Supreme Court debates whether staying hand of Speaker from deciding disqualification petitions may be more of a caution than absolute principle

The Supreme Court of India was hearing the political crisis triggered in Maharashtra by the rebellion of the Eknath Shinde camp within the Shiv Sena. File
| Photo Credit: PTI

The Supreme Court on Thursday debated whether a 2016 judgment staying the hand of the Speaker, who is himself under a cloud, from deciding disqualification petitions under the anti-defection law may be more of a caution than an absolute principle.

A Constitution Bench led by Chief Justice of India D.Y. Chandrachud was piqued by senior advocate Harish Salve’s submission that the circumstances leading to the Nabam Rebia judgment in 2016 concerning Arunachal Pradesh politics were starker.

Mr. Salve said what the Supreme Court was really trying to say in the Nabam Rebia judgment was that the “actions of the Speaker” would be tested.

“The Speaker would be put to caution during the pendency of a motion for his removal… His actions will be tested,” the senior lawyer said.

“So, you don’t read Nabam Rebia as an absolute principle that the Speaker is disabled from exercising his jurisdiction when a motion for his removal is pending. It is a caution to the Speaker and ultimately it is for the Speaker to take a call whether there is frontal assault on his continuance or whether he would like to go ahead with the hearing of the disqualification petition,” Chief Justice Chandrachud paraphrased Mr. Salve’s submissions.

The court was hearing the political crisis triggered in Maharashtra by the rebellion of the Eknath Shinde camp within the Shiv Sena, which ultimately led to the fall of the Uddhav Thackeray government in 2022.