8th April 2025 (14 Topics)
1
Apr
2
Apr
3
Apr
4
Apr
5
Apr
7
Apr
8
Apr
9
Apr
10
Apr
11
Apr
12
Apr
14
Apr
15
Apr
16
Apr
17
Apr
18
Apr
19
Apr
On the Supreme Court and defections
You must be logged in to get greater insights. click here to login
Context
The Supreme Court is currently hearing a plea regarding the delay by the Telangana Legislative Assembly Speaker in deciding disqualification petitions against defecting MLAs from BRS to Congress, highlighting the persistent problem of partisan inaction under Tenth Schedule.
Pattern of Defections and Speaker Inaction
- Modus Operandi of Defections: States like Manipur, Maharashtra, and Telangana have witnessed large-scale post-election defections, often facilitated by deliberate Speaker inaction on disqualification petitions.
- Speaker’s Role and Bias: Speakers, usually aligned with the ruling party, have been accused of withholding decisions to provide cover for defecting MLAs, some even inducted as Ministers pending adjudication.
- Telangana Case Specifics: BRS filed disqualification petitions in March-April 2024; the Speaker notified them only in January 2025, prompting Supreme Court intervention questioning the delay.
Judicial Interventions and Constitutional Bench Rulings
- May 2023 Constitution Bench Judgment: The SC emphasized the need for Speaker impartiality and mandated decisions on defections to be taken within a reasonable period, without specifying a strict deadline.
- Follow-up Enforcement in Maharashtra: In October 2023, SC fixed a deadline for the Maharashtra Speaker, indicating judicial willingness to ensure compliance with its earlier ruling.
- 2020 Judicial Recommendation to Parliament: The SC proposed removing Speaker’s exclusive authority over defection matters and establishing an independent tribunal, but Parliament has not acted on the suggestion.
Structural Challenges and Democratic Implications
- Systemic Partisan Conflict: Speaker's position as a political appointee results in structural conflict of interest, undermining impartial adjudication under the anti-defection law.
- Lack of Political Will for Reform: Despite clear judicial directions and widespread misuse, no constitutional amendment has been made to reform defection adjudication mechanisms.
- Democratic Accountability Deficit: Widespread defections continue due to voter apathy and lack of electoral consequences for those who subvert party mandates, weakening democratic integrity.
Practice Question:
Q. The role of the Speaker in the adjudication of defection cases has come under repeated judicial scrutiny. Critically evaluate the need for institutional reforms in the implementation of the Tenth Schedule.
More Articles
Courses
Study
Notes
Home
Resources
More
