Supreme Court Judgment on Anti-Defection Petition

Reference

The Supreme Court has cited the persistent delays by Speakers in deciding anti-defection petitions and urged Parliament to reconsider whether the current system serves its democratic purpose.

Recent Developments

• The Supreme Court expressed concern over the delay in action by the Telangana Assembly Speaker on anti-defection petitions and highlighted the constitutional obligations under the Tenth Schedule and the need for timely decisions.
• A bench headed by Chief Justice B.R. Gavai questioned the inaction of the Telangana Assembly Speaker in deciding several anti-defection petitions filed earlier despite a constitutional mandate.
  • The bench ordered the Telangana Assembly Speaker to decide on the anti-defection proceedings within three months.
• These petitions were filed against several MLAs of Bharat Rashtra Samiti (BRS) who had defected. The matter is pending before the Speaker without any resolution.
• The Supreme Court clarified that the Speaker, while acting as a tribunal under the Tenth Schedule, enjoys no constitutional immunity from judicial review by the High Courts or the Supreme Court.

Constitutional Provisions

• Under the Tenth Schedule (Anti-Defection Law), the Speaker is the competent authority to decide on cases of disqualification.
• However, Article 212 does not exclude the Speaker from judicial review in cases of inaction.

Key Observations of the Supreme Court

• Lack of timely action: The Supreme Court expressed concern over the failure of Speakers and Chairmen to take prompt and fair action on disqualification petitions filed under the Tenth Schedule of the Constitution.
• Curbing the evil of defection: The Supreme Court observed that the anti-defection law was intended to maintain the dignity of democratic institutions and curb political defections but the present delay was defeating this purpose.
• Role of Parliament: The Supreme Court urged Parliament to examine whether the responsibility of deciding on defection cases should continue to rest with presiding officers, who are often affiliated with political parties and may act in a partisan manner.
• Constitutional duty of the Speaker: The Court emphasised that the office of the Speaker demands impartiality but in practice, decisions are often delayed and influenced by partisan considerations.

Previous judicial decisions

• Keisham Meghchandra Singh v. Speaker (2020): In this case, the Supreme Court ruled that Speakers must decide disqualification cases within 3 months, unless there are exceptional reasons.
• Rajendra Singh Rana case (2007): This case highlighted how delay in action can allow defectors to manipulate the political process and take advantage of their position.

Significance of the Supreme Court decision

• Strengthens judicial oversight over legislative inaction.
• May give impetus to constitutional reforms regarding timely disposal of anti-defection petitions.
• Underlines the need for an independent tribunal to adjudicate on defection cases as recommended by various Law Commission reports and the Supreme Court.

Implications for the Government

• Need for reform: The latest Supreme Court judgment strengthens the demand for an independent mechanism like a tribunal or the Election Commission to adjudicate on disqualification cases.
• Upholding democratic ethics: It ensures that constitutional posts remain non-partisan and defectors are not rewarded through delaying tactics.
• Pending reforms: The Law Commission and various committees have previously recommended amendments to take away disqualification powers from the Speaker.

Conclusion

The Supreme Court’s observation reflects the growing judicial activism towards political manipulation of constitutional posts. The onus is now on Parliament to consider institutional reforms that will ensure timely, fair and transparent adjudication of defection cases.