Anti-Defection Ruling : Supreme Court Raps Maharashtra Speaker Over Delays

Table of Contents

Introduction

Brief context of Shiv Sena split and disqualification petitions filed before the Speaker
Supreme Court’s previous order asking Speaker to decide petitions expeditiously
Latest hearing where court expressed dissatisfaction over proposed timeline

The political landscape in Maharashtra has been marked by instability ever since a faction of Shiv Sena MLAs led by Eknath Shinde split from the party headed by former Chief Minister Uddhav Thackeray in June 2022. This resulted in the collapse of the Maha Vikas Aghadi government in the state. Subsequently, both the Uddhav Thackeray faction and the Shinde rebel group staked claim to being the ‘real’ Shiv Sena. Similar instability also erupted within the Nationalist Congress Party (NCP) led by Sharad Pawar.

In this backdrop, disqualification petitions were filed by the Uddhav faction against Shinde and other rebel MLAs for alleged defection under the anti-defection law. Similar petitions were also filed by the NCP against their breakaway MLAs. As per the Tenth Schedule of the Constitution, the Speaker of the Assembly has the power to decide on disqualification pleas.

The Uddhav Thackeray group approached the Supreme Court in July 2022 seeking a direction to the Speaker to decide these disqualification petitions swiftly, preferably within two weeks. While the court initially refrained from passing orders, it noted that the petitions must be decided within a “reasonable period” by the Speaker.

However, despite several months having elapsed, the disqualification petitions were still pending before the Speaker. In October 2022, the Supreme Court bench headed by Chief Justice DY Chandrachud expressed dissatisfaction over the prolonged timeline proposed by the Speaker for deciding these petitions. The court highlighted the need for expeditious hearings to uphold the spirit of anti-defection provisions.

Overview

Key Points on Maharashtra’s Political Issue

Sections	Details
The Start of the Issue	Reason: Split in Shiv Sena. Outcome: Political shakiness in Maharashtra. What Happened: Disqualification appeals were given to the Speaker under the anti-defection law.
The Anti-Defection Law	Origin: Introduced in 1985. Why: Stop uncontrolled party-switching. Rule: MPs/MLAs who defect can be disqualified. Who Decides: The Speaker. What the SC has said: Decide fast on these issues.
Supreme Court’s Role	Who came to SC: Uddhav and Pawar sides. Why: Want quick decisions. Speaker’s initial plan: Take many months to decide. SC’s response: Not happy. Wanted a faster plan.
What the Supreme Court said	Main Point: Disqualification needs to be decided quickly. Reason: Waiting too long makes the anti-defection law pointless. Speaker’s role: Can be checked by the courts.
Next Steps	For the Speaker: Last chance to give a quick plan. SC’s plan: Look at the issue after the Dussehra holiday. Possible Outcome: If no good plan, SC will give instructions.
Outcome for Maharashtra	Main Point: The political situation in Maharashtra is uncertain.
Final Thoughts	What’s needed: Fast actions and decisions. Reason: Delays cause instability and issues. Overall goal: Quick justice is important for a good legal system.

Concepts Invoked by this news

Concept	Description	Relevance to the News
Anti-Defection Law/ Tenth Schedule	Rule stopping politicians from one party jumping to another.	Petitions in Speaker’s court for disqualification of MLAs under this law.
Judicial Review	Courts examine decisions or actions by other government branches.	SC checks if Speaker is taking too long to decide on the petitions.
Powers of Speaker	The Speaker decides on disqualification petitions among other roles.	SC indicates Speaker isn’t using powers properly.
Timely Adjudication	Decisions made within a reasonable time frame.	SC points out Speaker’s delays aren’t timely.
Interaction between Legislature and Judiciary	Ways courts and lawmakers work together or face off.	Tension hinted via Speaker’s comments.
Judicial Activism	Courts intervene proactively in public issues.	SC pushes Speaker to decide faster.
Balance of Power	Equilibrium between government branches.	Caution on Speaker potentially overreaching by delaying.
Independent Constitutional Bodies	Constitution-mentioned bodies that operate independently.	SC’s displeasure with Speaker discussing petitions outside court.

Anti-Defection Law and Role of Speaker

What is defection and anti-defection law
Key provisions of anti-defection law
Role and power of Speaker in deciding disqualification petitions
Timeframe stipulated by courts for deciding petitions

The anti-defection law was introduced in 1985 by amending the Constitution and adding the Tenth Schedule to curb the practice of unprincipled defection plaguing our politics. Defection involves elected representatives switching parties or disobeying party directives by voting against the party line in the legislature.

The law prescribes that MPs/MLAs will be disqualified if they voluntarily give up membership of their political party or vote against the party whip without prior permission. Nominated and independent members are also barred from joining parties after getting elected. Exceptions are made in case of a merger of political parties or if a member becomes Speaker.

