The Supreme Court is examining whether constitutional courts can direct Assembly Speakers to decide disqualification petitions under the Tenth Schedule within a specific time frame.

Background: Telangana MLA Disqualification Petitions

• A Supreme Court Bench headed by Justice B.R. Gavai is hearing petitions regarding disqualification proceedings.
• The petitions were filed seeking timely action by the Telangana Assembly Speaker on pending disqualification cases.

Current Stance Of the Supreme Court on Disqualifications Due To Defections:

• Supreme Court’s Previous Stance: The Supreme Court has previously urged Speakers to decide anti-defection cases within a “reasonable time”.
• Lack of Defined Timeframe: The court had not specified what the “reasonable” time ought to be in due regard to the Constitutional office of the Speaker.

• Current Judicial Consideration: The Supreme Court considered the question “whether a Constitutional court was so powerless that it cannot direct a Constitutional authority like the Speaker to perform his mandate under the Constitution”.
• Supreme Court’s Three-Test Formula for Recognizing Political Parties: In Sadiq Ali vs. Election Commission of India (1971), the Supreme Court laid down three criteria for determining which faction should be recognized as the original political party by the Election Commission:
  • Aims and Objectives of the Party: The ideological and policy commitments of the party.
  • Inner-Party Democracy: The extent to which the party follows its constitution, ensuring democratic functioning.
  • Majority Support: The numerical strength of a faction in both the legislative and organizational wings.

Arguments By The Petitioners

• Past Judicial Interventions: The Supreme Court has previously stepped in to urge Speakers of various Legislative Assemblies to decide long-pending petitions filed before them under the Tenth Schedule. This establishes a precedent for judicial oversight in ensuring timely decisions.
• Speaker as a Quasi-Judicial Tribunal: Since the Speaker functions as a quasi-judicial authority, their decisions should be subject to judicial review. 
• Judicial Oversight Without Overreach: While courts cannot prevent Speakers from exercising their authority, they can direct the Speaker to exercise his Constitutional authority.
• Political Bias and Delayed Justice: Political considerations often influence the Speaker’s decision-making, leading to prolonged delays. A time-bound approach would reduce the possibility of partisan misuse of the anti-defection law.
• Need for a Fixed Deadline: Petitioners have proposed a four-week deadline to ensure timely resolution of disqualification petitions. Such a timeline would uphold the spirit of the Tenth Schedule and prevent strategic delays.
• Preventing Manipulation Through Delay Tactics: A common political strategy is to keep disqualification petitions pending until the Assembly’s tenure ends, rendering them ineffective.

Arguments Against Imposing a Timeline

• Constitutional Autonomy of the Speaker: The opposing side argued that the Speaker cannot be bound by a specific timeframe as per the Constitution.
• Discretion in Decision-Making: They contended that the Speaker, being a constitutional authority, must have the discretion to decide cases without external compulsion.

Potential Implications Of The Verdict

• Preventing Political Misuse: If the Supreme Court mandates a timeline, it could prevent misuse of delays to favor ruling parties.
• Enhancing Accountability and Transparency: A specific time frame could bring greater accountability and transparency in disqualification proceedings.
• Risk of Continued Delays: If no strict deadline is imposed, the status quo of delays and political maneuvering may continue.

Reforms Suggested

• Supreme Court In Keisham Meghachandra Singh vs. the Hon’ble Speaker Manipur Legislative Assembly & Ors. (2020):
  • Amendment to the Constitution: The Court suggested Parliament amend the Constitution to redefine the Speaker’s role as a quasi-judicial authority in disqualification cases.
  • Independent Tribunal: Recommended an independent tribunal to handle disqualification cases instead of the Speaker.
    • Tribunal to be headed by a retired Supreme Court judge or retired Chief Justice of a High Court.
    • Other independent mechanisms could also be explored for swift and impartial decisions.
• 2nd Administrative Reforms Commission: Disqualification of members on grounds of defection should be decided by the President/Governor, based on the advice of the Election Commission, ensuring a more impartial process.

Way Forward

• Independent Tribunal: Replace the Speaker with a tribunal led by a retired SC judge for disqualification cases (as suggested by SC in 2020).
• Learnings For Best Practices: Example: In the U.K.(United Kingdom), the Speaker of the House is expected to be completely impartial. Once chosen, they give up their party affiliation and do not engage in active politics, ensuring fairness in parliamentary proceedings.
• Judicial Oversight: Strengthen judicial review to check Speaker’s bias or procedural lapses.
• Anti-Defection Law Reform: Clearly define voluntary resignation and differentiate dissent from defection.

Conclusion

Reforming the disqualification process is crucial to uphold fairness, transparency, and democratic integrity. Ensuring neutrality in decision-making will strengthen public trust in parliamentary institutions.

DOWNLOAD PDF