Supreme Court (SC) Condemns Prolonged Inaction by Speakers on Defection Petitions | Current Affairs | Vision IAS
News Today Logo

Supreme Court (SC) Condemns Prolonged Inaction by Speakers on Defection Petitions

Posted 03 Apr 2025

Updated 04 Apr 2025

2 min read

The SC said Speaker could not use his indecision to defeat the worthy objective of the Tenth Schedule (anti-defection law) of the Constitution.

  • Question of Law in front of Supreme Court: Can constitutional courts direct Speakers, acting as quasi-judicial tribunals, to decide anti-defection disqualification petitions within a specific timeframe?

Supreme Courts Observations

  • Court’s Power Over Speaker’s Inaction: The SC stated that it is not “powerless” if Speaker remains “indecisive” on disqualification petitions.
  • Court’s Right to Set a Reasonable Timeframe: While courts cannot dictate the outcome of a disqualification petition, they can direct the Speaker to decide within a reasonable period.
    • E.g., Keisham Meghachandra Singh v. Speaker, Manipur Legislative Assembly (2020).
  • If the Speaker fails to act: The SC can invoke its extraordinary powers under Article 142.

Other SC Observations to Improve Implementation of Anti-Defection Law

  • Judicial Review Over Speaker’s Decisions: Courts should have the authority to intervene if the Speaker delays action. Case: Kihoto Hollohan v. Zachillhu (1992).
  • Impartiality of the Speaker: The Speaker should act as a neutral adjudicator rather than a political figure. Case: Ravi S. Naik v. Union of India (1994).
  • Independent Tribunal for Disqualification Cases: Consider transferring disqualification powers from the Speaker to an independent tribunal. Case: Karnataka MLAs’ disqualification case (2020).
  • Tags :
  • Anti-Defection
  • Kihoto Hollohan v. Zachillhu
  • Ravi S. Naik v. Union of India
  • Karnataka MLAs’ disqualification case (2020)
Watch News Today
Subscribe for Premium Features