No inherent power of review under the Tenth Schedule; delay cannot defeat a live public law challenge to disqualification.

Delay alone does not justify rejecting a public law challenge to an alleged continuing usurpation of public office; where the legality of disqualification remains live and affects public interest, the merits must still be examined. The Speaker under the Tenth Schedule has no inherent power of review, and no such power can be implied absent express or necessary statutory conferral. Finality of the disqualification decision, together with the availability of judicial review, negates any internal review jurisdiction. The review orders were therefore nullities, while the original disqualification orders continued to operate and the surviving writ remedies were to be heard on merits.

---

---

Issues: (i) whether the writ petitions challenging the Speaker's review orders could be dismissed merely on the ground of laches; and (ii) whether the Speaker acting under the Tenth Schedule to the Constitution had any power of review of an order of disqualification.

Issue (i): Whether the writ petitions challenging the Speaker's review orders could be dismissed merely on the ground of laches.

Analysis: The challenge concerned continuing occupation of public office after an alleged disqualification, and the relief sought was in the nature of a public law remedy to prevent continuance of an asserted illegality. The Court distinguished authorities on laches in private or personal litigation and held that delay, by itself, did not justify refusal to examine the legality of an alleged usurpation of public office where the issue remained live and affected public interest and good administration. The motive or conduct attributed to the petitioners could not be a sufficient ground to shut out examination of the merits in such a class of public interest challenge.

Conclusion: The dismissal of the writ petitions solely on the ground of laches was unjustified and liable to be set aside.

Issue (ii): Whether the Speaker acting under the Tenth Schedule to the Constitution had any power of review of an order of disqualification.

Analysis: The power of review is not inherent and must be conferred by law expressly or by necessary implication. The Tenth Schedule contains no express grant of review power. The finality attached to the Speaker's decision under the Tenth Schedule, coupled with the availability of judicial review as held in Kihoto Hollohan, negatived any need to imply a further internal review power. Powers that the Speaker may have while functioning in the House could not be imported into the statutory function under the Tenth Schedule. The Court rejected the contention that a limited review power could be inferred from the scheme of the Schedule or from pre-Kihoto Hollohan circumstances.

Conclusion: The Speaker had no power of review under the Tenth Schedule, and the purported review orders were nullities liable to be ignored.

Final Conclusion: The appeals succeeded, the High Court orders dismissing the writ petitions were set aside, the review orders were declared void, and the original disqualification orders continued to operate, while the surviving writ remedies were directed to be heard on merits.

Ratio Decidendi: A statutory authority cannot exercise a power of review unless such power is expressly conferred or necessarily implied, and laches will not bar a public law challenge aimed at preventing the continuing usurpation of public office where the illegality complained of remains operative.

---