The legal battle over the disqualification of defecting Members of the Legislative Assembly (MLAs) in Telangana has escalated into a pivotal test of the Supreme Court’s (SC) power to review the Speaker’s authority under the Anti-Defection Law (Tenth Schedule of the Constitution). This core debate intensified when the SC granted the Telangana Assembly Speaker a final four-week window to rule on the petitions, simultaneously issuing a contempt notice for the previous failure to meet the deadline.
SC Slams ‘Gross Contempt’ over Delay
The present crisis was precipitated by the Speaker’s failure to comply with the SC’s earlier order to decide on the disqualification pleas filed by the Bharat Rashtra Samithi (BRS) against its defecting MLAs by the stipulated date of July 31. The BRS promptly filed contempt petitions.
During the latest hearing, the apex court expressed extreme displeasure at the Speaker’s inaction, with the Chief Justice remarking that the non-compliance amounted to the “grossest kind of contempt.” While the Speaker’s office sought an extension, arguing that the complex nature of the proceedings required more time, the bench firmly reiterated that the Speaker does not enjoy constitutional immunity when acting as a tribunal under the Tenth Schedule. The warning to “decide or face contempt” highlights the judiciary’s resolve to enforce the anti-defection provisions.
The Anti-Defection Law and Speaker’s Role
The Tenth Schedule, added to the Constitution by the 52nd Amendment, was designed to curb the ‘Aaya Ram Gaya Ram’ phenomenon frequent political defection and ensure the stability of the parliamentary democracy. It designates the Speaker of the House as the sole adjudicating authority for defection disputes.
However, the law is silent on a timeframe for the Speaker to deliver a decision. This silence has been consistently exploited by Speakers, who often belong to the ruling party, to delay rulings indefinitely until the Assembly’s term expires. This notorious tactic renders the anti-defection law ineffective, prompting the judiciary’s intervention to prevent the petitions from “dying a natural death.” The court seeks to prevent the “operation successful, patient dead” scenario in political defection cases.
Judicial Review: Upholding the Constitution’s Basic Structure
The Supreme Court’s assertion of its power to intervene is firmly rooted in constitutional law, particularly the principle of judicial review. While the Speaker’s decisions are final under the Tenth Schedule, the landmark 1992 Kihoto Hollohan judgment clarified that these decisions are subject to judicial review on specific grounds, such as mala fide intent, perverse findings, or, critically, unreasonable delay.
More recently, the court has emphasized that the Speaker, when discharging this quasi-judicial function, acts as a tribunal, making their action or inaction reviewable under Articles 226/227 (High Courts) and Article 32/136 (Supreme Court). The imposition of a strict deadline is not an encroachment on legislative privilege but a necessary mandamus (judicial command) to ensure a high constitutional functionary performs their duty and prevents the spirit of the anti-defection law from being subverted by procedural manipulation.
The ongoing Telangana case thus represents a crucial moment: a clear declaration by the judiciary that the power of the Speaker, while significant, is not absolute and must be exercised judiciously, swiftly, and in alignment with the core democratic principles protected by the Constitution’s basic structure.
Deputy Editor, Prime Post
With an illustrious career spanning 29 years in the dynamic field of journalism, Anand Gantela is a seasoned professional who has made significant contributions to both print and electronic media. His wealth of experience reflects a deep understanding of the ever-evolving landscape of news reporting.
