SC puts Maharashtra Speaker on deadline over defection pleas

SC puts Maharashtra Speaker on deadline over defection pleas

Subject : Polity

Section: Parliament

Context:

The Supreme Court on Monday directed Maharashtra Assembly Speaker Rahul Narwekar to decide disqualification petitions filed under the Tenth Schedule (anti defection law) of the Constitution against the Chief Minister Eknath Shinde camp in the  Shiv Sena dispute by December 31, 2023.

Key Themes:

• The Supreme Court consistently emphasizes the need for an unbiased mechanism, possibly an independent tribunal, to handle disqualification cases.
• Concerns about the Speaker’s delay in addressing disqualification petitions and potential challenges in the certification of Bills as Money Bills.

Data Highlights from the Article:

• Parliamentary Standing Committees Referral: During 2004-14, over 60% of Bills in the Lok Sabha were referred to committees for detailed scrutiny. However, from 2014-2023, this referral rate dropped to less than 25%.
• Suspension Instances: Adhir Ranjan Chowdhury (Congress) swiftly suspended for remarks against the PM, later revoked. Ramesh Bidhuri (BJP) faced no swift action for passing communal slurs against an MP.
• Challenges in Maharashtra Assembly: Unconstitutional suspension of 12 BJP MLAs for a year in July 2021, set aside by the Supreme Court.
• Defection Decision Delays: Inaction by the Maharashtra Assembly Speaker on disqualification petitions pending since July 2022. The Supreme Court recommends an independent tribunal for timely decisions on defection cases.
• Certification of Bills Challenges: Ongoing challenges in the Court regarding the certification of certain Bills as Money Bills by the Lok Sabha Speaker.
• International Speaker Practices: In Britain, the Speaker resigns from their political party upon election and seeks re-election as an impartial Speaker. This practice is not followed in India.

Speaker’s Functions and Gaps:

• Dual functions of certifying Bills as Money Bills and deciding on disqualification under the Tenth Schedule.
• Misuse of suspension provisions against Opposition members, highlighting instances of bias.
• Failure to refer significant Bills to Parliamentary Standing Committees affecting parliamentary functioning.
• Custodianship of the rights and privileges of the House, its committees, and members.

Challenges in Deciding Disqualification:

• Misuse of powers against Opposition members, unequal treatment for remarks against leaders.
• Delayed or inadequate actions on disqualification petitions, undermining stability in governance.
• Past instances show Speakers favoring ruling dispensation, raising concerns over neutrality.
• Proposal for an independent tribunal, recommended by the Supreme Court, to handle disqualification cases.
• Maharashtra Assembly Speaker’s inaction on pending disqualification petitions despite court directions.

Key Supreme Court Judgments Simplified

Kihoto Hollohan (1992):

• Minority judges believed that giving the Speaker power to decide defections violated democratic principles.
• The case suggests the need for an independent tribunal, headed by judges, to handle defection cases.

Keisham Meghachandra Singh vs The Hon’ble Speaker Manipur (2020):

• The Supreme Court recommended a constitutional amendment for an independent tribunal to decide defections.
• The ongoing inaction of the Maharashtra Assembly Speaker on disqualification petitions was highlighted.

Once a Speaker, Always a Speaker:

• Comparison with Britain’s practice where the Speaker resigns from the political party for impartiality.
• Indian Speakers rarely exercise the option to resign from their political party, impacting perceived impartiality.

Way Forward and Reforms:

• Adoption of British practices to instill confidence, emphasizing Speaker’s impartiality.
• Urgent need for Speakers to demonstrate impartiality, even if formal reforms are pending.
• Consideration of reforms such as an independent tribunal for handling disqualification cases.
• Urgent measures needed to address challenges and restore faith in the institution of the Speaker.
• Speakers must commit to displaying impartiality, aligning their functions with democratic principles.