New Delhi: Coming down heavily on Speakers for not expediting hearings of petitions for disqualification of legislators under the anti-defection law, a Supreme Court bench led by Chief Justice of India (CJI) B.R. Gavai Thursday said that the constitutional courts can fix a timeframe for Speakers to decide such matters.
Delayed adjudication frustrates the objective of anti-defection laws under the Tenth Schedule of the Constitution—introduced to put a stop to the evil of political defections—the Supreme Court (SC) said. Asserting this, CJI Gavai directed the Speaker of the Telangana Assembly to decide the petitions seeking disqualification of three Bharat Rashtra Samithi (BRS) legislators—who defected to the ruling Congress last year—within three months.
The lawmakers are Venkat Rao, Kadiyam Srihari, and Danam Nagender.
Inordinate delay in deciding such disqualification petitions allows the defectors to reap benefits from the situation, the SC bench observed, adding that it could not let the “operation successful, but patient died” situation thrive.
The SC rejected the argument that it cannot fix a timeframe for the Speaker to adjudicate disqualification petitions, holding that the Speaker acts as a tribunal under the Tenth Schedule but does not enjoy “constitutional immunity”.
However, the SC agreed that courts cannot bring a legal injunction on speakers deciding such petitions. Its directions in such cases should be to facilitate decisions within a reasonable time, particularly when Speakers have failed to act.
The judgment reiterates concerns raised in the past over Speakers’ non-partisanship in handling disqualification petitions. In its earlier judgments, the court had cautioned Speakers from delaying decisions due to “latent political considerations” as it could endanger the democratic framework.
Parliament’s role
Authored by CJI Gavai, the current judgment underlined the need for Speakers to ensure neutrality, urging the Parliament to reconsider the provisions of the Tenth Schedule of the Constitution, entrusting the Speaker of the House with the task of deciding the disqualification of a legislator on the grounds of defection.
In the backdrop of recurring instances of Speakers not deciding on disqualifications expeditiously, the SC bench observed that the Speakers’ indecision allowed the matter to remain pending till the expiry of the assembly term, giving an escape route to defectors to go scot-free.
“Though we do not possess any advisory jurisdiction, it is for the Parliament to consider whether the mechanism of entrusting the Speaker/Chairman with 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,” CJI Gavai said.
“If the very foundation of our democracy and the principles that sustain it are to be safeguarded, it is necessary to examine whether the present mechanism is sufficient or not. At the cost of repetition, we observe that it is for the Parliament to take a call on that,” CJI Gavai further said in his judgment.
“With the experience of over 30 years of working on the Tenth Schedule of the Constitution, the question that we will have to ask ourselves is as to whether the trust, which the Parliament entrusted in the high office of the Speaker or the Chairman to avoid delays in deciding the issue as far as disqualification, has been adhered to by the incumbents in the high office of Speaker and the Chairman or not?” the SC said.
In the present case, the SC noted that the Telangana Speaker had not even issued a notice on the disqualification petitions for nearly seven months. The Speaker finally issued the notice, after the Supreme Court held its first hearing in the matter earlier this year.
“The question, therefore, we ask ourselves is whether the Speaker has acted expeditiously,” CJI Gavai said, adding, “Parliament entrusted the key task of adjudicating disqualification petitions to the Speaker, also the chairman of the House, so that the decision could be expedited.” However, the court said it could not envisage the delay in the present case as acting expeditiously.
The matter
The matter arose following the defections of three MLAs elected on BRS tickets during the 2023 Telangana assembly polls. They defected to the ruling Congress.
Three sitting BRS MLAs then filed petitions before the Assembly Speaker, seeking the disqualification of their former party colleagues. After waiting for three months, they approached the Telangana High Court, contending that the delay in deciding their petitions could benefit the ruling Congress, which could orchestrate more defections from BRS.
On 9 September 2024, a single-judge bench of the HC gave the Speaker four weeks to fix a schedule to hear and decide the disqualification pleas.
The Telangana assembly, through its Speaker, appealed before a two-judge bench of the HC against that judgment.
In November 2024, the division HC bench set aside the single bench judgment. Instead, it said, the Speaker must decide the disqualification petitions within a reasonable timeframe.
This ruling has been challenged by the sitting BRS MLAs in the Supreme Court.
Overturning the November 2024 decision of the Telangana High Court, the Supreme Court Thursday ordered the Speaker not to allow the BRS MLAs, facing disqualification proceedings, to protract the same and that adverse inference can be drawn against them in case they adopt any delaying tactics.
52nd Amendment Act
Writing about the reasons that led to the 52nd Amendment Act, the SC judgment noted, “The evil of political defections has been a matter of national concern. If it is not combated, it is likely to undermine the very foundations of our democracy.”
“The only purpose of entrusting the role of adjudication to the Speaker of the legislature was to avoid delay tactics in the courts of law and to ensure expeditious decisions on disqualification petitions before the end of the term of the assembly,” the SC bench said.
“It therefore can be seen that the only purpose of entrusting the work of adjudicating the disqualification petitions to the Speaker/Chairman was to avoid dilly-dallying in the courts of law or the Election Commission office,” it said.
Referring to the 1997 judgment of the Supreme Court in the case of Nagaland politician Kihoto Hollohan and upholding the Tenth Schedule as well as the limitation of courts to bring an injunction against the Speaker, the single bench of Gavai said, “The authors of the Kihoto judgment could not have anticipated a time when high constitutional authorities would indefinitely delay decisions on disqualification pleas, leaving the petitions to die their natural death.”
The power of judicial review over the decisions of the Speaker lie within a narrow compass, the Kihoto verdict had held. But, at the same, it held that the decisions of the Speaker were not wholly immune to judicial review.
Asking the Parliament to assess the anti-defection law and the role of the Speaker, CJI Gavai quoted a 2020 court judgment that mooted an independently functioning tribunal to decide disqualification petitions.
The current verdict, therefore, has opined that Speakers are not likely to function free from political compulsions.
(Edited by Madhurita Goswami)