SC considers question of timeline for Speakers to decide on defections

Background: Tenth Schedule and Role of Speaker

• The Tenth Schedule of the Constitution, introduced by the 52nd Constitutional Amendment (1985), aims to curb political defections by disqualifying legislators who switch parties under certain conditions.
• The Speaker of the House is the designated authority to decide on disqualification petitions under this law.
• However, there is no fixed timeline within which the Speaker must decide, leading to frequent delays—often politically motivated.

Relevance : GS 2(Polity , Governance)

Issue at Hand: Timeline for Disqualification Petitions

• The Supreme Court (SC) is examining whether constitutional courts (SC and High Courts) can direct Speakers to decide disqualification petitions within a specified period.
• Traditionally, the court has only advised Speakers to act within a “reasonable time”, without defining what “reasonable” means.
• The petitions in this case involve 10 MLAs in Telangana who defected to the ruling Congress from the Bharat Rashtra Samithi (BRS).

Legal and Constitutional Questions Raised

1. Can Constitutional Courts Direct the Speaker?
   1. The Speaker acts as a quasi-judicial tribunal under the anti-defection law.
   2. Courts have power of judicial review but must balance this with the separation of powers principle.
   3. There is ambiguity in whether courts can mandate a specific timeline for Speakers.

• Is There an Implied Obligation for Timely Decision-Making?
  • The Tenth Schedule does not specify a timeline, but the spirit of the law demands timely action to prevent defection–related instability.
  • The delay in deciding cases allows political maneuvering, effectively nullifying the purpose of the anti-defection law.
• Should a Fixed Timeline Be Imposed?
  • Petitioners argue for a four-week deadline for Speakers to decide disqualification petitions.
  • Precedents indicate that courts have urged Speakers to act swiftly but have not imposed a rigid timeline.

Potential Impact on Indian Polity

• Stronger Anti-Defection Law Implementation: A defined timeline would prevent deliberate delays, making anti-defection provisions more effective.
• Judicial Precedent for Future Cases: If the SC rules in favor of setting a time limit, it will establish a binding precedent for future defection cases across India.
• Balance Between Judiciary and Legislature: The case could redefine the extent of judicial intervention in legislative matters, especially in quasi-judicial functions of the Speaker.

Past Judicial Observations and Political Trends

• Kihoto Hollohan v. Zachillhu (1992): SC upheld the constitutional validity of the Tenth Schedule but clarified that the Speaker’s decisions are subject to judicial review.
• Manipur (2020) Case: SC directed the Speaker to decide on a disqualification plea within four weeks, though it was not a general rule.
• Maharashtra Political Crisis (2022-23): Delays in Speaker’s decision-making led to prolonged political instability, highlighting the need for time-bound rulings.

Conclusion

The Supreme Court’s ruling in this case could significantly shape the enforcement of anti-defection provisions, ensuring timely decision-making and reducing political uncertainty. However, it must balance judicial oversight with legislative independence, avoiding undue interference in the Speaker’s powers.