SC questions Speaker's role in deciding disqualification plea,asks Parl to bring amendment

On Tuesday, a three-judge Supreme Court bench comprising Justice RF Nariman, Justice Aniruddha Bose and V Ramasubramanian delivered an important judgment pertaining to the speaker’s discretion while deciding disqualification cases. It called upon the Parliament to re-think on whether the Speaker, who often belongs to the ruling party can do justice while deciding disqualification petitions. Stressing that the disqualification provisions in the Tenth Schedule of the Constitution were essential for the proper functioning of democracy, the bench suggested that a permanent tribunal headed by a retired SC judge or a retired High Court Chief Justice could be the alternative solution via a Constitutional amendment. 

Read: CAA: Supreme Court Asks Centre To Publicise Citizenship Act To Curb Fake News

Paragraph 30 of the judgment reads, “It is time that Parliament have a rethink on whether disqualification petitions ought to be entrusted to a Speaker as a quasi-judicial authority when such Speaker continues to belong to a particular political party either de jure or de facto. Parliament may seriously consider amending the Constitution to substitute the Speaker of the Lok Sabha and Legislative Assemblies as arbiter of disputes concerning disqualification which arise under the Tenth Schedule with a permanent Tribunal headed by a retired Supreme Court Judge or a retired Chief Justice of a High Court, or some other outside independent mechanism to ensure that such disputes are decided both swiftly and impartially, thus giving real teeth to the provisions contained in the Tenth Schedule, which are so vital in the proper functioning of our democracy.” 

Read: BIG: Kerala Government Challenges CAA In Supreme Court, Becomes First State To Do So

What was the case about? 

The verdict delivered by the bench was on a plea by Congress legislators in Manipur seeking action on the disqualification petitions filed against Manipur Forest and Environment Minister T Shyamkumar. In the Manipur Assembly elections held in March 2017, Congress emerged as the single-largest party with 28 seats as against BJP which could secure only 21 seats. However, the latter formed the government after bagging the support of other legislators, including Shyamkumar who was elected on a Congress ticket.  

Read: Supreme Court Issues Notice To UP Govt On Plea Challenging Renaming Allahabad As Prayagraj

Despite switching sides to BJP, he did not resign as an MLA and was immediately sworn in as a minister. Subsequently, Congress MLAs moved the Assembly Speaker’s office asking for Shyamkumar's disqualification in April 2017. As the Speaker did not take action on the pleas, the Congress legislators were compelled to approach the HC as well as the SC. Now, the bench has directed the Speaker of the Manipur Assembly to decide the disqualification pleas within a period of 4 weeks. 

Read: Supreme Court Passes Terms Of Reference For Inquiry Commission Probing Hyderabad Encounter

High-profile instances

The SC's advice to the Parliament assumes significance in the wake of some high-profile instances in the recent past. For instance, the Speaker of the Karnataka Assembly during the tenure of the JDS-Congress government was accused of having a malafide intention in not accepting the resignation of the ruling coalition MLAs. While his decision to disqualify the rebel legislators was upheld, the SC allowed the disqualified MLAs to contest the by-elections on a BJP ticket. 

Meanwhile, the states of Telangana and Andhra Pradesh have witnessed a reverse trend from 2014 onwards. The ruling dispensation in the respective states has accepted opposition MLAs in their fold even without a two-third split in their parties as mandated by the anti-defection law. Just like the Manipur case, the Speaker has rarely taken prompt action on the disqualification pleas against the legislators who crossed over to the ruling party.