Three months have passed since the disqualification petitions were filed, and the Lok Sabha Speaker is yet to decide them. That, the Supreme Court said, is a ‘red flag’. Hearing a plea over the delay in deciding petitions against 20 breakaway Trinamool MPs, Justice Joymalya Bagchi asked why a matter of “moments” with repercussions for the democratic process had not been concluded, though the Court stopped short of fixing a deadline for the Speaker.
New Delhi: The Supreme Court has termed the three-month period taken so far by Lok Sabha Speaker Om Birla to decide the disqualification petitions against 20 rebel Trinamool Congress (TMC) MPs a “red flag” [Abhishek Banerjee v. Speaker, Lok Sabha and Others].
A Bench of Chief Justice of India Surya Kant, Justice Joymalya Bagchi and Justice V. Mohana was hearing a plea by TMC MP Abhishek Banerjee seeking an expeditious decision on the petitions.
‘A red flag’
Justice Bagchi observed that the delay was significant given the possible consequences of the pending proceedings. “There are cases and cases. A few months may be a red flag and that is well taken… three months have lapsed. Why have you not finished it, when it is a matter of moments and has repercussions in various collateral proceedings and also the democratic process of the country?” he asked.
The observation drew on the Supreme Court’s decision in Keisham Meghachandra Singh v. Speaker, Manipur Legislative Assembly, in which the Court had held that disqualification petitions should ordinarily be decided within a reasonable period, indicating three months as the outer limit in the absence of exceptional circumstances.
The timeline
The dispute arose in June, when 20 TMC Lok Sabha MPs broke away from the party and announced that they had joined the Nationalist Citizens Party of India (NCPI), also seeking recognition as a separate group in the Lower House. Banerjee filed 20 separate disqualification petitions before the Speaker on June 18, alleging that the MPs had voluntarily given up their membership of the TMC and were liable to be disqualified under the Tenth Schedule of the Constitution, the anti-defection law.
Senior Advocate Kalyan Bandopadhyay, for Banerjee, told the Court that the Speaker had issued notices to the 20 MPs on August 5, giving them 14 days to respond; the MPs sought more time, the deadline was extended to September 22, and a further extension had now been sought. He argued that the proceedings could not be kept pending indefinitely, relying on Keisham Meghachandra Singh.
The Speaker’s response, and the Court’s balance
Solicitor General Tushar Mehta, for the Speaker, opposed the fixing of a judicial timeline, submitting that the Speaker had already issued notices and that the MPs had to be given an opportunity to respond. “The Court may not consider fixing any time limit. The Speaker is expected to know what is supposed to be done. Everyone will have to be given an opportunity,” he submitted, adding that the Speaker was a constitutional functionary and that the proceedings could involve the consideration of evidence and arguments.
The Court acknowledged that the Speaker was a constitutional authority and that individual cases could require different amounts of time. Justice Bagchi clarified that the Court was not seeking to impose an inflexible timeline, but to remind the Speaker of the responsibility attached to the office, and, in a note of self-reflection, observed: “The Speaker has an ambivalent role because the Speaker is the head of the legislative wing of the Constitution. We are the adjudicatory heads of the Constitution. And how much adherence have we shown to our own timelines?” He added that while the Speaker must apply himself to his constitutional role, there were “cases and cases”, an open-and-shut dispute and a contested one, and the office needed “that elbow space too”.
The CJI observed that the Court’s earlier observations on timelines were intended to ensure the completion of proceedings. Ultimately, the Court decided not to prescribe a specific deadline, but to keep the petition alive and seek a view on the progress of the proceedings before the Speaker within a reasonable time. The Solicitor General said he would consider the Court’s suggestion but made no commitment on a timeline, and stated that the MPs were in the process of filing replies and would require four weeks. The matter was posted for hearing after six weeks.
Why it matters
The “red flag” remark captures the concern at the heart of the anti-defection framework: that delay in deciding a disqualification petition can defeat its very purpose. If an allegedly disqualified member continues to sit and vote while the petition languishes, the object of the Tenth Schedule, to penalise defection and preserve the integrity of the House, is frustrated, and, as Justice Bagchi noted, the delay can have repercussions in collateral proceedings and for the democratic process itself. That is why Keisham Meghachandra Singh set three months as the ordinary outer limit, and why the Court flagged the lapse of that period here.
Yet the Court’s handling reflects the constitutional delicacy of the situation. The Speaker, when deciding a disqualification petition, acts as a quasi-judicial tribunal, but is also the head of the legislative wing, an “ambivalent role”, in Justice Bagchi’s phrase, that the judiciary is wary of directing too closely. The Court’s candid acknowledgment of its own record on timelines, and its allowance of “elbow space” for contested cases, explain why it chose to remind and monitor rather than command, keeping the petition alive to track progress instead of fixing a deadline.
Nothing has been decided on the disqualification itself. The Speaker is yet to rule, the MPs are yet to file their replies, and the Supreme Court has passed no direction, posting the matter after six weeks. Whether the 20 MPs are ultimately disqualified, or their conduct is found to fall outside the Tenth Schedule, remains for the Speaker to determine; the Supreme Court’s present concern is confined to ensuring that the decision, whichever way it goes, is not indefinitely deferred.
Case Title: Abhishek Banerjee v. Speaker, Lok Sabha and Others
Bench: Chief Justice of India Surya Kant, Justice Joymalya Bagchi and Justice V. Mohana, Supreme Court of India
Appearances: Senior Advocate Kalyan Bandopadhyay for the petitioner; Solicitor General Tushar Mehta for the Speaker.
Status: Court termed the three-month delay a ‘red flag’ but declined to fix a deadline; petition kept alive to monitor progress. MPs to file replies within four weeks; matter posted after six weeks. Disqualification undecided.