BRS MLAs defection case: SC urges Parliament to re-examine speakers right to decide on disqualification

New Delhi: The Supreme Court on Thursday (July 31), while criticising the Telangana Speaker over delay in deciding the issue with regard to disqualification petitions against 10 BRS MLAs who defected to the Congress party, urged Parliament to examine whether the present mechanism of entrusting the Speaker/Chairman the important task of deciding the issue of disqualification on the ground of defection is serving the purpose of effectively combating political defections or not.

A bench comprising Chief Justice of India (CJI) and Justice AG Masih, while setting aside a division bench order of the Telangana High Court and directing the Telangana speaker to decide the disqualification petitions within three months, noted that no notice was issued by the Speaker for a period of more than seven months and said that issuing notice only after either the proceedings were filed before the top court or after the matter was heard by the top court for the first time cannot by any stretch be envisaged as acting in an expeditious manner.

The bench said that noticing the evil of political defections, the Parliament had found it appropriate to amend the Constitution by the Constitution (Fifty-Second Amendment) Act, 1985 so as to provide for the Tenth Schedule to the Constitution of India, which provided for disqualification on the ground of defection, and the only purpose of entrusting the work of adjudicating the disqualification petitions, on account of defection, to the Speaker/Chairman was to avoid dilly-dallying in the courts of law or the Election Commission’s office.

"With the experience of over 30 years of working of the Tenth Schedule to the Constitution, the question that we will have to ask ourselves is as to whether the trust which the Parliament entrusted in the high office of the Speaker or the Chairman of avoiding delays in deciding the issue with regard to disqualification has been adhered to by the incumbents in the high office of Speaker and the Chairman or not?,” the bench asked and added, "We need not answer this question, since the facts of the various cases we have referred to themselves provide the answer.”

The apex court further said that if the very foundation of our democracy and the principles that sustain it are to be safeguarded, it will have to be examined whether the present mechanism is sufficient or not and it is for the Parliament to take a call on that.

"Though, we do not possess any advisory jurisdiction, it is for the Parliament to consider whether the mechanism of entrusting the Speaker/Chairman the important task of deciding the issue of disqualification on the ground of defection, is serving the purpose of effectively combating political defections or not? If the very foundation of our democracy and the principles that sustain it are to be safeguarded, it will have to be examined whether the present mechanism is sufficient or not. However, at the cost of repetition, we observe that it is for the Parliament to take a call on that,” the bench said.