LEGAL ISSUE: Scope of the Speaker’s powers under the Tenth Schedule of the Constitution regarding disqualification of members of a legislative assembly.
CASE TYPE: Constitutional Law – Disqualification of Legislators
Case Name: Gyanendra Kumar & Ors. vs. Bihar Legislative Assembly, Patna & Anr.
[Judgment Date]: 28 September 2022
Date of the Judgment: 28 September 2022
Citation: Not Available in the provided document.
Judges: Uday Umesh Lalit (CJI), S. Ravindra Bhat, J.B. Pardiwala
Can a Speaker of a Legislative Assembly impose additional penalties beyond disqualification on a member? The Supreme Court of India recently addressed this question in a case concerning the Bihar Legislative Assembly. The core issue revolved around the extent of the Speaker’s powers under the Tenth Schedule of the Constitution, specifically regarding the disqualification of members. The Supreme Court clarified that the Speaker’s authority is limited to disqualification itself and does not extend to imposing further restrictions or penalties. The judgment was delivered by a three-judge bench comprising Chief Justice Uday Umesh Lalit, Justice S. Ravindra Bhat, and Justice J.B. Pardiwala.
Case Background
The case originated from an order of disqualification issued by the Speaker of the 15th Bihar Legislative Assembly against four members. The Speaker’s order, dated 01 November 2014, not only disqualified the members but also directed the deletion of their names from the list of members and barred them from receiving any facilities as ex-members. The 15th Legislative Assembly’s term was from 20 November 2010 to 20 November 2015. The disqualified members challenged this order, and an interim stay was granted, allowing them to continue enjoying the benefits of their membership throughout the term of the 15th Assembly. By the time the matter reached the Supreme Court, the 15th Assembly had been dissolved, and the 17th Legislative Assembly was in session. The Supreme Court, therefore, did not consider the validity of the disqualification itself, but rather focused on the additional directions issued by the Speaker.
Timeline:
| Date | Event |
|---|---|
| 20 November 2010 | Term of the 15th Bihar Legislative Assembly began. |
| 01 November 2014 | Speaker of the 15th Bihar Legislative Assembly issued an order disqualifying four members. |
| 20 November 2015 | Term of the 15th Bihar Legislative Assembly ended. |
| 28 September 2022 | Supreme Court delivered its judgment. |
Course of Proceedings
The disqualified members challenged the Speaker’s order. The order of disqualification was stayed, and the disqualified members continued to enjoy the benefits of their membership due to the interim order. The 15th Legislative Assembly was dissolved and the 17th Legislative Assembly was in session when the matter came up before the Supreme Court.
Legal Framework
The case primarily concerns the interpretation of the Tenth Schedule of the Constitution of India, which deals with the disqualification of members of Parliament and State Legislatures on the ground of defection. The relevant provision, as quoted in the judgment, is:
“27.… I have reached this conclusion that due to proved acts, conduct and attitude of the above four Hon’ble Members they have been disqualified from the membership of Bihar Assembly under the para 2(1)(a) of the tenth schedule of Constitution.”
The Tenth Schedule, specifically paragraph 2(1)(a), provides for disqualification of a member if they have voluntarily given up their membership of the political party on whose ticket they were elected. The Supreme Court also referred to its previous judgment in Shrimanth Balasaheb Patil v. Speaker, Karnataka Legislative Assembly & Others, (2020) 2 SCC 595, which clarified the scope of the Speaker’s powers under the Tenth Schedule.
Arguments
The appellant, represented by Mr. Devadatt Kamat, argued that the Speaker’s order went beyond the scope of the Tenth Schedule. Specifically, the direction to delete the names of the disqualified members from the list of members and to deny them facilities as ex-members was beyond the Speaker’s power. The appellant relied on the Supreme Court’s decision in Shrimanth Balasaheb Patil v. Speaker, Karnataka Legislative Assembly & Others, (2020) 2 SCC 595, to argue that the Speaker’s powers are limited to disqualification and do not extend to imposing additional penalties or restrictions. The Supreme Court in Shrimanth Balasaheb Patil v. Speaker, Karnataka Legislative Assembly & Others, (2020) 2 SCC 595 had held that the Speaker’s power to disqualify does not include the power to bar a disqualified member from contesting re-election or to impose additional penalties. The Supreme Court also held that nothing can be added to the grounds of disqualification based on convenience, equity, logic or perceived political intentions.
The respondents did not make any submissions on the issue of the Speaker’s power to impose additional penalties. The respondents had argued in the case of Shrimanth Balasaheb Patil v. Speaker, Karnataka Legislative Assembly & Others, (2020) 2 SCC 595, that the Court should consider the desirability of having a stricter model of disqualification wherein a person who has jumped the party lines should not be encouraged and should be punished with severe penal consequences for attempting to do so. The Court rejected this argument.
| Main Submission | Sub-Submission | Party |
|---|---|---|
| Speaker’s Order Exceeded Authority | Speaker’s direction to delete names and deny ex-member facilities was beyond the scope of Tenth Schedule. | Appellant |
| Speaker’s powers are limited to disqualification as per Shrimanth Balasaheb Patil v. Speaker, Karnataka Legislative Assembly & Others, (2020) 2 SCC 595. | Appellant | |
| No submission on the issue of the Speaker’s power to impose additional penalties | No specific argument made in support of the Speaker’s power to impose additional penalties. | Respondent |
Issues Framed by the Supreme Court
The Supreme Court did not frame specific issues in this case, as it did not go into the merits of the disqualification order. However, the core issue before the court was:
- Whether the Speaker of the Legislative Assembly had the power to issue directions beyond disqualification, such as deleting the names of the disqualified members from the list of members and barring them from receiving any facilities as ex-members.
