2020 (1) TMI 1174 - SC - Indian Laws

Supreme Court Orders Prompt Disqualification Decisions

KEISHAM MEGHACHANDRA SINGH Versus THE HON’BLE SPEAKER MANIPUR LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY & ORS.

The Supreme Court directed the Speaker of the Manipur Legislative Assembly to decide the disqualification petitions within four weeks. Failure to do so ... Prayer that the High Court direct the Speaker to decide his disqualification petition within a reasonable time - Whether, in the facts and circumstances of the present case, the respondent No. 1 can be said to have failed to discharge its duties as enjoined in the Tenth Schedule to the Constitution of India to decide the petitions? HELD THAT:- Finding that the life of the Assembly was about to end and that if the 13 members were found to be disqualified their continuance in the Assembly even for a day would be illegal and unconstitutional, and that their holding of office as Ministers would also be illegal, the Court stated that it was bound to protect the Constitution and its values, and the principles of democracy, which is a basic feature of the Constitution, and then went on to declare that the writ petition will stand allowed with a declaration that the 13 members who met the Governor on 27.08.2003 stand disqualified from the U.P Legislative Assembly w.e.f. 27.08.2003 on the ground contained in paragraph 2(1)(a) of the Tenth Schedule. It is time that Parliament have a rethink on whether disqualification petitions ought to be entrusted to a Speaker as a quasi-judicial authority when such Speaker continues to belong to a particular political party either de jure or de facto. Parliament may seriously consider amending the Constitution to substitute the Speaker of the Lok Sabha and Legislative Assemblies as arbiter of disputes concerning disqualification which arise under the Tenth Schedule with a permanent Tribunal headed by a retired Supreme Court Judge or a retired Chief Justice of a High Court, or some other outside independent mechanism to ensure that such disputes are decided both swiftly and impartially, thus giving real teeth to the provisions contained in the Tenth Schedule, which are so vital in the proper functioning of our democracy. Appeal dismissed. Issues Involved:1. Whether the Speaker of the Manipur Legislative Assembly failed to discharge duties under the Tenth Schedule.2. Whether Respondent No. 3 incurred disqualification under paragraph 2(1)(a) of the Tenth Schedule.3. Whether the High Court can issue an order disqualifying Respondent No. 3 or a writ of quo warranto.Detailed Analysis:1. Failure of the Speaker to Discharge Duties:The Supreme Court examined whether the Speaker of the Manipur Legislative Assembly failed to discharge duties by not deciding the disqualification petitions filed against Respondent No. 3. The Court noted that the Speaker is a quasi-judicial authority required to decide such petitions within a reasonable time, which should be much less than the five-year term of the Assembly. The High Court had held that judicial review is permissible if the Speaker fails to act within a reasonable time, as this constitutes a deliberate inaction or indecision. The Supreme Court agreed, emphasizing that the Speaker must decide disqualification petitions within three months to adhere to the constitutional objective of the Tenth Schedule.2. Disqualification of Respondent No. 3:The Court analyzed whether Respondent No. 3, who was elected as a member of the Congress Party but later became a Minister in a BJP-led government, incurred disqualification under paragraph 2(1)(a) of the Tenth Schedule. The High Court found that the unequivocal conduct of Respondent No. 3 in joining the BJP-led government implied voluntary giving up of Congress Party membership, attracting disqualification. The Supreme Court upheld this view, citing the case of Ravi S. Naik v. State of Maharashtra, which established that voluntary giving up of party membership could be inferred from conduct.3. Judicial Review and Writ of Quo Warranto:The Supreme Court considered whether the High Court could issue an order disqualifying Respondent No. 3 or a writ of quo warranto. The High Court had declined to grant such relief, awaiting the Supreme Court's decision on whether judicial review could direct a Speaker to decide disqualification petitions within a specific timeframe. The Supreme Court clarified that judicial review is permissible to ensure the Speaker's prompt decision but does not extend to issuing a writ of quo warranto directly. The Court emphasized that disqualification must first be decided by the Speaker, the exclusive authority under the Tenth Schedule.Conclusion:The Supreme Court set aside the High Court's judgment and directed the Speaker of the Manipur Legislative Assembly to decide the disqualification petitions within four weeks. The Court held that if no decision is forthcoming within this period, the parties may seek further directions from the Supreme Court. The appeals were partly allowed, and the Court suggested that Parliament consider amending the Constitution to entrust disqualification decisions to an independent tribunal rather than the Speaker, to ensure impartiality and swift resolution.