Taken to task: The Supreme Court is right in pushing Speakers to act decisively on defections, Pg 6

Key Highlights

Frequent Political Defections

• Rising trend of post-election defections seen in Manipur, Maharashtra, Telangana, undermining democratic mandates.

• Speakers (often from ruling parties) delay action on disqualification pleas, violating constitutional morality.

Judiciary’s Intervention

• SC reiterated that courts can direct Speakers to act within a reasonable period, though not dictate outcomes.

• In 2023, the Court set deadlines (e.g., for Maharashtra Speaker) after observing undue delays.

Systemic Challenges

• Speakers’ partisan role leads to biased adjudication.

• 2020 SC judgment suggested independent tribunal to decide defections — no action by Parliament yet.

Structural Reforms Needed

• Suggested constitutional amendment to strip Speakers’ exclusive powers over defections.

• Emphasis on time-bound, impartial decision-making to uphold democratic integrity.

Analysis & Way Forward

• The Court’s stance strengthens institutional accountability.

• Parliament must amend the Tenth Schedule to introduce neutral adjudicatory bodies, ensuring quick redressal of defection cases.

Mains Mock Question:

_"The Speaker's partisan role in adjudicating defection petitions undermines democratic values. Do you agree? Propose reforms to strengthen the anti-defection mechanism."_