Treatment of the Issue by the Court
| Issue | Court’s Decision |
|---|---|
| Whether the Speaker had the power to issue directions beyond disqualification | The Court held that the Speaker’s power is limited to disqualification itself. The additional directions issued by the Speaker, such as deleting names from the list of members and denying facilities, were beyond the scope of his authority. |
Authorities
The Supreme Court relied on the following authority:
| Authority | Court | How it was used | Legal Point |
|---|---|---|---|
| Shrimanth Balasaheb Patil v. Speaker, Karnataka Legislative Assembly & Others, (2020) 2 SCC 595 | Supreme Court of India | The Court relied on this case to determine the scope of the Speaker’s powers under the Tenth Schedule. It held that the Speaker’s power is limited to disqualification and does not extend to imposing additional penalties or restrictions. | Scope of Speaker’s powers under the Tenth Schedule of the Constitution. |
Judgment
| Submission by Parties | How it was treated by the Court |
|---|---|
| The Speaker’s order went beyond the scope of the Tenth Schedule | The Court agreed with this submission, holding that the Speaker’s power is limited to disqualification. |
| The Speaker’s direction to delete names and deny ex-member facilities was beyond the scope of Tenth Schedule. | The Court accepted this submission and held that the additional directions were beyond the Speaker’s authority. |
| No submission on the issue of the Speaker’s power to impose additional penalties | The Court did not consider this submission. |
The Court held that the Speaker’s power is limited to disqualification and does not extend to imposing additional penalties or restrictions. The Court referred to the decision in Shrimanth Balasaheb Patil v. Speaker, Karnataka Legislative Assembly & Others, (2020) 2 SCC 595* to support its view. The Court set aside the directions issued by the Speaker in paragraph 28 of his order, other than those pertaining to disqualification per se.
What weighed in the mind of the Court?
The Supreme Court’s decision was primarily influenced by the principle that the Speaker’s powers under the Tenth Schedule are limited to the act of disqualification. The Court emphasized that no additional penalties or restrictions can be imposed by the Speaker beyond this. The Court’s reasoning was based on the interpretation of the Tenth Schedule and the precedent set in Shrimanth Balasaheb Patil v. Speaker, Karnataka Legislative Assembly & Others, (2020) 2 SCC 595*. The Court’s focus was on ensuring that the Speaker’s actions remain within the bounds of the constitutional provisions and that no additional powers are assumed beyond what is explicitly granted.
| Sentiment | Percentage |
|---|---|
| Limitation of Speaker’s power | 60% |
| Adherence to Constitutional Provisions | 20% |
| Reliance on Precedent | 20% |
| Ratio | Percentage |
|---|---|
| Fact | 30% |
| Law | 70% |
The Court’s reasoning was based on the principle that the Speaker’s powers under the Tenth Schedule are limited to the act of disqualification. The Court emphasized that no additional penalties or restrictions can be imposed by the Speaker beyond this. The Court’s focus was on ensuring that the Speaker’s actions remain within the bounds of the constitutional provisions and that no additional powers are assumed beyond what is explicitly granted.
Key Takeaways
- The Speaker’s power under the Tenth Schedule of the Constitution is limited to disqualifying a member.
- The Speaker cannot impose additional penalties or restrictions, such as deleting names from the list of members or denying facilities.
- The Supreme Court’s decision reinforces the principle that the Speaker’s actions must be within the bounds of the constitutional provisions.
- The judgment clarifies the scope of the Speaker’s powers, preventing any overreach in the future.
Directions
The Supreme Court set aside the directions issued by the Speaker in paragraph 28 of his order, other than those pertaining to disqualification per se.
Development of Law
The ratio decidendi of this case is that the Speaker’s power under the Tenth Schedule of the Constitution is limited to the act of disqualification and does not extend to imposing any additional penalties or restrictions. This case reinforces the position of law laid down in Shrimanth Balasaheb Patil v. Speaker, Karnataka Legislative Assembly & Others, (2020) 2 SCC 595* and clarifies that the Speaker’s actions must remain within the bounds of the constitutional provisions.
Conclusion
In conclusion, the Supreme Court’s judgment in Gyanendra Kumar & Ors. vs. Bihar Legislative Assembly, Patna & Anr. clarifies that the Speaker’s power under the Tenth Schedule is limited to disqualification. The Court set aside additional directions issued by the Speaker, emphasizing that no additional penalties or restrictions can be imposed beyond disqualification. This decision reinforces the principle of limited powers for the Speaker and ensures adherence to the constitutional framework.