Not powerless against mockery of anti-defection law, SC tells Telangana

Supreme Court reprimanded the Telangana CM and assembly speaker over alleged MLA defections. The court asserted its power to enforce the anti-defection law, especially when the speaker delays disqualification decisions. The bench highlighted its role as a constitutional protector and warned against making a mockery of the 10th Schedule.

NEW DELHI: With the Telangana assembly speaker arguing that a court could not direct a speaker to decide on disqualification of MLAs who allegedly defected to another party, Supreme Court Wednesday said as a protector of the Constitution, it was not powerless to pass an order when "mockery of the 10th Schedule ", pertaining to the anti-defection law, was being made. A bench of Justices B R Gavai and A G Masih also took exception to Telangana CM Revanth Reddy 's statement in the assembly that no by-elections would take place even if BRS MLAs switched sides to Congress. Observing that a statement made in the assembly had sanctity unlike political speeches given in a public rally, the bench said if this was said on the floor of the House, then the CM was "making a mockery of the 10th Schedule".

The court was also surprised over the submission by senior advocate Mukul Rohatgi, on behalf of the speaker, that courts could not direct and fix a timeline for deciding disqualification pleas. Rohatgi said disqualification pleas pending before a speaker were beyond judicial review. "Judicial review is not permissible before a decision is taken by the speaker," he said, adding that court could just request the speaker in this case.

SC questions Telangana Speaker's inaction The court, however, asked what would happen if an MLA defected after one month of election and the Speaker did not take a decision for five years and the tenure of assembly came to an end. "No direction can be passed to take a decision in a particular way but it can be directed that the decision is taken within a reasonable time. If the Speaker does not act at all, then the courts in this country, which not only have a power but also a duty as guardians of the Constitution, would not be powerless," the bench said.

"We have all respect for the separation of powers doctrine. But when a particular constitutional provision has been made with a particular aim and objective, should courts permit that to be frustrated?" the bench asked. The hearing will continue on Thursday.

.