Searching Case Laws & Precedent on Legal Query.....!
Analysing the retrieved Case Laws
Scanned Judgements…!
Searching Case Laws & Precedent on Legal Query.....!
Analysing the retrieved Case Laws
Scanned Judgements…!
References:- Padi Kaushik Reddy Etc. VS State Of Telangana And Others Etc. - Supreme Court, Hoshyar Singh Chambyal VS Hon’ble Speaker, H. P. Legislative Assembly - Himachal Pradesh, Girish Chodankar VS Speaker , Goa State Legislative Assembly - Bombay, Anosh Ekka S/o Shri Anand Kumar Ekka VS Alamgir Alam - Jharkhand, Ambika Roy VS Hon’ble Speaker, West Bengal Legislative Assembly - Calcutta, Secretary Tamil Nadu Legislative Assembly vs P. Sivakumar @ Thayagam Kavi - Madras, Alleti Maheshwar Reddy vs The State of Telangana - Telangana, Padi Kaushik Reddy VS State of Telangana - Telangana, Beghar Foundation through its Secretary VS Justice K . S. Puttaswamy (Retd. ) - Supreme Court, Janata Dal: Janata Dal: Harinder Singh Chowdhary: Janata Dal: Communist Party Of India (Marxist) : Indian Congress (Socialist) By General Secretary: Union Of India: Union Of India: P. Nalla Thampy Thera VS H. S. Chowdhary: H. S. Chowdhary: Union Of India: H. S. Chowdhary: H. S. Chowdhary: H. S. Chowdhary: H. S. Chowdhary: Honble High Court Of Delhi: Union Of India - Supreme Court, S. P. Gupta: V. M. Tarkunde: J. L. Kalra: Iqbal M. Chagla: Lily Thomas: A. Rajappa: Union Of India: D. N. Pandey: R. Prasad Sinha VS Union Of India: Union Of India: Union Of India: P. Shivshankar: Union Of India: Union Of India: P. Subramanian: Union Of India: K. B. N. Singh - Supreme Court, A. K. Gopalan VS State Of Madras - Supreme Court, Sidhartha Vashisht @ Manu Sharma VS State (NCT of Delhi) - Supreme Court, RONALD KIANDEE & ANOR vs DATO JOHARI ABDUL & ORS - High Court Malaya Kuala Lumpur, Supreme Court Collegium Recommends Key Judicial Appointments and Limits Trial Court Sentencing Powers - Supreme Court, Decoding 'Commercial Dispute' Under India's Commercial Courts Act: A Judicial Maze - Supreme Court, Karnataka HC: Judicial Officers Must Avoid Inconsistent Orders to Preserve Public Trust - High Court of Karnataka, Supreme Court Grants Six Weeks for Disabled Cadets' Rehab Scheme - Supreme Court
In the dynamic world of Indian parliamentary democracy, the Speaker plays a pivotal role as an impartial arbiter, especially in matters like member disqualifications under the Tenth Schedule. But a pressing question arises: Office of the Speaker Subject to Judicial Review? This issue strikes at the balance between legislative autonomy and constitutional checks. Recent judicial pronouncements have clarified that while the Speaker's decisions enjoy significant deference, they are not entirely immune from court scrutiny. This blog post delves into the nuances, drawing from Supreme Court rulings and key precedents to provide a comprehensive overview.
Note: This article offers general information based on established case law and is not a substitute for professional legal advice. Consult a qualified lawyer for specific matters.
The office of the Speaker is subject to judicial review, but within limited and well-defined boundaries. Courts typically intervene only in cases of jurisdictional errors, mala fides (bad faith), violations of natural justice, or perversity. Judicial review does not extend to the substantive correctness of the Speaker’s decision unless such grave errors are proven. This principle upholds the Speaker's quasi-judicial authority while safeguarding constitutional integrity. NABAM REBIA, AND BAMANG FELIX VS DEPUTY SPEAKER - 2016 5 Supreme 227
As affirmed in multiple rulings, The Speaker’s decision on disqualification under the Tenth Schedule is generally protected from judicial interference, but this immunity is not absolute. NABAM REBIA, AND BAMANG FELIX VS DEPUTY SPEAKER - 2016 5 Supreme 227
Judicial review is permissible on specific, narrow grounds:- Jurisdictional Error: When the Speaker exceeds the scope of authority under the Tenth Schedule.- Mala Fides: Decisions motivated by bias or ulterior motives. Zachilhu VS Thenucho, Speaker, Nagaland Legislative Assembly, Kohima, Nagaland - 1992 0 Supreme(Gau) 17- Violation of Natural Justice: Failure to provide a fair hearing or reasoned orders.- Perversity: Decisions so unreasonable no sensible authority could arrive at them. Zachilhu VS Thenucho, Speaker, Nagaland Legislative Assembly, Kohima, Nagaland - 1992 0 Supreme(Gau) 17
The Supreme Court has consistently held that judicial review is permissible when there is proof of jurisdictional error, mala fides, violation of principles of natural justice, or perversity. Zachilhu VS Thenucho, Speaker, Nagaland Legislative Assembly, Kohima, Nagaland - 1992 0 Supreme(Gau) 17
Moreover, the finality clause in Paragraph 6 of the Tenth Schedule does not oust judicial oversight entirely. Courts retain power to check for ultra vires actions or procedural lapses, as this jurisdiction forms part of the Constitution's basic structure. Babulal Marandi VS Tribunal of the Speaker under Schedule-X of the Constitution, Jharkhand Vidhan Sabha, Dhurwa, Ranchi - 2023 0 Supreme(Jhk) 902L. Chandra Kumar VS Union Of India - 1997 3 Supreme 147
The Speaker acts in a quasi-judicial capacity under Para 2(1)(a) of the Tenth Schedule, deciding on disqualifications for defection. This role is rooted in parliamentary traditions and does not violate constitutional principles per se. The office of the Speaker is held in high esteem and is integral to parliamentary democracy; thus, the investiture of adjudicatory functions in the Speaker does not by itself violate constitutional principles. Kihoto Hollohan VS Zachillhu - 1992 0 Supreme(SC) 169
However, this does not grant absolute immunity. In NABAM REBIA, AND BAMANG FELIX VS DEPUTY SPEAKER - 2016 5 Supreme 227, the Court noted: the power of review which, it is suggested by counsel for the respondents, inheres in the Speaker by necessary implication has to be found in the provisions made in the Tenth Schedule alone, and not elsewhere.
