Speaker disqualification orders remain subject to limited judicial review, while resignation scrutiny is confined to voluntariness and genuineness.

Judicial review lies over a Speaker's disqualification order under the Tenth Schedule, and the constitutional finality attached to such orders does not bar review. A resignation can be examined only for voluntariness and genuineness under Article 190(3)(b); the Speaker cannot probe political motive, and a later resignation does not undo an already accrued disqualification or render pending proceedings infructuous. The Speaker also cannot impose an additional punitive consequence by barring members from contesting or holding office until the end of the legislative term, as that is not authorised by the Constitution. No reference to a larger Bench was required because existing Constitution Bench authority governed the issues.

---

---

Issues: (i) Whether a writ petition under Article 32 is maintainable against an order passed by the Speaker under the Tenth Schedule; (ii) whether the Speaker's inquiry into a resignation is confined to voluntariness and genuineness and whether resignation defeats pending disqualification proceedings; (iii) whether the Speaker can disqualify members for the remainder of the legislative term; and (iv) whether the matters required reference to a larger Bench.

Issue (i): Whether a writ petition under Article 32 is maintainable against an order passed by the Speaker under the Tenth Schedule.

Analysis: The Speaker, while deciding a disqualification petition, acts as a quasi-judicial authority and the order is amenable to judicial review. The finality attached by the Tenth Schedule does not exclude this Court's jurisdiction. At the same time, the ordinary course is to first approach the High Court, which is the appropriate and efficacious forum.

Conclusion: The writ petitions were maintainable, though the normal remedy would lie first before the High Court.

Issue (ii): Whether the Speaker's inquiry into a resignation is confined to voluntariness and genuineness and whether resignation defeats pending disqualification proceedings.

Analysis: The constitutional inquiry under Article 190(3)(b) is limited to whether the resignation is voluntary and genuine. The Speaker cannot examine extraneous considerations or the political motive behind the resignation. A valid resignation does not nullify an already accrued disqualification, because disqualification relates back to the date of the defections or defiant conduct. Pending disqualification proceedings do not become infructuous merely because a resignation is tendered later.

Conclusion: The Speaker could examine only voluntariness and genuineness, and the pending disqualification proceedings did not abate upon resignation.

Issue (iii): Whether the Speaker can disqualify members for the remainder of the legislative term.

Analysis: The Tenth Schedule and Article 191(2) do not authorise the Speaker to impose an additional punitive bar on contesting elections or to prescribe a fixed period of disqualification till the end of the term. Such consequences are not expressly provided by the Constitution, and cannot be supplied by invoking inherent powers. The additional restriction introduced by the impugned orders was therefore beyond jurisdiction.

Conclusion: The Speaker had no power to direct disqualification till the expiry of the Assembly's term; that part of the orders was ultra vires and was set aside.

Issue (iv): Whether the matters required reference to a larger Bench.

Analysis: The questions raised were governed by existing Constitution Bench authority, and no fresh substantial question of constitutional interpretation arose that was necessary for disposal. Reference would only have prolonged the proceedings without legal necessity.

Conclusion: No reference to a larger Bench was required.

Final Conclusion: The disqualification orders were sustained to the extent that the members were found to have incurred disqualification, but the additional direction barring them till the end of the Assembly term was invalid. The writ petitions were accordingly disposed of with partial relief.

Ratio Decidendi: Judicial review lies over Speaker's disqualification orders on limited constitutional grounds, a resignation can be rejected only for lack of voluntariness or genuineness, and the Speaker cannot create further punitive consequences beyond those expressly authorised by the Constitution.

---