Disqualification case of 20 TMC rebel LS MPs: Delay in decision flagged
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).
Key Details
- Inserted by the 52nd Constitutional Amendment Act, 1985, to curb political defections.
- A member is disqualified if they voluntarily give up membership of the party on whose ticket they were elected, or vote/abstain contrary to a party whip without prior permission (subject to condonation within 15 days).
- Article 102(2) applies the Tenth Schedule to disqualification of Members of Parliament; Article 191(2) applies the corresponding provision to Members of State Legislatures.
- The Speaker (or Chairman) acts as a quasi-judicial tribunal while deciding such petitions, not merely as a presiding officer.
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.
Key Details
- The Court held that Paragraph 7's ouster of judicial review was itself unconstitutional, as it required ratification by states under the proviso to Article 368(2) (since it affected the jurisdiction of courts), which had not been obtained.
- Judicial review of the Speaker's decision was held to be available, but only after the Speaker's order is made, and on limited grounds such as mala fides, perversity, or violation of constitutional mandates — not at an interlocutory stage.
- The Speaker was held to function as a tribunal under the Tenth Schedule while adjudicating disqualification, attracting the standards applicable to quasi-judicial authorities.
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