Supreme Court slams prolonged inaction by Speakers on defection petitions

The Supreme Court on Wednesday took a strong stand against prolonged inaction by Speakers in deciding disqualification petitions under the anti-defection law, asserting that it cannot remain “a mute spectator” to a “naked dance of democracy” with its “hands tied at the back.”

A bench of justices Bhushan R Gavai and AG Masih emphasised that the judiciary has not just the power but also a duty to ensure that the Tenth Schedule, which curbs political defections, is not reduced to a dead letter.

The court made these remarks while hearing a case related to the disqualification of Bharat Rashtra Samithi (BRS) MLAs from Telangana who defected to the ruling Congress. The petitions, pending before the Speaker for an extended period, prompted the bench to question whether courts should remain powerless if no action is taken for years.

During the hearing, the bench directly confronted senior advocate Mukul Rohatgi, representing the Telangana assembly speaker, who argued that courts have no power of superintendence over the Speaker. Rohatgi contended that judicial review is only permissible after a decision is made and that courts cannot intervene in the Speaker’s discretion before a ruling.

“So, your argument is that this court should tie its hands and look at the naked dance of democracy and erosion of values?” the bench remarked.

Disagreeing with Rohatgi’s submission that the judiciary cannot issue any direction to the Speaker, the bench noted that past judgments have clearly established that Speakers act as tribunals in disqualification cases and are subject to judicial review.

“When the Speaker doesn’t act at all, courts in this country, which don’t only have the power but also a duty, must act. Suppose the Speaker doesn’t act for four years, should the court not do anything?” it asked. The court further questioned the delay in issuing notices: “If you take months and months to issue notice, and that too only after this court intervened, what justification can be given?”

When Rohatgi argued that courts could only request but not direct the Speaker to decide, the bench shot back: “No direction can be issued to decide a case in a particular manner, but to say no direction can be issued at all to decide a matter within a reasonable time is something that may not appeal to us.”

It also distinguished the nature of requests from a constitutional court: “If the requests of this court are to be followed more in breach, then the courts are not powerless under Article 142… we are clear that the Supreme Court is not powerless when its requests are not duly respected.”

The court took exception to Rohatgi’s contention that the Speaker did not act on the disqualification petitions because the matter was pending before the high court. “Are you seriously making an argument that you didn’t act because the matter was pending before this court? If that’s so, why did you issue notices while the matter was pending here?” it asked. The court pointed out that it started hearing this case on January 15, and the Speaker acted the very next day, on January 16. “Should we issue contempt?” the bench questioned.

The bench also referred to a statement reportedly made in the Telangana Assembly that no by-elections would be conducted even if BRS MLAs switched parties. Expressing concern, the court said, “If this is said in the House in presence of the Speaker, he is making a mockery of the Tenth Schedule.”

The judges underscored that significant electoral reforms, including mandatory disclosure of candidate details, were introduced through judicial intervention. “The Supreme Court cannot feel powerless in introducing yet another safeguard in furtherance of electoral democracy,” it added. The court will continue hearing the case on Thursday.

The case involves the delay in deciding disqualification petitions against three MLAs — Tellam Venkat Rao, Kadiyam Srihari, and Danam Nagender, who defected from BRS to Congress. Senior advocate CA Sundaram, representing BRS, argued that the MLAs had switched loyalties and that at least one had even contested the Lok Sabha elections on a Congress ticket while still being a BRS legislator. He contended that courts must ensure disqualification pleas are decided in a time-bound manner, suggesting such matters should be settled within three months except under exceptional circumstances.

Wednesday’s developments echo the court’s observations from its March 25 hearing, where it criticized the shifting political landscape in Maharashtra. The bench had remarked that Maharashtra had outdone the infamous “Aaya Ram Gaya Ram” phenomenon of defections, referring to the 1967 incident in Haryana when an MLA changed parties thrice in a single day.

The court had then warned that failing to curb defection-related delays would render the Tenth Schedule meaningless. “The Tenth Schedule is meant to prevent ‘Aaya Ram Gaya Ram’. It will be a mockery of the Tenth Schedule if courts do not intervene,” the bench had stated.