The Supreme Court of India expressed concern on Wednesday over the prolonged delay by Lok Sabha Speaker Om Birla in addressing disqualification petitions against 20 Trinamool Congress (TMC) MPs who defected from the party. The apex court, led by Chief Justice of India (CJI) Surya Kant, along with Justices Joymalya Bagchi and V Mohana, indicated that the three-month delay poses a ‘red flag’ in the context of the nation’s democratic processes.
The petitions, filed by TMC MP Abhishek Banerjee, request the Speaker to expedite the decision-making process regarding the disqualification of these MPs under the Tenth Schedule of the Constitution, commonly known as the anti-defection law [Abhishek Banerjee v. Speaker Lok Sabha & Ors]. Justice Bagchi highlighted the significance of the delay, noting its potential impact on related legal and democratic proceedings.
Background of the Case
The controversy began in June when 20 TMC MPs announced their departure from the party, declaring allegiance to the Nationalist Citizens Party of India (NCPI). Following this, Banerjee filed 20 separate petitions on June 18, asserting the MPs had voluntarily resigned from TMC, thus warranting their disqualification.
Previous Supreme Court rulings, such as in Keisham Meghachandra Singh v Speaker, Manipur Legislative Assembly, have established that disqualification petitions should generally be resolved within a reasonable timeframe, ideally within three months, barring exceptional circumstances.
Arguments and Court’s Response
Senior Advocate Kalyan Banerjee, representing Abhishek Banerjee, argued that the disqualification proceedings cannot be indefinitely delayed. He cited the Supreme Court’s prior judgments on similar issues, emphasizing the necessity for timely resolutions.
Conversely, Solicitor General Tushar Mehta, representing the Speaker, opposed the imposition of a strict timeline. He contended that the Speaker, as a constitutional functionary, should decide based on a thorough evaluation of evidence and arguments, ensuring all parties are adequately heard.
Supreme Court’s Observations
While acknowledging the Speaker’s constitutional role, Justice Bagchi reminded that the responsibility of the office includes timely adherence to procedural timelines. He stressed that while the court does not wish to enforce a rigid deadline, it is crucial for the Speaker to act in accordance with constitutional duties.
Chief Justice Kant reiterated the court’s stance on the importance of completing such proceedings within a reasonable time, reflecting the court’s earlier observations on judicial timelines.
More Read
Ultimately, the Supreme Court decided to keep the petition active, seeking periodic updates on the proceedings from the Speaker’s office, without imposing a specific deadline.
Solicitor General Mehta acknowledged the court’s position, indicating that the MPs are currently preparing their responses, which would require approximately four weeks. The court set the next hearing for six weeks later to review the progress.
