New Delhi, Jul 31 (PTI) In a significant ruling, the Supreme Court on Thursday directed the Telangana Assembly speaker to decide in three months the disqualification pleas against 10 BRS MLAs who switched allegiance to the ruling Congress, saying political defections have the power to disrupt democracy if not curbed.
The top court reiterated that the speaker acts as a tribunal while deciding disqualification pleas under Tenth Schedule of the Constitution and consequently does not enjoy “constitutional immunity”. The Tenth Schedule deals with provisions on disqualification on the grounds of defection.
“The very foundation of our democracy is shaken when elected representatives are allowed to defect and yet continue in office without timely adjudication. Parliament had trusted the high office of the Speaker to act expeditiously. That trust, in many cases, has not been honoured,” said a bench comprising Chief Justice B R Gavai and Justice Augustine George Masih.
Writing a 74-page verdict, the CJI asked the speaker to decide the disqualification pleas within three months, saying “a failure to issue any direction to the speaker, in our view, would frustrate the very purpose for which the Tenth Schedule has been brought in the Constitution”.
“If we do not issue any direction, it will amount to permitting the speaker to repeat the widely criticized situation of ‘operation successful, patient died’,” the CJI said.
The court said the Tenth Schedule was brought “noticing the evil of political defections” in 1985.
The only purpose of entrusting the work of adjudicating the disqualification petitions to the Speaker or the chairman was to avoid “dilly-dallying in the courts of law or Election Commission’s office”, it added.
“It can also be seen that Parliament decided to entrust the important question of adjudication of disqualification petitions, on account of defection, to the Speaker/Chairman expecting him to decide them fearlessly and expeditiously…,” it said.
The apex court asked whether the Tenth Schedule served its purpose in the last 30 years. “We need not answer this question, since the facts of the various cases we have referred to themselves provide the answer,” it said.
It said it is for Parliament to devise a mechanism to deal with the delay at the end of speakers.
“Though, we do not possess any advisory jurisdiction, it is for the Parliament to consider whether the mechanism of entrusting the Speaker/Chairman the important task of deciding the issue of disqualification on the ground of defection, is serving the purpose of effectively combating political defections or not? “If the very foundation of our democracy and the principles that sustain it are to be safeguarded, it will have to be examined whether the present mechanism is sufficient or not. However, at the cost of repetition, we observe that it is for the Parliament to take a call on that,” it said.
Referring to judgements, it said the apex court, in no unclear terms, held that the power to decide disputed disqualification was pre-eminently of a judicial complexion.
“This court reiterated the position that the speaker is a Tribunal for the purposes of the Tenth Schedule and that the exercise of powers was subject to the jurisdiction of courts…,” it said.
Referring to the facts of the case, it said the speaker did not even find it necessary to issue notices on pleas for disqualification for more than seven months and swung into action only after the cases were filed in the top court.
“The question, therefore, that we ask ourselves is as to whether the Speaker has acted in an expeditious manner, when expedition was one of the main reasons, why the Parliament had entrusted the important task of adjudicating disqualification petitions to the Speaker/Chairman.
“Non-issuance of any notice for a period of more than seven months and issuing notice only after either the proceedings were filed before this Court, or after this Court had heard the matter for the first time cannot by any stretch be envisaged as acting in an expeditious manner,” it said.
Setting aside the Telangana High Court verdict, the top court said “we find that there was absolutely no occasion for the learned Judges of the Division Bench of the High Court to have interfered with the well-reasoned order of the Single Judge, as learned Single Judge had only asked the Speaker to fix a schedule of hearing (filing of pleadings, documents, personal hearing, etc.) within a period of four weeks.” It also said there was no occasion for the secretary, Telangana Assembly to challenge the order of the single judge bench.
The bench, however, did not accede to the request that the court itself decide the disqualification pleas also.
“We direct the Speaker to conclude the disqualification proceedings pending against the 10 MLAs pertaining to the present appeals/petition as expeditiously as possible and in any case, within a period of three months from the date of this judgment,” it said.
It further directed the speaker not to permit any of the MLAs, who are sought to be disqualified, to protract the proceedings.
“In the event, any of such MLAs attempt to protract the proceedings, the Speaker would draw an adverse inference against such of the MLAs,” it said.
The top court had reserved the verdict on April 3. PTI SJK SJK KVK KVK
This report is auto-generated from PTI news service. ThePrint holds no responsibility for its content.