Revisit anti-defection law: SC to Parliament

Faced with the problem of inordinate delay in adjudication of disqualification applications, the Supreme Court on Thursday urged Parliament to revisit provisions of the Tenth Schedule of the Constitution, which empowers the Speaker of the House to decide a legislator's disqualification on the ground of political defection.

Acting on petitions filed by BRS MLAs Padi Kaushik Reddy and Kuna Pandu Vivekanand seeking disqualification of 10 BRS MLAs — who defected to the ruling Congress, a Bench led by CJI BR Gavai set a three-month deadline for Telangana Speaker to decide on the issue.

“We direct the Speaker to conclude the disqualification proceedings pending against the 10 MLAs pertaining to the present appeals/petition as expeditiously as possible and in any case, within a period of three months from the date of this judgment,” said the Bench which also included Justice AG Masih.

“We further direct that the Speaker would not permit any of the MLAs who are sought to be disqualified to protract the proceedings. In the event, any of such MLAs attempt to protract the proceedings, the Speaker would draw an adverse inference against such of the MLAs,” it said.

Allowing the petitions of Reddy and Vivekanand, the top court set aside judgment of the Division Bench of the Telangana High Court, which reversed a Single Judge’s direction to the Speaker to fix the schedule of hearing in four weeks.

“…a failure to issue any direction to the Speaker, in our view, would frustrate the very purpose for which the Tenth Schedule has been brought in the Constitution. If we do not issue any direction, it will amount to permitting the Speaker to repeat the widely criticised situation of ‘operation successful, patient died’,” it said.

“Though, we do not possess any advisory jurisdiction, it is for the Parliament to consider whether the mechanism of entrusting the Speaker/Chairman, the important task of deciding the issue of disqualification on the ground of defection, is serving the purpose of effectively combating political defections or not…” it noted.

“If the very foundation of our democracy and the principles that sustain it are to be safeguarded, it will have to be examined whether the present mechanism is sufficient or not. However, at the cost of repetition, we observe that it is for the Parliament to take a call on that,” the top court said.

“With the experience of over 30 years of working of the Tenth Schedule to the Constitution, the question that we will have to ask ourselves is as to whether the trust which the Parliament entrusted in the high office of the Speaker or the Chairman of avoiding delays in deciding the issue with regard to disqualification has been adhered to by the incumbents in the high office of Speaker and the Chairman or not?” it asked.

Added to the Constitution through the 52nd Amendment in 1985, the Tenth Schedule — popularly known as anti-defection law — envisages two circumstances when a lawmaker can be disqualified — if he/she voluntarily gives up membership of a party and when he/she votes/abstains from voting contrary to party directive.