The ongoing crisis in Manipur’s ruling party has brought the Speaker’s powers to disqualify under the Constitution into question. The Bharatiya Janata Party (BJP) formed the government in Manipur in 2017 after seven legislators of Congress joined the BJP. However, the Speaker did not act on the Congress party’s petitions requesting the disqualification of these seven members.
Background of the Issue
Under paragraph 2(1)(a) of the Tenth Schedule of the Constitution, an elected member of the house shall be disqualified from being a member if they win the election as a candidate of one party and then join another. The Speaker, usually a nominee of the ruling party, holds the power to carry out this disqualification. A crisis arose in the ruling party when four MLAs (out of the seven who had defected to the BJP in 2017) pledged their votes to the Congress, while the remaining three were disqualified.
The Supreme Court’s Role
In light of the 2016 SA Sampath Kumar vs Kale Yadaiah and Others case, which dealt with the disqualification of a Telangana MLA, the Supreme Court directed the Speaker of Manipur to make a decision on the disqualification within three months. The Supreme Court has questioned why a Speaker, being a member of a political party, should be the sole and final arbiter in the cases of disqualification of a political defector. Despite this, the Speaker did not rule on the pending disqualifications.
Action by the Manipur High Court
Similar orders were passed by the Manipur High Court based on the verdict of the Supreme Court, which then led the Speaker to finally rule on the petitions. The High Court reasoned that if the remedy under the Tenth Schedule is found to be ineffective due to deliberate inaction or indecision by the Speaker, then the court will have jurisdiction.
The Speaker and the Issue of Impartiality
The Speaker’s office has been regularly criticized for being an agent of partisan politics, particularly concerning the power to disqualify. The Supreme Court has highlighted similar allegations regarding the Speaker’s role, raising doubts about their impartiality. For instance, in the Kihoto Hollohan versus Zachillhu case (1992), one judge reasoned that bias in the Speaker’s role could not be dismissed as his/her election and tenure depend on the majority will of the House, or more specifically, of the ruling party.
Proposed Reforms
The Supreme Court has urged Parliament to reconsider the powers of the Speakers, citing instances of partisanship and suggesting the creation of independent tribunals to decide on disqualifications. In Britain, the Speaker is strictly non-partisan and is expected to resign from their party and remain politically neutral after taking office. A similar approach could be adopted in India by requiring Speakers to renounce all political affiliations, memberships, and activities once elected.
Disqualification under the Tenth Schedule
The Anti-Defection Law was passed in 1985 through the 52nd amendment to the Constitution, introducing the Tenth Schedule. The law was aimed at combating “the evil of political defections”. It states that a member of the House becomes disqualified from being a member if they voluntarily give up membership of their political party or vote against party directives without obtaining prior permission.
A Look at Exceptions and Powers of the Speaker in Relation to the Anti-Defection Law
Exceptions to disqualification on grounds of defection do exist in certain situations such as a merger between parties or if a member gives up party membership after being elected as the presiding officer of the House. With respect to the Anti-Defection Law, any questions regarding disqualification arising from defection are to be decided by the presiding officer of the House. However, following the Kihoto Hollohan case (1992), the Supreme Court declared that the decision of the presiding officer is subject to judicial review on grounds of malafide, perversity, etc.
Way Forward
Impartiality, fairness, and autonomy in decision-making are crucial for a robust institution. It is vital that Speakers operate without interference and pressure, which allows for an environment where they can work with absolute commitment to neutrality. India’s falling rank in the Democracy Index (2019) underscores the need for Parliament to take steps to revamp and strengthen the institution of the Speaker, which includes addressing structural issues related to their appointment and tenure.
Last Modified: February 7, 2024