Parliament’s job to rein in partisan speakers: Supreme Court | India News – Times of India

New Delhi: Supreme court It said on Thursday that Parliament has to legislate and provide a time limit for the decision of disqualification petitions against MLAs. speakers, who have recently taken a partisan approach to prolong the decision on such pleas to benefit the ruling system.
dealing with a public interest litigation, which sought a direction to the Speakers to expeditiously dispose of the disqualification petitions and argued that the delayed decision negated the mandate of the anti-defection provisions of the Constitution, a bench of Chief Justice N.V. live and Justice A.S. bopanna And Hrishikesh Roy said, “How can we make a law giving time limit to Speakers to decide disqualification petitions? It is a matter of deliberation and decision of Parliament.”
The Supreme Court had from time to time expressed displeasure over the inordinate delay on the part of the Speakers in deciding such petitions. In January 2020, an SC bench headed by Justice RF Nariman had set a deadline of three months Manipur Legislative Assembly Speaker to decide on disqualification petition.
a bench headed by Justice Ramana, November 23, 2019 Shrimant B. Patil v. President Karnataka Legislative Assembly, had made a detailed analysis of the issues that are undermining the effectiveness of the Tenth Schedule of the Constitution, which was inserted to prevent money and inducement for defection of legislators from one party to another.
Justice Ramana had observed, “In any case, there is an increasing trend of speakers acting against the constitutional duty of being neutral. In addition, political parties indulge in horse-trading and corrupt practices, which have led to citizens being forced into stable governments. In these circumstances, Parliament needs to reconsider the strengthening of certain aspects of the Tenth Schedule, so as to discourage such undemocratic practices.”
The bench had also observed, “We need to note that the Speaker, being a neutral person, is expected to act independently during the proceedings of the House or the decision of any petition. The constitutional responsibility given must be followed honestly. His political affiliation may not come in the way of the decision. If the Speaker is not able to break away from his political party and behaves contrary to the spirit of neutrality and independence, then such a person does not deserve to be coveted with the public’s trust and confidence.”
On Thursday, petitioner Ranjit Mukherjee told the Supreme Court that the actions of presidents of various states, and their failure to act in time in the event of recent political defection, are arbitrary.
“The action of the Speakers in this regard is not bound by any clear guidelines or time-limits. Undue and malicious delay on the part of the Speakers goes against the very motives and causes. anti-defection law. Lastly, not holding defectors accountable frustrates the mandate of the public… There is an urgent need to lay down guidelines to govern the conduct of Chairmen/Presiding Officers. houses, and providing a time-frame within which they must act if the provisions of the Tenth Schedule are to be meaningfully implemented. Not doing so threatens the integrity of Indian democracy,” said the petitioner through advocate Abhishek Bajaj.

.

Leave a Reply