What's New

Supreme Court Questions Speaker’s Delay in Defection Cases

Why in the News ?

The Supreme Court criticized the Telangana Speaker’s indecision on disqualification petitions against 10 defecting MLAs, emphasizing the need for timely decisions under the Tenth Schedule. The court questioned whether Speakers can delay such cases indefinitely.

About the Supreme Court’s Stand on Speaker’s Indecision:

• The Supreme Court asserted it is not powerless if a Speaker remains indecisive on disqualification petitions against defecting legislators.
• The observation came while hearing Bharat Rashtra Samithi (BRS) leaders’ petitions seeking timely action by the Telangana Speaker on disqualification cases against 10 MLAs who joined the ruling Congress party.
• Justice B.R. Gavai emphasized that the Tenth Schedule (anti-defection law) of the Constitution cannot be undermined by a Speaker’s inaction.
• The court questioned if it could instruct a Speaker to decide within a reasonable period rather than dictate the outcome.

Arguments Presented in Court

• Mukul Rohatgi, representing the respondents, argued that constitutional courts can only request, not mandate, the Speaker to decide within a fixed timeline.
• Rohatgi stressed that courts lack supervisory power over a Speaker, but Justice Gavai clarified that a court’s suggestion, though worded as a request, carries weight.
• The court highlighted that disqualification petitions were pending since March-April 2024, and a notice was issued only in January 2025, questioning if this delay was reasonable.

Implications and Previous Interventions

• The Supreme Court previously nudged Speakers to address long-pending disqualification cases under the Tenth Schedule.
• Justice Gavai’s remarks underline the need for timely decisions to uphold the anti-defection law and prevent misuse of the Speaker’s discretion.
• The case revolves around whether courts can direct Speakers to act swiftly while maintaining respect for the quasi-judicial role of the Speaker.