Introduction
Under the Tenth Schedule of the Indian Constitution—introduced by the 52nd Amendment, 1985—the Speaker or Chairman of a legislature is empowered to decide whether a member should be disqualified on grounds of defection. Although this places significant authority with a political role, judicial review has clarified limits and weaknesses in the system. The Supreme Court has consistently emphasized the need for neutrality, prompt decisions, and accountability in disqualification proceedings.
Constitutional Provision & Judicial Framework
Scope and Authority (Paragraph‑6, Tenth Schedule)
-
The Speaker is the sole authority to adjudicate defection cases once a petition is presented by a party or disciplinary figure. Courts otherwise lack jurisdiction over this initial decision.
The Times of India+14Indian Kanoon+14Live Law+14Manorama Yearbook
Limits on Speaker’s Jurisdiction (Paragraph‑4 & 6)
-
A Speaker cannot independently initiate inquiries—they must act when a reference is made under paragraph 6, not under paragraph 4 regarding splits or mergers.
Indian Kanoon
Judicial Review (Kihoto Hollohan, 1992)
-
The Supreme Court held that while the Speaker’s decisions are final within the legislature, they are subject to judicial review on grounds like bias, mala fide intent, perversity, or procedural violation. Full exclusion from court review was struck down.
WikipediaWikipedia
Timeliness of Decisions (2020 Supreme Court)
-
The Court mandated that Speakers must decide disqualification petitions within 3 months, unless there are special circumstances, to prevent indefinite delay.
TheLawmatics+13Live Law+13Drishti IAS+13
Controversies & Delayed Decisions
Speaker’s Political Bias and Delay
-
Speakers are often affiliated with the ruling party, which has led to accusations of partiality in disqualification decisions.
Drishti IAS+1Manorama Yearbook+1 -
Example: In Manipur, petitions to disqualify seven defecting MLAs were delayed for years. The SC intervened to expedite rulings.
The Times of India+4Drishti IAS+4Manorama Yearbook+4
Notable Instances of Delay
-
In Haryana vs Kuldeep Bishnoi, courts intervened as the Speaker refused to act, prompting high court orders suspending MLAs from exercising legislative functions.
The Pioneer+5Indian Kanoon+5Indian Kanoon+5 -
In Rajasthan (2025), despite a court upholding MLA Kanwarlal Meena’s conviction, Speaker Vasudev Devnani delayed initiating disqualification proceedings, triggering political backlash.
The Times of India+2The Times of India+2The Times of India+2
Legal Clarifications & Speaker’s Limitations
Speaker Cannot Impose Additional Sanctions
-
The Supreme Court ruled the Speaker cannot ascribe consequences such as withholding pension or debarment from contests beyond disqualification itself.
Law Insider
No Power under Paragraph‑4 Splits/Mergers
-
Courts have held that speakers lack authority to adjudicate splits or mergers unless triggered through a formal disqualification petition.
Indian Kanoon
Major Criticisms of the Current Regime
-
Conflict of Interest: As partisan figures, Speakers lack independence in defection matters.
Frontline+1Manorama Yearbook+1 -
Procedural Opacity: Lack of transparency and rule-making leads to inconsistent decisions.
Manorama Yearbook -
Absence of timelines initially enabled strategic delays and political maneuvering.
Manorama Yearbook+10The Pioneer+10Indian Kanoon+10
Reform Proposals & Way Forward
Permanent Independent Tribunal (Supreme Court Suggested)
-
In Keisham Meghachandra Singh (2020), the SC recommended replacing the Speaker with an independent tribunal led by retired judges to decide defection cases impartially.
Wikipedia+15KSG India+15India Today+15
Time-Bound Adjudication
-
Judicial directions suggest a maximum three-month timeline for decision, extendable once with valid justification.
Live Law+1The Pioneer+1
Disentangling Political Affiliation
-
Speaker’s quasi-judicial function should be separated from their political identity to ensure neutrality.
FrontlineManorama Yearbook
Implications for Indian Democracy
| Domain | Key Implication |
|---|---|
| Legislative Integrity | A neutral tribunal can restore confidence in anti-defection enforcement decisions. |
| Judicial Oversight | Courts remain essential in checking Speaker excesses and procedural failure. |
| Federal Governance | Consistent and impartial decisions strengthen democratic stability across states. |
| Reform Momentum | Growing consensus exists for constitutional amendment to institutionalise change. |
Conclusion
While the Speaker has constitutional authority to adjudicate on defection under the Tenth Schedule, repeated delays, perceived bias, and limited transparency have weakened the effectiveness of the anti-defection framework. The Supreme Court has laid down clear expectations—timely decisions, judicial review, and impartiality. Yet, the call for an independent adjudicating body remains urgent to restore democratic integrity and uphold constitutional ethics in legislative conduct.