|
The Supreme Court on Thursday allowed the plea filed by Bharat Rashtra Samithi MLAs seeking directions to the Speaker of the Telangana Legislative Assembly to decide on the disqualification petitions against the MLAs who had defected to the opposition Congress in the State.
A bench of Chief Justice of India (CJI) BR Gavai and Justice K Vinod Chandran directed the Speaker of the Telangana Assembly to decide over the disqualification petitions as expeditiously as possible and in any case within a three-month time. The bench also directed the Speaker of the Telangana Assembly not to allow any MLA to protract the process of disqualification. In case any MLA attempts to protract the proceedings, the Speaker is directed to draw an adverse inference against them. The Court issued its ruling on an appeal filed by the Bharat Rashtra Samithi (BRS) MLAs against a division bench decision of the Telangana High Court that had overturned a single-bench judgement of the High Court, which had ordered fixing of a schedule for the Telangana Speaker to decide over the disqualification petitions against the defected MLAs. The Court set aside the division bench's order and noted that the decision given by the High Court's single judge in having fixed a timeline for the Speaker to decide on the disqualification petitions did not require any interference. The Court in its judgement also acknowledged that it does not have advisory jurisdiction but stated that it is for Parliament to consider whether the current system, where the Speaker or Chairman decides disqualification cases under the Tenth Schedule, is effectively addressing political defections or not. "If the very foundation of our democracy and the principles that sustain it are to be safeguarded, it will have to be examined whether the present mechanism is sufficient or not. However, at the cost of repetition, we observe that it is for the Parliament to take a call on that", the Court noted in its judgement. However, the Court also held that in the present case, not issuing a direction to the Speaker would frustrate the very purpose of the Tenth Schedule. "If we do not issue any direction, it will amount to permitting the Speaker to repeat the widely criticised situation of 'operation successful, patient died'", the bench added. (ANI)
|
