Judgment

M.M. Punchhi, CJI.—I have bestowed great care in reading the two elaborate but sharply cleaving draft judgments prepared by my learned brethren, K.T. Thomas, J. and M. Srinivasan, J. resting on the provisions con­tained in the Tenth Schedule of the Constitution. I need to emphasise at the outset, in the context above, the importance of recording of events which take place in the House, which means either House of Parliament or the Legislative Assembly or, as the case may be, either House of the Legislature of a State, because Clause (b) of Paragraph 3 provides that ‘from the time of such split, such faction shall deem­ingly become the political party. The Speaker/Chairman in the nature of his role when informed of a split is administratively the time keeper and he has to be definite in respect of the time of such split. Or is there any scope for procrastination? He is the Tribunal undoubt­edly for quasi-judicial purpose.

2. In Kihoto Hollohan v. Zachillhu & Ors.1, the majority, in Paragraph 109, has summed up the nature of the function exercised by the Speak­er/Chairman under Paragraph 6(1) to be that of a Tribunal and the scope of judicial review under Articles 136, 226 and