Courts refrain from re-appreciating evidence or merits. Review is confined to whether the decision was within jurisdiction and free from vices like mala fides. The Supreme Court in Babulal Marandi VS Tribunal of the Speaker under Schedule-X of the Constitution, Jharkhand Vidhan Sabha, Dhurwa, Ranchi - 2023 0 Supreme(Jhk) 902 and L. Chandra Kumar VS Union Of India - 1997 3 Supreme 147 held that judicial review is confined to examining whether the decision was made within the jurisdiction, whether there was mala fides, or whether principles of natural justice were violated. The finality clause limits merits-based challenges but not those on constitutional grounds. Zachilhu VS Thenucho, Speaker, Nagaland Legislative Assembly, Kohima, Nagaland - 1992 0 Supreme(Gau) 17
High Courts under Articles 226/227 and the Supreme Court under Article 32 can intervene if decisions are arbitrary or breach natural justice, as this is part of the basic structure. Union of India VS Cipla Ltd. : Martin & Harris Laboratories Ltd. - 2016 8 Supreme 13
Judicial review extends beyond disqualifications. For instance, the Speaker's satisfaction on a member's resignation is reviewable: It is constitutionally impermissible for the Speaker to take into account any other extraneous factors while considering the resignation. The satisfaction of the Speaker is subject to judicial review. Shivraj Singh Chouhan VS Speaker Madhya Pradesh Legislative Assembly - 2020 Supreme(SC) 302 - 2020 0 Supreme(SC) 302 Courts cannot fetter the Speaker's inquiry into whether a resignation is voluntary but can check for extraneous considerations.
Similarly, in defection cases, Resignation and disqualification... both result in vacancy... This satisfaction of the Speaker is subject to judicial review. SHRIMANTH BALASAHEB PATIL VS HON’BLE SPEAKER, KARNATAKA LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY - 2019 Supreme(SC) 1254 - 2019 0 Supreme(SC) 1254 The anti-defection law's object—to curb political defections—does not shield flawed processes.
On Money Bills, certification under Article 110 is reviewable, as seen in references to R.C. Cooper and Kihoto Hollohan, overruling contrary views. Rojer Mathew VS South Indian Bank Ltd. - 2020 7 Supreme 580 - 2020 7 Supreme 580
Under Para 2(1)(a), the Speaker functions in a quasi-judicial capacity, which makes an order passed by him... subject to judicial review. P. C. GEORGE VS HON'BLE SPEAKER, KERALA LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY - 2016 Supreme(Ker) 242 - 2016 0 Supreme(Ker) 242
Decisions on Bills, inaction, or delays are also amenable post-decision, not pre-emptively. Courts exercise restraint to avoid disrupting legislative functions but review for illegality or undue delay. Padi Kaushik Reddy Etc. VS State Of Telangana And Others Etc. - Supreme CourtHoshyar Singh Chambyal VS Hon’ble Speaker, H. P. Legislative Assembly - Himachal Pradesh
Judicial review ensures accountability without undermining autonomy: Judicial review is considered an integral part of the constitutional framework. Ambika Roy VS Hon’ble Speaker, West Bengal Legislative Assembly - Calcutta
Concerns about disruption exist, but review is confined to clear illegality. Secretary Tamil Nadu Legislative Assembly vs P. Sivakumar @ Thayagam Kavi - Madras
The Office of the Speaker is subject to judicial review on limited grounds, ensuring accountability in India's constitutional democracy. This framework respects the Speaker's role while protecting against abuse. Key takeaway: Decisions are final but not infallible—courts stand guard against jurisdictional oversteps, mala fides, or injustice.
