Author: Manya Sharma

Court: Supreme Court of India 

Bench: A division Bench of Chief Justice B.R.Gavai and A.G. Masih

Date of Judgement: 31st July, 2025

Relevant Statutes/ Key Provisions: Paragraph 6 of the Tenth Schedule, Articles 122, Article 212

Brief Facts: 

The most recent state elections in Telangana were held on 30 November 2023 for which the results were declared on 3 December 2023. The 10 MLAs were first elected to the Assembly as candidates of BRS (Bharat Rashtra Samithi) and they later defected to the ruling Congress Party between March and April 2024. The BRS MLAs filed petitions regarding disqualification before the Speaker and these were directed to be placed before the Speaker for a hearing schedule. The order of the High Court was set aside and the Supreme Court allowed the appeal, thereby, directing the speaker to decide the disqualification proceedings within three months. 

Issues: 

1. Whether the Assembly speaker has any constitutional immunity on the question of disqualification petitions under the tenth schedule of the constitution? 
2. Whether the speaker can be directed to conclude disqualification petitions within a specific timeframe and penalise inaction or undue delay? 
3. Whether the High Court can stay proceedings on petitions against defection and whether its order should be reviewed or set aside by the Supreme Court? 

Petitioner’s Arguments: 

The petitioners stated that the prolonged inaction and delay by the speaker on the issue of disqualification petitions against MLAs who allegedly defected defeated the very object of the Tenth Schedule. The main object of the anti-defection law is curbing defections quickly and not letting them fester indefinitely through stalling of the procedure. Petitioners also argued that the speaker should not be immune from judicial review while acting as a tribunal under the Tenth Schedule. 

They also claimed in the petition that both the High Court and Supreme Court should be able to intervene in cases where there is an undue delay or inaction. This is because failure to act essentially nullifies the law’s purpose. The petitioners also mentioned the established precedent and highlighted that speaker’s decisions in this context do not enjoy absolute constitutional immunity. 

The petitioners also contended that it is necessary and constitutionally permissible to direct the speaker to decide within a reasonable and a fixed timeframe. They highlighted that if there are no fixed timelines, these defection petitions can be indefinitely delayed. They cited Keisham Meghachandra Singh vs. Speaker, Manipur Legislative Assembly as a precedent wherein the Court had imposed time limits for Speaker decisions. 

Respondent’s Arguments: 

The respondents stated that the courts cannot direct or impose timelines on the speaker while adjudicating on the issue of disqualification petitions under the Tenth Schedule because the Speaker is entrusted with this constitutional duty and courts should respect the separation of powers. The pending five judge reference in S.A. Sampath Kumar was cited to support the view that judicial oversight, especially before a decision is taken, is not completely allowed. The courts, respondents argued, could not command a timeline and could only request the Speaker to act. 

The respondents supported the order of the Telangana High Court Division Bench. The order stayed the speaker’s exercise of power. The respondents claimed that the High Court was within the scope of its rights while regulating how ongoing proceedings should be managed. The respondents also claimed that granting undue judicial direction has the ability to disrupt the constitutional scheme of the anti-defection law, since the law places the primary role with the speaker. 

Judgement: 

The Bench, led by CJI Gavai, held that the Speaker under Paragraph 6(1) of the Tenth Schedule is a tribunal. Therefore, the speaker, by this logic, is bound to decide the disqualification petitions within a reasonable period.In the event, any of the MLAs attempt to protract the proceedings, the Speaker would draw an adverse inference against such MLAs, the Bench said. The Bench directed that the proceedings should be concluded within three months.

 Legal Reasoning and Analytical Insights: 

The Bench relied on another Constitution Bench decision in Rajendra Singh Rana vs. Swami Prasad Maurya held that when the speaker is left with the question of disqualification undecided, it cannot be covered by the shield of Paragraph 6 of the Tenth Schedule. The Bench also noted that in this case, the speaker did not even issue notices in the petitions filed against defecting MLAs for more than seven months. Notices were not issued until the proceedings were filed before the Supreme Court. Hence, in this case, the Bench said that the failure to issue directions would amount to permitting the Speaker to repeat the widely criticized situation of operation successfully, and the patient died.

The respondents argued based on the central notion that the speaker must be free to evaluate evidence and decide on disqualification petitions accordingly. Although the speaker’s role as an impartial adjudicator must be protected, judicial review is equally important since it is part of the basic structure of the Constitution. Although separation of powers is an integral democratic value, separation of powers does not mean non accountability. In a case like the present scenario, when a constitutional functionary exercises adjudicatory powers and also fails to discharge it within reasonable time, the role of judicial correction is not violation of separation of powers, but preservation of constitutional balance. Moreover, democracy cannot survive procedural analysis.