Question 1

Courts cannot interfere in any matter concerning the internal proceedings of Parliament or State Assemblies.

Accepted Answer

Under Articles 122 and 212, courts cannot inquire into alleged 'irregularities of procedure'. However, deciding disqualifications under the Tenth Schedule is an adjudicatory function, not a legislative procedure, making it fully subject to judicial review.

Question 2

The Tenth Schedule of the Constitution sets a strict 3-month time limit for Speakers to decide disqualification cases.

Accepted Answer

The Tenth Schedule itself does NOT prescribe any time limit. The 3-month timeline is entirely a judicial construct stemming from Supreme Court precedents like Keisham Meghachandra (2020) and Padi Kaushik Reddy (2025).

Question 3

Consider the following statements regarding the adjudicatory powers of the Speaker under the Tenth Schedule:
1. The original text of the 52nd Constitutional Amendment Act completely barred the jurisdiction of courts in respect of any matter connected with the disqualification of a member.
2. When adjudicating defection cases, the Speaker is immune from judicial scrutiny under Article 122 and Article 212 of the Constitution.
3. The Supreme Court has the power to issue a writ of mandamus directing the Speaker to decide a disqualification petition within a specified timeframe.

How many of the above statements are correct?

Accepted Answer

(b) Only two — Statement 1 is correct: The original Paragraph 7 of the Tenth Schedule explicitly barred court jurisdiction, but it was struck down in the Kihoto Hollohan case (1992). Statement 2 is incorrect: The Supreme Court explicitly ruled in cases like Padi Kaushik Reddy (2025) that the Speaker does NOT enjoy constitutional immunity under Articles 122/212 when acting as a Tenth Schedule tribunal. Statement 3 is correct: Rulings like Keisham Meghachandra (2020) allow courts to intervene and mandate timelines if the Speaker unreasonably delays the decision.

Question 4

Match the landmark Supreme Court judgments regarding the Anti-Defection Law with their core legal pronouncements:

List I:
A. Kihoto Hollohan (1992)
B. Keisham Meghachandra Singh (2020)
C. Rajendra Singh Rana (2007)
D. Padi Kaushik Reddy (2025)

List II:
1. Speaker does not enjoy constitutional immunity as a tribunal and contempt proceedings can be initiated for timeline violations.
2. The Speaker acts as a tribunal and their final decisions are subject to judicial review.
3. The Supreme Court stepped into the Speaker's shoes and directly disqualified MLAs.
4. Established the 'three-month' reasonable time standard for Speakers to decide defection cases.

Accepted Answer

(a) A-2, B-4, C-3, D-1 — Kihoto Hollohan (A) established the Speaker as a tribunal subject to judicial review (2). Keisham Meghachandra (B) mandated that the Speaker must decide petitions within a reasonable period, typically three months (4). In Rajendra Singh Rana (C), the SC exceptionally bypassed the Speaker and disqualified UP MLAs directly (3). The Padi Kaushik Reddy case (D) explicitly stripped the constitutional immunity defense from the Telangana Speaker and resulted in contempt warnings (1).

Question 5

Assertion (A): Courts can issue a writ of prohibition to prevent a Speaker from initiating disqualification proceedings under the Tenth Schedule before a final decision is made.
Reason (R): The Supreme Court in the Kihoto Hollohan case stated that the Speaker acts as a tribunal and therefore all interim orders of the Speaker are subject to judicial review.

Select the correct answer:

Accepted Answer

(d) Both A and R are false. — Both statements are false. The Kihoto Hollohan judgment clearly stated that judicial review cannot be available at a stage prior to the making of a decision by the Speaker. 'Quia timet' actions (injunctions to stop future acts) are not permitted, meaning courts cannot issue writs of prohibition to stop the Speaker from processing a petition. Furthermore, Kihoto explicitly held that interlocutory (interim) orders are NOT subject to judicial review; only the final decision of the Speaker can be reviewed.

SC Strips Speaker of Immunity in Defection Cases

MSP Hike for Rabi Crops 2026-27