Keisham Meghachandra Singh Vs The Hon’ble Speaker Manipur Legislative Assembly : Case Summary
The Supreme Court in Keisham Meghachandra Singh Vs. Hon’ble Speaker Manipur Legislative Assembly (Civil Appeal No. 547 of 2020 ) has held that if speaker refrains from taking a decision within reasonable time, it is within jurisdiction of the High Court or the Supreme Court to give direction to the Speaker for determination.
Facts Of The Case
None of the political parties had secured majority in 11th Manipur Legislative Assembly conducted in March, 2017. Congress emerged as largest party and secured 28 seats and BJP secured 28 seats. BJP staked claim for forming government and the same was permitted by the Governor. Respondent No. 3, who was set up as a candidate by congress, supported the government formed by BJP and was also appointed minister. Various applications were filed with the speaker for disqualification of Respondent No. 3. These applications were not being determined by the Speaker as such petitions were filed before the High Court. The High Court held that it has power to issue direction to the Speaker but refused to give any relief as similar issue was pending before the Constitution Bench of the Supreme Court.
Findings Of The Court
Appeals were filed before the Supreme Court. Additional Solicitor General appearing on behalf of the Speaker relying on reference to larger bench in S.A. Sampath Kumar v. Kale Yadaiah and Ors. SLP(C) No. 33677/2015 has requested the Court to await the pronouncement by the larger bench. The supreme Court observed that there is no need to await the judgment in light of judgment of the Supreme Court in Rajendra Singh Rana and Ors. Vrs-Swami Prasad Maurya and Ors. reported in (2007) 4 SCC 270, which has also been delivered by five judge bench.
The Supreme Court noted that it has held in Kihoto Hollohan v. Zachillhu & Ors. (1992) Supp. (2) SCC 65 that the power to resolve dispute under tenth schedule is a judicial power. Finality of decision under Para 6 (1) of the Tenth Schedule does not bar judicial review under Article 136, 226 or 227. But judicial review is limited to violations of constitutional mandates, mala fides, non-compliance with Rules of Natural Justice and perversity. Such judicial review is not available at a stage prior to making of a decision by the Speaker. No quia timet actions are permissible.
The Supreme Court observed that Rajendra Singh Rana has dealt with exactly the same issue and held that when a speaker refrains from deciding a petition within a reasonable time, there was clearly an error which attracted jurisdiction of the High Court in exercise of the power of judicial review.
The Supreme Court held that the same result would ensue even after reading Kihoto Hollohan. Relevant para is as under:
28. A reading of the aforesaid decisions, therefore, shows that what was meant to be outside the pale of judicial review in paragraph 110 of Kihoto Hollohan (supra) are quia timet actions in the sense of injunctions to prevent the Speaker from making a decision on the ground of imminent apprehended danger which will be irreparable in the sense that if the Speaker proceeds to decide that the person be disqualified, he would incur the penalty of forfeiting his membership of the House for a long period. Paragraphs 110 and 111 of Kihoto Hollohan (supra) do not, therefore, in any manner, interdict judicial review in aid of the Speaker arriving at a prompt decision as to disqualification under the provisions of the Tenth Schedule. Indeed, the Speaker, in acting as a Tribunal under the Tenth Schedule is bound to decide disqualification petitions within a reasonable period. What is reasonable will depend on the facts of each case, but absent exceptional circumstances for which there is good reason, a period of three months from the date on which the petition is filed is the outer limit within which disqualification petitions filed before the Speaker must be decided if the constitutional objective of disqualifying persons who have infracted the Tenth Schedule is to be adhered to. This period has been fixed keeping in mind the fact that ordinarily the life of the Lok Sabha and the Legislative Assembly of the States is 5 years and the fact that persons who have incurred such disqualification do not deserve to be MPs/MLAs even for a single day, as found in Rajendra Singh Rana (supra), if they have infracted the provisions of the Tenth Schedule.
The Supreme Court also made recommendations for constitution of permanent tribunal under a retired judge of the Supreme Court for adjudication of disputes on account of defection under 10th Schedule.
The Supreme Court refused to determine the disqualification petition as it was prerogative of the speaker but directed the speaker to determine the same within four weeks.
_______________________________________________
Mukesh Kumar Suman is an advocate and legal author based at Delhi. He regularly appears before various Judicial Forums including NCLT, NCLAT, High Courts and the Supreme Court. He can be approached at mukesh_suman@outlook.com or +91 9717864570.