KEISHAM MEGHACHANDRA SINGH versus THE HON’BLE SPEAKER MANIPUR LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY & ORS.

Citation: [2020] 2 S.C.R. 132 · Decided: 21-01-2020 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: R.F. NARIMAN · Disposal: Disposed off

Cited by 2 judgment(s) · cites 2 · see the full citation network in Lexace

Judgment (excerpt)

A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
132
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[2020] 2 S.C.R.
KEISHAM MEGHACHANDRA SINGH
v.
THE HON’BLE SPEAKER MANIPUR LEGISLATIVE
ASSEMBLY & ORS.
(Civil Appeal No. 547 of 2020)
JANUARY 21, 2020
[R. F. NARIMAN, ANIRUDDHA BOSE AND
V.  RAMASUBRAMANIAN, JJ.]
Constitution of India – Tenth Schedule – Disqualification of
a candidate nominated in Legislative Assembly elections on ground
of defection – The election for the 11th Manipur Legislative Assembly
was conducted in March, 2017 – None of the political parties were
able to secure a majority i.e. 31 seats in a Legislative Assembly of
60 seats in order to form the Government – The Congress Party
emerged as the single largest party with 28 seats and BJP with 21
seats – The respondent no. 3 contested as a candidate nominated
and set up by the Congress party and was duly elected – On
12.03.2017, respondent no. 3 along with various BJP members met
the Governor of the State and staked a claim for forming a BJP-led
Government – Thereafter, the respondent no. 3 was sworn in as a
Minister in BJP-led government – Applications were filed before
the Speaker of the legislative Assembly between April and July, 2017
seeking disqualification of the respondent no. 3 under paragraph
2(1)(a) of the Tenth Schedule – No action was taken by the Speaker
– Held: It is clear from a reading of the judgment in Rajendra Singh
Rana and S.A. Sampath Kumar that a failure to exercise jurisdiction
vested in a Speaker cannot be covered by the shield contained in
paragraph 6 of the Tenth Schedule, and 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 – Further, Kihoto Hollohan do not
in any manner, interdict judicial review in aid of the Speaker arriving
   [2020] 2 S.C.R. 132
132
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
133
at a prompt decision as to disqualification under the provisions 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 – 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 the
disqualification petition 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 – The only relief
that can be given in these instant appeals is that the Speaker of the
Legislative Assembly be directed to decide the disqualification
petitions pending before him within a period of four weeks from the
date on which this judgment is intimated to him.
Words and Phrases – "Quia timet" – Discussed.
Disposing of the appeals, the Court
Held: 1. It is clear from a reading of the judgment in
Rajendra Singh Rana and, in particular, the underlined portions
of paragraphs 40 and 41 that the very question referred by the
Two Judge Bench in S.A. Sampath Kumar has clearly been
answered stating that a failure to exercise jurisdiction vested in
a Speaker cannot be covered by the shield contained in paragraph
6 of the Tenth Schedule, and 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. [Para 22][154E-F]
Rajendra Singh Rana v. Swami Prasad Maurya (2007)
4 SCC 270 : 2007 (2) SCR 591; S.A. Sampath Kumar
v. Kale Yadaiah and Ors. SLP(C) No. 33677/2015 –
relied on
2. Indeed, the same result would ensue on a proper reading
of Kihoto Hollohan. Paragraphs 110 and 111 of the said judgment
KEISHAM MEGHACHANDRA SINGH v. THE HON’BLE SPEAKER
MANIPUR LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
134
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[2020] 2 S.C.R.
when read together would make it clear that what the finality
clause in paragraph 6 of the Tenth Schedule protects is the
exclusive jurisdiction that vests in the Speaker to decide
disqualification petitions so that nothing should come in the way
of deciding such petitions. The exception that is made is also of
importance in that interlocutory interference with decisions of
the Speaker can only be qua interlocutory disqualifications or
suspensions, which may have grave, immediate, and irreversible
repercussions. Indeed, the Court made it clear that judicial
review is not available

Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.