The law empowers the Speaker/Chairman to decide disqualification petitions. The Supreme Court has repeatedly held that the Speaker acts as a ‘quasi-judicial authority’ when adjudicating these petitions. While parliamentary proceedings are beyond judicial review, the Speaker’s decisions as a tribunal can be examined by the courts.

The Supreme Court’s judgements have emphasized that disqualification pleas must be decided by the Speaker within a reasonable period. A 2020 verdict stipulated three months as the outer limit for ordinary cases. Inordinate delays in deciding such petitions defeat the purpose of the anti-defection law in maintaining party discipline and curbing unprincipled defection that can destabilize elected governments.

Proceedings Before Supreme Court

Writ petitions filed by Uddhav and Pawar factions seeking swift decision
Court asks Speaker to propose timeline for hearing petitions
Speaker proposes lengthy schedule spread over months
Court expresses dissatisfaction, asks for realistic timeline

In July 2022, the Uddhav Thackeray faction of Shiv Sena filed a writ petition in the Supreme Court highlighting the delay in deciding disqualification petitions filed by them in June against Shinde and rebel MLAs. Their plea sought a direction to the Speaker to decide these petitions swiftly, preferably within two weeks, given the ongoing political instability in the state.

Subsequently, similar petitions were filed by the NCP lawmakers belonging to the Sharad Pawar faction against the breakaway MLAs led by Ajit Pawar.

Hearing these petitions in September 2022, the Supreme Court asked the Speaker to apprise it of a tentative schedule for deciding the disqualification pleas. In response, the Speaker proposed a timeline for the Shiv Sena cases spreading over 17 weeks until January 2023.

When the matter came up for hearing in October 2022, the bench comprising CJI DY Chandrachud and Justices JB Pardiwala and Manoj Misra expressed dissatisfaction over this prolonged schedule.

The court highlighted that such inordinate delays in deciding petitions under the anti-defection law defeated the very purpose of curbing unprincipled defection. It granted a final opportunity to the Speaker to prescribe a realistic timeline for disposing the petitions expeditiously.

Observations Made by Supreme Court

Emphasizes disqualification petitions need urgent hearing
Notes that delays defeat purpose of anti-defection law
Comments on interviews given by Speaker about co-equal branches
Holds Speaker amenable to jurisdiction while deciding petitions

During the proceedings, the Supreme Court bench, especially Chief Justice DY Chandrachud, made several hard-hitting observations highlighting the need for time-bound disposal of pending disqualification petitions by the Speaker.

The court emphasized that any further delays in deciding these petitions would undermine the entire purpose and objective behind the anti-defection law enacted by Parliament. It noted that prolonged pendency of such petitions allows defecting MLAs to continue enjoying membership of the House despite prima facie evidence of defection.

The CJI also expressed displeasure at media interviews given by the Speaker where he reportedly portrayed his office as a co-equal branch of government not subject to judicial scrutiny. The court asserted that the Speaker functioned as a quasi-judicial authority when deciding defections and was hence amenable to judicial review.

The bench reiterated that the disqualification pleas warranted urgent disposal. It sought a realistic timeline from the Speaker failing which the court would be compelled to issue necessary directions in exercise of its constitutional jurisdiction. The CJI’s observations highlighted that constitutional authorities must act with expediency and avoid using delays that can destabilize elected governments.

The Way Forward

Grants final opportunity to Speaker to prescribe realistic schedule
Matter listed after Dussehra break for Speaker’s response
Directions likely if no satisfactory schedule provided
Impact on Maharashtra’s political scenario

The Supreme Court has provided a final opportunity to the Maharashtra Speaker to formulate a realistic timeline for deciding the pending disqualification petitions when the matter is heard after the Dussehra break. The Solicitor General assured the court that he would coordinate with the Speaker during this period to ensure suitable progress. However, the court indicated that directions with specific timelines were imminent if no satisfactory schedule was presented.

The Speaker must prioritize these disqualification proceedings to uphold anti-defection provisions and provide stability in the state’s political scenario. Inordinate delays in adjudicating such petitions can allow unconstitutional defections, create ethical hazards, and set wrong precedents. Expeditious decision making is vital for protecting democratic values and constitutional morality. The judiciary’s intervention addresses concerns about delays hampering timely justice.

Final Thoughts

The Supreme Court strongly stated that constitutional authorities like the Speaker must act quickly to do their duties. The Court, Speaker and government need to work together to find realistic timelines to resolve this issue. Delaying deciding on disqualifying MLAs is extending political instability in Maharashtra. The Speaker should make decisions on the merits of the case soon so political processes can become certain again. Upholding rule of law needs strong dedication because justice delayed is justice denied.