SC to pronounce order on whether a speaker on notice can disqualify legislators

Subject : Polity

Section :Parliament

Concept :

The Supreme Court is scheduled on Friday to pronounce its order on the question of whether a seven judge Bench should reexamine its 2016 decision that a Speaker under a cloud should first clear his name before hearing disqualification petitions against legislators under the anti-defection law.

Background

In 2016, a majority judgment of the Supreme Court in the Nabam Rebia case had held that a Speaker or Deputy Speaker facing notice of removal cannot decide disqualification proceedings against legislators.

Nabam Rebia ruling

The Supreme Court held that it is “constitutionally impermissible” for a speaker to proceed with disqualification proceedings, if a notice of removal against him is pending.
If a Speaker truly and rightfully enjoys support of the majority of the MLAs, there would be no difficulty whatsoever, to demonstrate the confidence which the members of the State Legislature, repose in him.
This ruling gave a window to defecting legislators to stall or circumvent the Tenth Schedule by seeking removal of the Speaker when disqualification proceedings are anticipated — effectively tying the hands of the Speaker.
Since 2016, this legal route has a been a familiar playbook for legislators cutting across states and political affiliations.

Notice for removal of Speaker

Under Article 179 of the Constitution, a Speaker can be removed by a resolution of the Assembly passed by a majority of “all the then members of the Assembly”.
The process begins with notice of at least 14 days.
In the 2016 Nabam Rebia ruling, the Supreme Court interpreted Article 179, specifically the term “all the then members of the Assembly”, to mean the composition of the house at the date/time of giving the notice for the removal of the Speaker.
No change on composition of the house :
This interpretation would mean that the composition of the Assembly cannot be changed from the date of issuing of a notice of the removal of the Speaker, and therefore the Speaker cannot make any decisions under the Tenth Schedule to change the composition of the House until the question of his removal is settled.
Rationale behind SC ruling :
The Supreme Court’s reasoning in barring the Speaker from acting under the Tenth Schedule when a notice for his own removal is pending, is to ensure that the Speaker who disqualifies legislators must enjoy the confidence of the Assembly.