Uddhav camp says Speaker delaying disqualification process

Subject : Polity

Section: Parliament

Concept :

Shiv Sena (UBT) has once again knocked on the doors of the Supreme Court, seeking direction to the Maharashtra assembly speaker to expeditiously adjudicate the disqualification petitions filed against Chief Minister Eknath Shinde and other Sena MLAs, who had tied up with the BJP to form a new government in June 2022, in a time-bound manner.
The petition said the speaker, despite the categorical direction of the top court in its May 11 judgment that the pending disqualification petitions must be decided within a reasonable period, has chosen to not conduct a single hearing.

How much time can a Speaker take to decide disqualification petitions?

While there have been court verdicts regarding the time that a Speaker should take to decide on disqualification petitions, there is no strict binding timeline that has been established.
The Supreme Court’s 2020 verdict in the KeishamMeghachandra Singh case is particularly relevant in this regard.
The verdict becomes relevant in three aspects: time period for a Speaker to decide on disqualification, suggestion to Parliament to decide if Speaker is the right person to decide on disqualifications, and observations regarding the court’s power to interfere in case of delay.

Reasonable Time Limit

The Supreme Court had set three months as the outer limit for deciding disqualification petitions, unless the case involves exceptional circumstances for which there’s good reason.
A three-judge bench had said that the Speaker, in acting as a Tribunal under the Tenth Schedule, is bound to decide disqualification petitions within a reasonable period. However, what constitutes a reasonable time frame will depend on the specific circumstances of each case.
However, it has been suggested to Parliament to consider amending the Constitution to establish an independent mechanism, such as a permanent tribunal headed by retired judges, to decide disputes under the Tenth Schedule.

Can Courts Interfere In Case of a Delay?

The court’s 2020 verdict also addressed the issue of court interference in cases of delay. It held that if a Speaker refrains from deciding a petition within a reasonable time, it constitutes an error that attracts the jurisdiction of the High Court for judicial review.
The Supreme Court clarified that this question had already been answered in the 2007 Rajendra Singh Rana case, which held that the failure of a Speaker to exercise jurisdiction allows for judicial review.

Role of Speaker

The Anti-Defection law is clear that the question of disqualification or otherwise under the Tenth Schedule is to be decided by the Speaker.
The Courts have only the power of judicial review and any a prior intervention is ruled out.
It is an established precedent that the Speaker as the Head of Legislature and being a constitutional authority is not amenable to the jurisdiction of the Courts.
However, this applies in respect of the conduct of legislative business where the Speaker is supreme and final authority.
However, in areas wherein the Speaker is expected to function as a quasi-judicial authority under the Tenth Schedule, it would definitely invite judicial review and the Office of the Speaker cannot claim any special privilege.

For further notes on Office of Speaker , refer – https://optimizeias.com/speaker-of-lok-sabha-2/