*Kihoto Hollohan v. Zachillhu* (1992)
Judicial Review of the Speaker's Decision
This five-judge Constitution Bench of the Supreme Court is the foundational precedent on the Tenth Schedule. It upheld the constitutional validity of the anti-defection law but struck down Paragraph 7, which had sought to bar all courts from reviewing the Speaker's disqualification decisions.
- By a 3:2 majority, the Court held that Paragraph 7's exclusion of judicial review violated the basic structure of the Constitution, since it was not ratified by state legislatures as required for amendments affecting Article 136/226/227 jurisdiction.
- The Speaker/Chairman, while acting as adjudicator under the Tenth Schedule, functions as a tribunal and is subject to judicial review, though only on limited grounds such as mala fide exercise of power, perversity, or violation of natural justice — not on the merits at large.
- In Keisham Meghachandra Singh v. Hon'ble Speaker, Manipur Legislative Assembly (2020), the Supreme Court directed that Speakers must ordinarily decide disqualification petitions within three months, and suggested that Parliament consider replacing the Speaker with an independent tribunal (headed by a retired judge) as the primary adjudicator, to remove the conflict of interest inherent in a party-affiliated Speaker deciding defection cases.
● Tracked since July 21, 2026 · last seen August 25, 2026 · updates as the daily brief publishes
See it in today’s brief.
Daily current affairs with every static concept explained in place.
Read the daily brief