Constitution unclear on disqualification petitions in AP and Telangana
Before formation of TS and AP in 2014, there were a few instances of Speakers delaying their decisions.
Hyderabad: In a way, the Supreme Court’s decision on Tuesday, in referring a key issue to the five-member Constitutional Bench that whether Higher Courts can exercise their writ jurisdiction over a matter that is under consideration of a Speaker, especially on deciding disqualification of Members on the grounds of defection, will provide much relief once for all as there are umpteen such petitions pending for disposal by the Presiding Officers, particularly in TS and AP.
In both states, and even before bifurcation, there had been large-scale defections of MLAs and the respective Presiding Officers had preferred a slow approach to suit their political interests rather than disposing the petitions seeking their disqualification in a fair and fast manner.
They claimed immunity under the 10th Schedule of the Constitution, Para 6, of which states that the Speaker is the final authority in deciding any matter connected to disqualification of a member.
Para 6 (2) says all proceedings on these matters are deemed to the proceedings of Parliament within the meaning of Article 122 and Assembly within the meaning of Article 212, which again states any proceedings of the House cannot be called in question by any court.
Before formation of TS and AP in 2014, there were a few instances of Speakers delaying their decisions. Interestingly, TRS was the victim when it petitioned against nine of its MLAs who had proposed the candidature of an Independent in the MLC elections in 2007, seeking their disqualification from then Speaker K.R. Suresh Reddy who took almost two years and at the end of the term of that particular Assembly pronounced his verdict.
However, the delay was also from the TRS, which filed a case in High Court and then moved the Supreme Court seeking direction to the Speaker for early disposal of their petitions. However, the Apex Court had said that it could not interfere in the matter as it was the exclusive domain of the Speaker to decide on such matters.
After formation of Telangana, TRS came to power with 63 MLAs, and over 25 Legislators switched their loyalties to it without resigning their memberships.
Petitions filed by the Opposition during the last 2.5 years seeking disqualification of the defectors are lying undecided with the Speaker.
Same was the case in AP, where more than 20 Legislators from Opposition YSR Congress defected to the ruling TD, and petitions seeking their disqualification are still pending with the AP Assembly Speaker.
Similar petitions filed by the YSRC Parliamentary Party against the defections of Nandyal MP S.P.Y. Reddy and Araku MP Kottapalli Geetha have not been disposed till date by the Lok Sabha Speaker.
Though recently a single Judge Bench of the Hyderabad High Court had directed the TS Assembly Speaker to take a decision on the petitions filed against a Telugu Desam MLA’s defection to the TRS within three months, an appeal against the direction is pending. When YSR Congress filed a petition on similar grounds, the High Court single judge referred the matter to the Division Bench.
The Supreme Court in a rightful manner has now decided to refer the matter to a large Constitutional Bench to decide whether or not courts (High Court and Supreme Court) can interfere in these matters and issue directions to Presiding Officers while the disqualification petitions are still under his consideration.