SC asks if Speakers must decide anti-defection proceedings within a ‘specified period’

A view of the Supreme Court of India in New Delhi. File
| Photo Credit: Sushil Kumar Verma

The Supreme Court on Tuesday (March 25, 2025) asked if constitutional courts cannot direct Speakers, who act as quasi-judicial tribunals under the anti-defection law, to decide disqualification petitions filed with them under the Tenth Schedule (anti-defection law) of the Constitution within a specified period.

A Bench headed by Justice B.R. Gavai is hearing petitions filed by Bharat Rashtra Samithi leaders, including K.T. Rama Rao and Padi Kaushik Reddy, seeking timely action by the Telangana Assembly Speaker on disqualification proceedings pending against 10 MLAs who shifted allegiance to the ruling Congress in the State.

Until now, the apex court had treaded carefully in its judgments, urging Speakers to decide anti-defection pleas within a “reasonable time”. The court had not specified what the “reasonable” time ought to be in due regard to the Constitutional office of the Speaker.

But Justice Gavai on Tuesday (March 25, 2025) said Constitutional courts were after all the “custodians of the Constitution”.

The court considered the question “whether a Constitutional court was so powerless that it cannot direct a Constitutional authority like the Speaker to perform his mandate under the Constitution”.

Senior advocate C.A. Sundaram, for the petitioners, said the response would necessarily be a ‘yes’. The Supreme Court had intervened in the past in egging on Speakers of various Legislative Assemblies to decide long-pending petitions filed before them under the Tenth Schedule.

The senior lawyer hinted at political partisanship which guided Speakers while noting that in the U.K. the Speaker of the House was the last position held before abandoning active politics.

“We have the best and most vibrant democracy here,” Justice A.G. Masih commented.

‘Maharashtra experience’

Justice Gavai reacted with a smile, saying “the experience in Maharashtra in the last five years has been really vibrant”. The judge was referring to the factionalism, political rivalry, shifting of allegiances and prolonged litigation seen in the Shiv Sena and National Congress Party which began with the bringing down of the Uddhav Thackeray government.

Mr. Sundaram said the usual ploy was to keep disqualification petitions pending till the end of the tenure of the House.

“When the law and the Rules are silent about the time [to decide petitions under the anti-defection law], does it give Speakers, acting as quasi-judicial tribunals, an absolute largesse to take whatever time they want or would the Constitutional court have the power to ensure that the petitions are decided within a time which is in tune and in the spirit of the Tenth Schedule of the Constitution,” Mr. Sundaram framed the question in the case.

He said since Speakers function as a tribunal, the courts definitely would have the power of judicial review over their actions.

“The courts, of course, cannot pass impedire orders which stop the Speaker from exercising his powers, but they can direct the Speaker to exercise his Constitutional authority,” Mr. Sundaram argued.

Senior advocate Dama Seshadri Naidu, also appearing on the petitioner side, said the attitude of the Speaker must not reflect that of the government in power to “win at any cost, rule at any cost”. Mr. Naidu urged the court to fix four weeks as a reasonable time for Speakers to decide disqualification petitions.

“The law must be loud and clear,” he submitted.

In a previous hearing, the apex court said the outcome of every disqualification proceedings “cannot be an operation-successful-patient-dead situation”.

“Should the reasonable period for deciding these petitions be the end of the Assembly term? In a democracy, this process of deciding disqualification petitions cannot go on till the end of the term. What happens to democratic principles then?” Justice Gavai had addressed senior advocate A.M. Singhvi, appearing for the respondent side.

Mr. Singhvi had made a preliminary submission that the Speaker cannot be bound to a timeframe.

Leave a Comment