Supreme Court Directs Speaker to Expedite Disqualification Decision in Manipur Assembly Case

The case of Keisham Meghachandra Singh vs. The Hon’ble Speaker, Manipur Legislative Assembly & Others was a significant ruling concerning the delay in deciding disqualification petitions under the Tenth Schedule of the Constitution. The Supreme Court had to determine whether the Speaker’s inaction in deciding a disqualification petition within a reasonable timeframe warranted judicial intervention.

Background of the Case

The case revolved around the elections for the 11th Manipur Legislative Assembly, conducted in March 2017. The Indian National Congress (Congress Party) won 28 seats, while the Bharatiya Janata Party (BJP) secured 21 seats in a 60-member Assembly. Since no party had an outright majority, alliances were formed.

Respondent No. 3, a candidate elected on a Congress Party ticket, was among those who joined the BJP-led government. On March 15, 2017, he was sworn in as a Minister in the BJP-led government. Soon after, disqualification petitions were filed against him under paragraph 2(1)(a) of the Tenth Schedule of the Constitution, which deals with defection.

Arguments by the Petitioner

The petitioner, Keisham Meghachandra Singh, made the following arguments:

Respondent No. 3 voluntarily gave up his membership of the Congress Party by becoming a Minister in the BJP-led government.
The disqualification petitions, filed between April and July 2017, remained undecided for over two years.
The Speaker’s inaction in deciding the petitions amounted to a failure in discharging his constitutional duties.
The delay was intentional, meant to allow the respondent to continue as an MLA and Minister despite the clear case of defection.

Arguments by the Respondent

The respondents, including the Speaker of the Manipur Legislative Assembly, countered with the following arguments:

The Speaker had exclusive jurisdiction to decide on disqualification petitions under the Tenth Schedule.
Judicial intervention was not warranted as a larger bench of the Supreme Court was already examining the issue of judicial review over the Speaker’s discretion.
The petitions were pending because of the complexity of the legal questions involved.
Issuing a writ of quo warranto to remove Respondent No. 3 as a Minister was not legally permissible.

High Court Ruling

The Manipur High Court held that:

The Speaker must decide on disqualification petitions within a reasonable timeframe.
By joining the BJP-led government, Respondent No. 3 had incurred disqualification under paragraph 2(1)(a) of the Tenth Schedule.
The delay in deciding the petitions was unjustified.
However, since the issue of judicial intervention in such cases was pending before a Constitution Bench of the Supreme Court, the High Court refrained from issuing further directions.

Supreme Court Judgment

The Supreme Court examined the case and ruled that the Speaker’s inaction was unconstitutional. The Court observed:

“A failure to exercise jurisdiction vested in a Speaker cannot be covered by the shield contained in paragraph 6 of the Tenth Schedule. The Speaker, in acting as a Tribunal under the Tenth Schedule, is bound to decide disqualification petitions within a reasonable period.”

The Court further noted:

Disqualification petitions must be decided within three months from the date of filing, unless exceptional circumstances exist.
The Speaker’s inaction amounted to a violation of constitutional mandates.
Since the life of the Manipur Legislative Assembly was set to continue until March 2022, judicial intervention was necessary.
The Court could not directly disqualify the MLA, as that power was vested in the Speaker under the Constitution.

Legal Precedents Considered

The Supreme Court referred to several key rulings:

Kihoto Hollohan vs. Zachillhu & Others – Establishing the Speaker’s role as a Tribunal under the Tenth Schedule.
Rajendra Singh Rana vs. Swami Prasad Maurya – Holding that the Speaker’s failure to decide disqualification petitions amounts to jurisdictional illegality.
Nabam Rebia vs. Deputy Speaker, Arunachal Pradesh Legislative Assembly – Affirming that the Speaker’s decisions under the Tenth Schedule are subject to judicial review.

Final Outcome

The Supreme Court issued the following directives:

The Speaker of the Manipur Legislative Assembly must decide the pending disqualification petitions within four weeks.
If no decision is made within this period, any party involved may approach the Supreme Court for further relief.
The Manipur High Court’s judgment dated July 23, 2019, was set aside.
The Speaker’s failure to act within a reasonable timeframe would be subject to judicial review.

This ruling reaffirmed the constitutional duty of the Speaker to decide disqualification petitions expeditiously and strengthened judicial oversight over legislative proceedings to prevent abuse of power.

Petitioner Name: Keisham Meghachandra Singh.
Respondent Name: The Hon’ble Speaker, Manipur Legislative Assembly & Others.
Judgment By: Justice R. F. Nariman, Justice Aniruddha Bose, Justice V. Ramasubramanian.
Place Of Incident: Manipur.
Judgment Date: 21-01-2020.

Don’t miss out on the full details! Download the complete judgment in PDF format below and gain valuable insights instantly!

Download Judgment: Keisham Meghachandra vs The Hon’ble Speaker, Supreme Court of India Judgment Dated 21-01-2020.pdf

Direct Downlaod Judgment: Direct downlaod this Judgment

See all petitions in Fundamental Rights
See all petitions in Constitution Interpretation
See all petitions in Legislative Powers
See all petitions in Public Interest Litigation
See all petitions in Judgment by Rohinton Fali Nariman
See all petitions in Judgment by Aniruddha Bose
See all petitions in Judgment by V. Ramasubramanian
See all petitions in partially allowed
See all petitions in Remanded
See all petitions in supreme court of India judgments January 2020
See all petitions in 2020 judgments

See all posts in Election and Political Cases Category
See all allowed petitions in Election and Political Cases Category
See all Dismissed petitions in Election and Political Cases Category
See all partially allowed petitions in Election and Political Cases Category