For deeper insights, review cited precedents. Stay informed on evolving jurisprudence.
Ultimately, the decision of the Speaker on the question of disqualification is subject to judicial review. ... judicial review the order of the Speaker has to be interfered with. ... This Court, therefore, observed that the Speaker of the Maharashtra Legislative Assembly was the appropriate constitutional authority to decide the question of disqualific....
This satisfaction of the Speaker is subject to judicial review.” ... parameters of judicial review. ... The decisions taken by the constitutional authorities such as the Speaker, are subject to judicial review, however, at a stage prior to the decision having been taken, the Courts should show restraint in exercising....
error which attracted jurisdiction of the High Court in exercise of the power of judicial review." ... error which attracted jurisdiction of the High Court in exercise of the power of judicial review. ... time, there is clearly an error which attracts jurisdiction of the High Court in exercise of the power of judicial review. ... Learned Advocate General hence urged that the ju....
Under Para-2 of the Tenth Schedule to the Constitution, the Speaker discharges quasi-judicial functions, which makes an order passed by him in such capacity, subject to judicial review.” ... In view of the limited scope of judicial review that is available on account of the finality clause in paragraph 6 and also having regard to the constitutional intendment and the st....
To prescribe a judicial review of Assembly privileges can disturb the functions of the House and cause complications. ... The Scope of judicial review extends only to the acts of illegality inside the Assembly and does not extend to the acts of procedural irregularity. ... The question arises, whether the High Court, in exercise of the powers of judicial review, can set aside the 'SCN' i....
The power of the Speaker to adjudicate upon an application filed for disqualification of a member of Assembly has been held to be quasi-judicial in nature, which is subject to judicial review by the Courts. ... In case the office occupied by the person concerned is of public nature, a writ of quo-warranto always lies. The principles applicable for judicial rev....
is subject to judicial review, has kept intact the power of judicial review under Article 110(3). ... I also agree with his views that keeping in view the high office of the Speaker, the scope of judicial review in such matters is extremely restricted. If two views are possible then there can be no manner of doubt that the view of the....
A rider must be attached to the application though i.e., unless the matter for judicial review is amenable to judicial review absolutely no success may be envisaged. ... Pardons Board, State of Pahang & Ors [2002] 2 MLRA 121; [2002] 4 MLJ 529; [2002] 4 CLJ 529; [2002] 4 AMR 4785 where it was said: The prerogative of mercy was amongst the powers that was not susceptible to judicial review....
The grievance of the petitioner, being that the Speaker has not even initiated the process of disqualification, is subject to judicial review. ... In the aforesaid decision, the issue whether direction can be issued to the Speaker for deciding a disqualification petition was considered and it was held that inaction of the Speaker to decide the petitions within a reasonable time will be ....
The grievance of the petitioner, being that the Speaker has not even initiated the process of disqualification, is subject to judicial review. ... It has been held in KIHOTO HOLLOHAN’s case (supra) case that failure to exercise Constitutional mandate by the Speaker is subject to judicial review. 30. ... Agarwal, J.J, the judicial #HL_....
It is constitutionally impermissible for the Speaker to take into account any other extraneous factors while considering the resignation. The satisfaction of the Speaker is subject to judicial review." It is in the above context that the inquiry by the Speaker or Chairman (as the case may be) has to be understood. The Court cannot fetter the discretion of the Speaker to conduct an inquiry into whether a resignation is "voluntary" or "genuine".
c. Resignation and disqualification on account of defection under the Tenth Schedule, both result in vacancy of the seat held by the member in the legislature, but further consequences envisaged are different. This satisfaction of the Speaker is subject to judicial review. d. Object and purpose of the Tenth Schedule is to curb the evil of political defection motivated by lure of office or rather similar considerations which endanger the foundation of our democracy. ....
Hence, the decisions in Mohd Syed Siddiqui and Yogendra Kumar on the above aspect do not lay down the correct position in law and are overruled. The Aadhaar (Targeted Delivery of Financial and Other Subsidies, Benefits and Services) Bill 2016 was certified as a Money Bill under Article 110 by the Speaker of the Lok Sabha. D. Puttaswamy: Judicial review of the certificate of the Speaker.
The scope of paragraph 2(1)(a) of the Tenth Schedule to the Constitution, therefore, enables the Speaker in a quasi-judicial capacity to declare that a Member of the House stands disqualified for the reasons mentioned in para 2(1)(a) of the Tenth Schedule to the Constitution.” On the question of justiciabiltiy of the Speaker’s order on account of the expression of finality in paragraph 6 of the Tenth Schedule to the Constitution, it has now been well-settled that such finality did not include ....
Under Para 2(1)(a) of the Tenth Schedule, the Speaker functions in a quasi-judicial capacity, which makes an order passed by him in such capacity, subject to judicial review. Therefore it is beyond any pale of doubt that the quasi-judicial decisions of the Speaker on the resignation and disqualification of the petitioner as a member of the Kerala Legislative Assembly is open to judicial review. The scope of Para 2(1)(a) of the Tenth Schedule to the Constitution, therefore, en....
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
