The Supreme Court on Wednesday termed the 3-month period taken so far by Lok Sabha Speaker Om Birla to decide disqualification petitions against 20 rebel Trinamool Congress (TMC) Members of Parliament (MPs) a “red flag” [Abhishek Banerjee v. Speaker Lok Sabha & Ors].
A Bench of Chief Justice of India (CJI) Surya Kant and Justices Joymalya Bagchi and V Mohana a was hearing a plea filed by TMC MP Abhishek Banerjee seeking an expeditious decision on the disqualification petitions.
Justice Bagchi said that the delay was significant given the possible consequences of the pending disqualification proceedings.
“There are cases and cases. A few months may be a red flag and that is well taken. Mr Chandra's petition makes a red flag that 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?” questioned Justice Bagchi.
The dispute arose in June after 20 TMC Lok Sabha MPs broke away from the party and announced that they had joined the Nationalist Citizens Party of India (NCPI). The MPs had also sought recognition as a separate group in the Lower House.
Banerjee subsequently filed 20 separate disqualification petitions before Speaker Om Birla on June 18, alleging that the MPs had voluntarily given up their membership of TMC and were, therefore, liable to be disqualified under the Tenth Schedule of the Constitution (the anti-defection law).
Previously, in Keisham Meghachandra Singh v Speaker, Manipur Legislative Assembly, the Supreme Court had said that disqualification petitions should ordinarily be decided within a reasonable period. It indicated 3 months as the outer limit in the absence of exceptional circumstances.
On Wednesday, Senior Advocate Kalyan Banerjee, appearing for Abhishek 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 subsequently sought more time, following which the Speaker extended the deadline until September 22. A further extension has now been sought.
Banerjee argued that the proceedings could not be kept pending indefinitely. He referred to the Supreme Court's earlier judgment in Keisham Meghachandra Singh case, which dealt with delays in deciding disqualification petitions.
Solicitor General (SG) Tushar Mehta, appearing for the Speaker, opposed fixing a judicial timeline for the proceedings. He submitted that the Speaker had already issued notices and that the concerned 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,” said SG Mehta.
Mehta also argued that the Speaker was a constitutional functionary and that the proceedings could involve consideration of evidence and arguments.
Taking note of the submissions, the Court acknowledged that the Speaker was a constitutional authority and that individual cases could require different amounts of time. Justice Bagchi explained that the Court was not seeking to impose an inflexible timeline, but was reminding the Speaker of the responsibility attached to the office.
“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 said.
He then noted that the Speaker should nevertheless act in accordance with the constitutional responsibility attached to the office.
“The Speaker needs to apply himself to the constitutional role assigned. At the same time, there are cases and cases. A dispute may be an open-and-shut case; a dispute may be a contested one. So we need to give that elbow space too,” said Justice Bagchi.
CJI Kant also noted that the Court's earlier observations on timelines were intended to ensure completion of proceedings. The Court ultimately decided not to prescribe a specific deadline for the Speaker. Instead, it said that the plea would remain pending and that the Court would seek an update on the progress of the proceedings.
“What we intend to do...is to keep this petition alive and get a view of its progress at the end of the Speaker within a reasonable time.”
SG Mehta then said that he would consider the Court's suggestion, but did not make a commitment on a timeline. He later told the Court that the MPs were in the process of filing their replies and would require 4 weeks to do so.
The matter was accordingly posted for hearing after six weeks.
[Read Live Coverage]