Parliament must review powers of speaker under anti-defection law: SC

NEW DELHI: In a significant judgment, the Supreme Court on Thursday said to protect foundations of democracy, Parliament must take a call on the effectiveness of the anti-defection law mechanism, which has been virtually blunted due to the widely-perceived partisanship of speakers, leading to delays in deciding disqualification petitions against political turncoats.

Chief Justice B R Gavai and Justice A G Masih gave this ruling while directing the Telangana assembly speaker to decide within three months the disqualification petitions filed against 10 BRS MLAs who defected to Congress after it formed govt in the state following the Nov 2023 elections.


The verdict marks a departure from the restraint that courts have shown in setting deadlines for speakers and could well be a precedent in settling defection-related cases in the future.

The CJI-led bench also directed the speaker not to allow the 10 MLAs, facing disqualification proceedings, to protract proceedings.

"In the event any of such MLAs attempt to protract the proceedings, the speaker would draw an adverse inference against him," the bench said.

Telangana speaker breached Parliament trust: SC
Constitutional courts have generally refrained from fastening speakers with a timeline to decide pending disqualification petitions. However, SC said since the Telangana speaker has delayed adjudication of disqualification petitions by more than a year, it warranted issuance of directions to him.

The bench was critical of the way the speaker issued notice on the disqualification petitions seven months after they were filed, and said such a delay breached the trust Parliament reposed in presiding officers to adjudicate defection cases fearlessly and expeditiously. In the 2023 elections to the 119-member assembly, Congress had won 64 seats, BRS 39, BJP eight, AIMM seven and CPI one. However, Congress's numbers rose after the defection of the 10 BRS MLAs.

Writing the 74-page judgment recording numerous instances of speakers' deliberate inaction in speedy adjudication of disqualification petitions against MLAs, CJI Gavai said, "It is for Parliament to consider whether the mechanism of entrusting speakers 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...it is for Parliament to take a call on that," the CJI said.

SC reiterated the settled law that speakers/chairman of assemblies, Lok Sabha or Rajya Sabha function as tribunals while deciding disqualification petitions under the anti-defection law, and that their decisions can be scrutinised by the HCs and the apex court. CJI Gavai examined the purpose behind enactment of the anti-defection law in 1985 through a constitutional amendment and said the only purpose of entrusting the work of adjudicating the disqualification petitions to the speaker/chairman was to avoid dilly-dallying and resultant delay in the courts of law or the Election Commission's office.

He said, "Parliament decided to entrust the important question of adjudication of disqualification petitions, on account of defection, to the speaker/chairman expecting him to decide them fearlessly and expeditiously." CJI Gavai and Justice Masih said, "With the experience of over 30 years of working of the 10th Schedule to the Constitution, the question that we will have to ask ourselves is as to whether the trust which Parliament entrusted in 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?"

Referring to a chain of cases under the anti-defection law marred by inordinate delay in adjudication by speakers across states, already frowned upon by SC in as many cases, the bench said, "We need not answer this question, since the facts of the various cases themselves provide answer."