Supreme Court's Stance on Speaker's Indecision in Disqualification Petitions
The Supreme Court, led by a bench headed by Justice B.R. Gavai, emphasized that it is not "powerless" when a Speaker remains "indecisive" on petitions seeking the disqualification of legislators under the Tenth Schedule (anti-defection law) of the Constitution.
Key Points Discussed
- Indecision by the Speaker:
The bench criticized the indecision of the Speaker, indicating that such behavior cannot be used to defeat the objectives of the Tenth Schedule. - Court's Power:
The court cannot dictate how a Speaker should decide, but it can urge them to decide within a reasonable time frame. - Case Background:
- The case involves petitions filed by Bharat Rashtra Samithi leaders.
- The petitions seek timely action on disqualification proceedings against 10 MLAs who joined the ruling Congress party in Telangana.
- Judicial Review:
While the Speaker acts as a quasi-judicial tribunal, the court's power of judicial review is limited to the Speaker's final decision on disqualification pleas. - Extraordinary Powers:
Justice Gavai indicated that the Supreme Court could invoke its extraordinary powers under Article 142 of the Constitution if its requests are not adhered to by the Speaker.
Arguments from Respondents
- Constitutional Request:
Senior advocate Mukul Rohatgi argued that while courts can request a Speaker to expedite decisions, they cannot impose a strict deadline. - Judicial Constraints:
Rohatgi contended that the courts do not have supervisory authority over the Speaker.
Petitioners' Perspective
- Political Partisanship:
Senior advocate C.A. Sundaram highlighted that political bias often influences Speakers, who are expected to be impartial. - Judicial Intervention:
The argument was made that since Speakers function as tribunals, courts should have the power of judicial review to ensure timely decisions.
