Anti-Defection and Role of Speaker: SC Sets Tone in Ending Partisan Delays in Disqualification Cases

The Supreme Court's recent direction to the Telangana Assembly Speaker to decide within three months on the disqualification petitions against 10 MLAs who defected from BRS to Congress has once again brought the spotlight on the controversial role of Speakers in handling anti-defection cases.

- ATUL NATH JHA

While the Constitution entrusts the Speaker with the responsibility to act impartially and expeditiously in such matters, repeated delays and inaction—as seen in this case—raise serious concerns about the erosion of public trust in the office.

The Court's observations reflect a growing frustration with how partisan functioning is undermining the intent of the Tenth Schedule, prompting calls for institutional reform and greater accountability in the disqualification process.

Observers are of the view that the delay on the part of the Speaker of the Telangana Assembly has, in fact, once again exposed the deep rot in India's anti-defection regime—turning a high constitutional office into a political pawn of the ruling party.

The Supreme Court's judgment directing the Speaker to decide within three months the disqualification pleas against 10 defected BRS MLAs is not just a stinging rebuke, but a much-needed reminder that the Speaker's office is not a plaything of the party in power.

The facts are simple and damning. After 10 BRS MLAs defected to the Congress post the November 2023 Telangana Assembly elections, their disqualification petitions were filed with the Speaker in March-April 2024. For over seven months, the Speaker didn't even issue notices. It was only when the matter reached the doors of the Supreme Court that the Speaker woke from his politically convenient slumber.

Let that sink in: The Speaker—tasked with ensuring the sanctity of the House—refused to act for seven months on petitions challenging defections.

Observers say this is not inaction; it is deliberate obstruction. Is it not the abuse of constitutional trust for partisan gain?