Supreme Court Urges Parliament to Strip Speakers of Anti-Defection Powers, Recommends Independent Tribunal

New Delhi – In a landmark judgment with profound implications for India's political landscape, the Supreme Court has strongly urged Parliament to amend the Constitution and divest Legislative Assembly Speakers of their power to adjudicate disqualification petitions under the Tenth Schedule. Citing chronic delays and potential political bias, the Court recommended the establishment of a permanent, independent tribunal—headed by a retired Supreme Court Judge or a retired High Court Chief Justice—to ensure swift and impartial resolution of anti-defection disputes.

The significant recommendation came in the case of Padi Kaushik Reddy v. State of Telangana, 2025 LiveLaw (SC) 755 , where the Court admonished a Speaker for over seven months of inaction on disqualification petitions, noting that such delays amount to "playing fraud on democracy." This judgment headlined a packed last week of July, which also saw crucial rulings on the new criminal code (BNSS), the mandatory registration of FIRs against police for custodial violence, and the inviolable right to appeal in GST matters.

---

Reforming the Tenth Schedule: A Call for an Independent Adjudicator

The core of the Court's ruling in Padi Kaushik Reddy addressed the systemic issue of Speakers, who are often members of the ruling party, failing to decide disqualification petitions in a timely manner. The bench observed that allowing such delays "frustrates the very purpose of the Tenth Schedule," which was intended to curb political defections and ensure stability.

The Court held that the Speaker, while acting under the Tenth Schedule, functions as a tribunal and is thus amenable to judicial review. However, it clarified that judicial intervention is confined to "jurisdictional errors," such as mala fides, violations of natural justice, or perversity. The Court was particularly critical of the fact that the Speaker only acted after the matter reached the apex court, deeming the seven-month delay as not “expeditious.”

"Allowing such delays frustrates the very purpose of the Tenth Schedule and amounts to 'playing fraud on democracy'," the Court declared, highlighting that the Speaker's failure to exercise jurisdiction warrants judicial interference.

Reiterating that judicial review is not available at a stage prior to the Speaker's decision, the Court carved out an exception for cases where inaction itself has "grave, immediate, and irreversible repercussions." In such exceptional circumstances, the Court affirmed its power to issue directions to the Speaker to decide petitions within a specified timeframe, preventing the anti-defection law from being "rendered otiose." The call for an independent tribunal marks a significant judicial push to insulate the anti-defection mechanism from political influence, aiming to restore its intended efficacy.

---

Key Rulings Across Criminal, Tax, and Service Law

The last week of the month saw a flurry of other important pronouncements from the Supreme Court, shaping legal interpretation across various domains.

BNSS: No Electronic Service for Police Notices Affecting Liberty

In a crucial interpretation of the new criminal procedure code, the Supreme Court in Satinder Kumar Antil v. Central Bureau of Investigation, 2025 LiveLaw (SC) 751 , ruled that notices issued by an investigating agency under Section 35 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (BNSS) cannot be served electronically via platforms like WhatsApp.

The Court drew a sharp distinction between a judicial summons issued by a court and an executive notice issued by the police. While the BNSS permits electronic service for court summons, the bench held that the legislature consciously excluded Section 35 notices from this provision because non-compliance can lead to arrest, directly impacting personal liberty under Article 21. The Court emphasized that where liberty is at stake, procedural safeguards must be strictly construed. "The procedure for a judicial act cannot be read into an executive act," the bench clarified, dismissing an application seeking to modify its earlier stance.

Custodial Violence: Mandatory FIR, No Preliminary Inquiry Against Police

In a powerful verdict championing fundamental rights, the Court in Khursheed Ahmad Chohan v. Union of Territory of Jammu & Kashmir, 2025 LiveLaw (SC) 732 , held that the police have no discretion and must mandatorily register an FIR when a complaint disclosing a cognizable offence of custodial violence is made, even against fellow police personnel. The Court explicitly barred any "preliminary inquiry" in such cases, warning that it could enable "institutional cover-ups."

The case involved a police constable who was himself a victim of brutal custodial torture. The Court condemned the registration of a counter-FIR against the victim as a "classic example of institutional abuse and perversion of criminal justice machinery." Finding a clear conflict of interest, the investigation was transferred to the CBI. Furthermore, the Court awarded the appellant Rs. 50 lakhs in compensation, reaffirming that pecuniary compensation is an effective remedy for the violation of Article 21 and the defense of sovereign immunity is inapplicable.

GST Law: Payment of Penalty Doesn't Forfeit Right to Appeal

In a significant relief for taxpayers, the Court in ASP Traders v. State of Uttar Pradesh, 2025 LiveLaw (SC) 739 , held that an assessee who pays the demanded tax and penalty for the release of goods detained in transit does not waive their statutory right to appeal. The Court interpreted Section 129(5) of the CGST Act, which deems proceedings "concluded" upon payment.

It ruled that "conclusion" in this context only means that no further prosecution will be initiated, but it does not dispense with the requirement for the proper officer to pass a formal, reasoned adjudication order (in Form GST MOV-09). The absence of such a speaking order, the Court held, frustrates the taxpayer’s statutory right to appeal under Section 107 and violates Article 265 of the Constitution.

Other Notable Judgments:

• Bail Conditions: In Gajanan Dattatray Gore v. State of Maharashtra , the Court deprecated the practice of granting bail based on an accused's undertaking to deposit money, directing that bail pleas must be decided strictly on their merits.
• Arbitration: In BGM and M-RPL-JMCT (JV) v. Eastern Coalfields , the Court held that a clause stating a dispute "may be sought" to be resolved through arbitration is merely an enabling clause and does not constitute a binding arbitration agreement without a further, explicit agreement.
• Quashing Petitions: The Court ruled in M.C. Ravikumar v. D.S. Velmurugan that a second petition under Section 482 CrPC on grounds available earlier is generally not maintainable, applying the principle of constructive res judicata.
• Retirement Age: In Subha Prasad Nandi Majumdar v. State of West Bengal Service , the Court struck down a classification that excluded out-of-state teaching experience for the purpose of extending retirement age, calling it "arbitrary" and intended to "sub serve only parochial interests."

---

Insights from the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal

In a parallel development, the Mumbai Bench of the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (ITAT) delivered a significant order in the case of J. Kumar Infraprojects Ltd. v. DCIT . The Tribunal quashed reassessment proceedings initiated under Section 148 of the Income Tax Act, 1961, because the sanction obtained from the Principal Commissioner of Income Tax under Section 151 was not signed, either manually or digitally.

Relying on High Court precedents, the ITAT held that an unsigned sanction is invalid and fails to confer jurisdiction on the Assessing Officer. "Authentication under section 282A(1) is a statutory mandate," the Tribunal noted, adding that an unsigned approval is void. This ruling reinforces strict procedural compliance for initiating reassessment, providing a crucial safeguard for assessees. On other issues, the Tribunal held that when unaccounted cash sales are detected, only the profit element should be taxed as income, not the entire gross receipts, provided the sales are part of regular business activities.