Speaker cannot be Indecisive on pleas over defection: SC

Context

• The Supreme Court (SC) addressed petitions filed by Bharat Rashtra Samithi (BRS) leaders seeking timely action on disqualification proceedings against 10 MLAs who defected to the ruling Congress in Telangana.
• The core issue: Can constitutional courts direct the Speaker to decide anti-defection cases within a specified period?

Key Observations by the Supreme Court

Speaker Cannot Remain Indecisive

• The SC Bench, led by Justice B.R. Gavai, emphasized that the Speaker cannot use indecision as a tool to defeat the objective of the Tenth Schedule (Anti-Defection Law).
• The court asserted that it is not “powerless” when a Speaker deliberately delays action.

Role of Constitutional Courts in Checking Delay

• Justice Gavai questioned whether constitutional courts, as guardians of the Constitution, must remain inactive if the Speaker deliberately delays a disqualification decision.
• If defection occurs in the first year of a government’s tenure, and the Speaker remains passive for four years, can courts remain powerless?
• Courts have the duty to ensure constitutional morality and prevent abuse of power by elected officials.

‘Reasonable Period’ for Decision-Making

• The SC suggested that while courts cannot dictate the Speaker’s decision, they can direct the Speaker to decide within a reasonable timeframe.
• The key constitutional question: Can courts impose a deadline on the Speaker to decide on disqualification petitions?

Constitutional and Legal Implications

Anti-Defection Law and Its Objective

• Tenth Schedule (52nd Constitutional Amendment, 1985) was enacted to prevent political defections that lead to instability.
• It empowers the Speaker to disqualify MLAs who defect from their party.
• However, lack of a strict timeline for deciding petitions has led to frequent delays and misuse.

Judicial Precedents and Powers of Courts

• Kihoto Hollohan v. Zachillhu (1992):
  • SC upheld that the Speaker’s decision on disqualification is subject to judicial review but only on grounds of mala fide intent, perversity, or violation of natural justice.
• Manoj Narula v. Union of India (2014):
  • SC ruled that constitutional morality must guide governance, and courts can intervene when constitutional functionaries fail in their duties.
• Recent Judgments on Speaker’s Delay:
  • SC has previously directed Speakers to decide disqualification cases in a time-bound manner (e.g., Karnataka MLAs’ disqualification case, 2019).

Separation of Powers vs. Judicial Oversight

• Arguments for Judicial Intervention:
  • Ensures timely enforcement of the anti-defection law.
  • Prevents Speakers from acting in a partisan manner.
• Arguments Against Judicial Intervention:
  • Risks judicial overreach into the functioning of the legislature.
  • The Speaker is a constitutional authority, and courts cannot interfere with its discretionary powers beyond reasonable limits.

Conclusion and Broader Implications

• The Supreme Court’s intervention highlights the persistent issue of delayed disqualification proceedings, often used as a political tool.
• If the SC sets a precedent for enforcing deadlines on Speakers, it could bring greater accountability but may also trigger debates on judicial encroachment into legislative functions.
• This case could lead to institutional reforms ensuring a fixed timeline for the Speaker’s decision under the Tenth Schedule, similar to timelines set for election disputes under the Representation of the People Act.