Case Title: Keisham Meghachandra Singh V. The Hon’ble Speaker Manipur Legislative Assembly & Ors
In a significant ruling, the Supreme Court determined that, barring extraordinary circumstances, the Speaker of the Legislative Assembly must make a decision on a petition seeking a member's disqualification under the Tenth Schedule of the Constitution within three months. The Supreme Court emphasised the need of making a judgement within a fair amount of time by saying:
“What is reasonable will depend on the facts of each case, but absent exceptional circumstances for which there is good reason, a period of three months from the date on which the petition is filed is the outer limit within which disqualification petitions filed before the Speaker must be decided if the constitutional objective of disqualifying persons who have infracted the Tenth Schedule is to be adhered to. This period has been fixed keeping in mind the fact that ordinarily the life of the Lok Sabha and the Legislative Assembly of the States is 5 years and the fact that persons who have incurred such disqualification do not deserve to be MPs/MLAs even for a single day.”
In a case involving alleged defection in the Manipur legislature, a bench made up of Justices R F Nariman, Aniruddha Bose, and V Ramasubramanian delivered the judgement.
The bench also noted the issue of partisan behaviour on the part of Speakers due to their political allegiances. The bench further observed that the minority verdict in the case of Kihoto Hollohan v. Zachillhu & Ors expressed similar concerns. In order to provide for an independent system, such as a Permanent Tribunal led by retired judges, to resolve issues under the Tenth Schedule, the bench recommended that the Parliament modify the Constitution.
"It is time that Parliament has a rethink on whether disqualification petitions ought to be entrusted to a speaker as a quasi-judicial authority when such Speaker continues to belong to a particular political party either de jure or de facto. Parliament may seriously consider amending the Constitution to substitute the Speaker of the Lok Sabha and Legislative Assemblies as arbiters of disputes concerning disqualification which arise under the Tenth Schedule with a permanent Tribunal headed by a retired Supreme Court Judge or a retired Chief Justice of a High Court, or some other outside independent mechanism to ensure that such disputes are decided both swiftly and impartially, thus giving real teeth to the provisions contained in the Tenth Schedule, which are so vital in the proper functioning of our democracy."
In this matter before the court, an MLA who backed the BJP after winning on a Congress ticket to support the latter's effort to create a government in Manipur during the 2017 assembly elections was allegedly disqualified.
The Manipur High Court was contacted while the Speaker was postponing a judgement on a petition seeking his disqualification. The HC declined to intervene, citing a SC 5-judge Bench's ongoing consideration of the question of whether the Court can order the Speaker or not. The Supreme Court heard an appeal about this. The Apex Court was of the opinion that the High Court erred in ruling that the question of the Court's authority to order the Speaker was still up for debate. According to the bench, the question was addressed in Rajendra Singh Rana v. Swami Prasad Maurya, which held that the Speaker's refusal to execute his authority would give rise to judicial review.
In 2016, a later bench in the case of S.A. Sampath Kumar v. Kale Yadaiah and Ors sent the case to a bigger bench without being aware of this ruling. Justice Nariman's ruling made the following observations:
"It is clear from a reading of the judgment in Rajendra Singh Rana (supra) and, in particular, the underlined portions of paragraphs 40 and 41 that the very question referred by the Two Judge Bench in S.A. Sampath Kumar (supra) has clearly been answered stating that a failure to exercise jurisdiction vested in a Speaker cannot be covered by the shield contained in paragraph 6 of the Tenth Schedule and that when a Speaker refrains from deciding a petition within a reasonable time, there was clearly an error which attracted jurisdiction of the High Court in the exercise of the power of judicial review."
In light of the given circumstances, the Court ordered the Speaker to decide on the pending disqualification petitions within four weeks after being informed of the verdict. The Court declined to address the disqualification issue, stating that the Speaker should address it first.