petitions under the Tenth Schedule.

• (c) The Speaker’s decision is final and cannot be challenged in court.

• (d) The Speaker acts as the head of the ruling party in the Assembly when making decisions on disqualification.

Answer: (b) The Speaker performs a quasi-judicial role while deciding disqualification petitions under the Tenth Schedule.
Explanation:

• The Speaker acts as a quasi-judicial authority while deciding on disqualification petitions under the Tenth Schedule.

• Their decision is not final and is subject to judicial review under Article 226 and Article 32 of the Constitution.

---

4. Consider the following statements regarding the role of the Speaker in the Indian parliamentary system:

1. The Speaker is elected by the members of the House of the People (Lok Sabha).

2. The Speaker’s decisions on disqualification under the Tenth Schedule are immune from judicial scrutiny.

3. The Speaker has the discretion to delay decisions on disqualification petitions indefinitely.

Which of the statements is/are correct?

• (a) 1 only

• (b) 1 and 2 only

• (c) 1 and 3 only

• (d) 2 and 3 only

Answer: (a) 1 only
Explanation:

• The Speaker is elected by the members of the Lok Sabha (or State Legislative Assembly in the case of states).

• While the Speaker has authority over disqualification decisions under the Tenth Schedule, those decisions are subject to judicial review.

• The Speaker cannot indefinitely delay disqualification decisions as courts can intervene to ensure the petitions are decided within a reasonable timeframe.

---

5. Which of the following cases is considered a landmark judgment concerning judicial review of the Speaker's decision under the Tenth Schedule?

• (a) Minerva Mills v. Union of India

• (b) Golaknath v. State of Punjab

• (c) Kihoto Hollohan v. Zachillhu

• (d) Maneka Gandhi v. Union of India

Answer: (c) Kihoto Hollohan v. Zachillhu
Explanation:

• The Kihoto Hollohan v. Zachillhu case (1992) upheld the constitutional validity of the Tenth Schedule.

• The Supreme Court ruled that the decision of the Speaker is subject to judicial review to ensure that the process of disqualification adheres to constitutional principles.