Supreme Court clarifies laches in nullity cases; Speaker lacks inherent review power

The Supreme Court held that the doctrine of laches does not apply in cases seeking a declaration of nullity in public law concerning public office. The Court found the High Court's dismissal of writ petitions solely on the ground of laches unjustified and emphasized the need to examine the merits. Regarding the power of review, the Court ruled that the Speaker does not possess an inherent power of review under the Tenth Schedule of the Constitution. The Court allowed the appeals, declared the Acting Speaker's orders as nullity, revived certain writ petitions, and directed the High Court to decide them on their merits.

---

---

Issues Involved:
1. Laches
2. Power of Review

Summary:

Laches:
The Supreme Court examined whether the High Court's dismissal of writ petitions solely on the ground of laches was justified. The High Court had dismissed the writ petitions challenging the Speaker's orders of review, made on 7th and 8th March 1991, on the ground that they were filed after considerable delay (ten months). The petitioners argued that the delay was due to the uncertainty of the law, which was only settled by the Supreme Court's decision in Kihoto Hollohan v. Zachillhu on 12th November 1991. The Supreme Court held that the doctrine of laches does not apply where the declaration sought is of nullity and laches is not relevant in the domain of public law relating to public office. The Court emphasized that the continuance in office of disqualified persons provides a recurring cause of action, and the High Court should not have dismissed the writ petitions merely on the ground of laches without examining the merits. The Supreme Court thus found the High Court's application of the doctrine of laches insupportable in this context.

Power of Review:
The Supreme Court considered whether the Speaker, acting under the Tenth Schedule of the Constitution, has the power of review. The appellants contended that the Speaker has no such power, while the respondents argued that such a power inheres in the Speaker due to the finality of his decisions under para 6 of the Tenth Schedule. The Court reiterated the principle that the power to review is not inherent and must be conferred by law either specifically or by necessary implication. The Court found no express provision in the Tenth Schedule conferring the power of review on the Speaker. The Court held that the Speaker's order of disqualification is subject to judicial review, as declared in Kihoto Hollohan, and there is no implied power of review in the Speaker under the Tenth Schedule. Consequently, the orders made by the Acting Speaker in purported exercise of the power of review were declared nullity and to be ignored.

Relief:
The Supreme Court allowed the appeals and set aside the High Court's dismissal orders. It declared the orders dated 7th and 8th March 1991 by the Acting Speaker as nullity. Consequently, the original orders of disqualification dated 13th December 1990 and 15th February 1991 continued to operate. The Court revived writ petition No. 48 of 1991 filed by Ravi S. Naik and directed the High Court to decide it on merits. The interim stay of the disqualification order in writ petition No. 48 of 1991 was also revived, with liberty to parties to apply for modification. The High Court was directed to hear and dispose of writ petition No. 48 of 1991 and writ petition No. 321 of 1990 by 30th April 1993. The parties were directed to appear at the Goa Bench of the Bombay High Court on 6th April 1993 for further directions. The parties were to bear their own costs. Appeals allowed.

---