Supreme Court Directs Speaker of Manipur Legislative Assembly to Decide Disqualification Petitions within Four Weeks

SC underscores Speaker’s exclusive jurisdiction under Tenth Schedule; urges prompt resolution of defection cases to uphold democratic integrity

In a significant judgment delivered on January 21, 2020, the Supreme Court of India addressed the long-pending issue of disqualification petitions under the Tenth Schedule of the Constitution, which deals with the anti-defection law. The case arose from the 2017 Manipur Legislative Assembly elections where an inconclusive verdict led to political realignments and allegations of defection.

The appellant, Keisham Meghachandra Singh, challenged the inaction of the Speaker of the Manipur Legislative Assembly who had failed to decide multiple disqualification petitions filed against certain members, including Respondent No.3, who contested and won as a Congress Party candidate but was sworn in as a Minister in the BJP-led government immediately after the results. The petitions alleged that this action attracted disqualification under paragraph 2(1)(a) of the Tenth Schedule.

The Supreme Court, comprising Justices R.F. Nariman, Aniruddha Bose, and V. Ramasubramanian, observed that the Speaker holds exclusive jurisdiction to decide on such disqualification matters. The Court emphasized the constitutional purpose of the Tenth Schedule to curb political defections that undermine democratic principles by holding members accountable for their party allegiance.

Notably, the Court rejected the plea for judicial authorities to directly decide on disqualification or issue writs like quo warranto against the respondent ministers, reaffirming that such matters must first be adjudicated by the Speaker. However, it took serious note of the prolonged delay in deciding the petitions, which were filed as early as April 2017.

Referencing the Supreme Court’s earlier landmark decisions, including the Constitution Bench ruling in Kihoto Hollohan v. Zachillhu and the judgment in Rajendra Singh Rana v. Swami Prasad Maurya, the Court clarified that while judicial review of the Speaker’s decisions is limited to jurisdictional errors, mala fide actions, or procedural violations, the Speaker is nevertheless obligated to decide disqualification petitions within a reasonable time frame.

The Court held that absent exceptional circumstances, three months should be the outer limit for the Speaker to decide such petitions. Given the inaction in this case, the Supreme Court set a clear deadline, directing the Speaker of the Manipur Legislative Assembly to decide all pending disqualification petitions within four weeks from the date of communication of the judgment.

The judgment also urged Parliament to reconsider the constitutional provision entrusting the Speaker with this quasi-judicial function, suggesting the creation of an independent tribunal headed by a retired Supreme Court judge or Chief Justice of a High Court to ensure impartiality and prompt disposal of defection cases.

This ruling reiterates the delicate balance between legislative privileges and judicial oversight while reinforcing the constitutional mandate to maintain the sanctity of the electoral mandate and political party system.

Statutory provisions

Constitution of India, Article 142, Article 226, Article 191, Article 102, Tenth Schedule (Paragraph 2(1)(a), Paragraph 6(1), Paragraph 6(2), Paragraphs 3 and 4)

Keisham Meghachandra Singh v. Hon'ble Speaker Manipur Legislative Assembly (SC) : Law Finder Doc Id # 1668364