Supreme Court Flags Delay in Speaker's Decision on MP Disqualification Petitions
The Supreme Court heard a plea seeking an expeditious decision on 20 pending disqualification petitions against Lok Sabha members, filed before the Speaker under the Tenth Schedule.
A three-judge bench observed that more than three months had passed since the petitions were filed without a final decision, calling the delay a "red flag."
The Speaker's office had issued notices to the members concerned with a response deadline that was subsequently extended.
The Court declined to fix a specific deadline for the Speaker's decision but kept the matter pending, directing that it be listed again after several weeks to review progress.
The Tenth Schedule (Anti-Defection Law) and the Speaker's Adjudicatory Role
The Tenth Schedule to the Constitution lays down the grounds on which an elected member of a legislature can be disqualified for defection, and vests the decision-making power in the Speaker (for the Lok Sabha/State Assemblies) or the Chairman (for the Rajya Sabha/Legislative Councils).
The pending petitions before the Lok Sabha Speaker are disqualification proceedings under this very framework, and the Supreme Court's intervention concerns the pace at which this quasi-judicial function is being discharged.
Kihoto Hollohan v. Zachillhu (1992): Judicial Review of the Speaker's Decision
This five-judge Constitution Bench upheld the constitutional validity of the Tenth Schedule but struck down Paragraph 7, which had sought to bar judicial review of the Speaker's/Chairman's decisions on disqualification.
It is this line of judicial review, preserved by Kihoto Hollohan, that allows the Supreme Court to entertain a plea on the Speaker's delay in deciding the pending disqualification petitions, even though the final disqualification decision itself rests with the Speaker.
Keisham Meghachandra Singh v. Speaker, Manipur Legislative Assembly (2020): The Three-Month Benchmark
In this case, the Supreme Court held that, absent exceptional circumstances, a Speaker ought to decide a disqualification petition under the Tenth Schedule within three months of it being filed.
Key Details
- The Court also recommended that Parliament consider amending the Constitution to vest Tenth Schedule adjudication in an independent tribunal (such as a former judge), rather than the Speaker, to remove the perception of institutional bias given the Speaker's continuing party affiliation in practice.
- The three-month period was framed as a reasonable outer limit rather than a rigid statutory deadline, since the Tenth Schedule itself prescribes no timeline for the Speaker's decision.
- This benchmark has since been cited in subsequent cases where courts have found Speakers sitting on disqualification petitions for extended periods.
The Supreme Court's characterisation of the delay in the present matter as a "red flag" directly invokes this three-month benchmark, even though the Court stopped short of issuing a mandatory deadline.
- Tenth Schedule inserted by: 52nd Constitutional Amendment Act, 1985
- Applicable constitutional provisions: Article 102(2) (MPs), Article 191(2) (MLAs)
- Kihoto Hollohan v. Zachillhu: 1992, upheld Tenth Schedule, struck down Paragraph 7 (bar on judicial review)
- Keisham Meghachandra Singh v. Speaker, Manipur LA: 2020, set out three-month reasonable period for Speaker's decision
- Number of disqualification petitions in the present matter: 20
- Grace period for condonation of whip violation under the Tenth Schedule: 15 days