In a recent legal case, the court examined the extent of the Speaker’s power in disqualification cases, focusing on the legal analysis rather than specific parties involved. The judgment delves into the nuances of the law, exploring the boundaries of the Speaker’s authority in such matters. Stay tuned to unravel the intricacies of the legal system in action.
Arguments
- The argument raised by the petitioner’s counsel, Mr. Kapil Sibal, was that the Speaker has inherent powers to pass restrictions like the one impugned in the case.
- It was contended that even if the Constitution provides for specific provisions, the Speaker should still have additional powers to impose penalties.
- However, the Court disagreed with this contention, stating that giving the Speaker broad inherent powers would go against the express provisions of the Constitution.
- The contention that the Speaker should have the power to bar a disqualified Member from contesting re-election was also rejected as not being inherent to the Speaker’s role.
- Respondents argue for a stricter model of disqualification for individuals who switch party lines.
- They propose severe penal consequences for those attempting to do so.
- The Speaker does not have the power to indicate the disqualification period or bar someone from contesting elections under the 10 Schedule.
- The Speaker’s direction in his order exceeded his power according to Mr. Kamat.
- The issue of the correctness of the order of disqualification by the Speaker is not addressed as the Legislative Assembly is no longer functioning.
- The Court is focused on examining the Speaker’s directions in paragraph 28 of his order in light of the law laid down by the Supreme Court in Shrimanth Balasaheb Patil case.
- The Speaker was deemed to have overstepped his jurisdiction by issuing directions beyond those related to disqualification.
- All questions regarding disqualification are left unanswered in this judgment.
- The directions unrelated to disqualification issued by the Speaker in paragraph 28 of his Order are set aside.
- The appeals are disposed of with no costs incurred.
Also Read: Balancing Power and Transparency: Electoral Bonds Struck Down, Disclosure Mandated
Case Title: GYANENDRA KUMAR SINGH AND ORS. ETC Vs. BIHAR LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY PATNA AND ANR ETC ETC (2022 INSC 1030)
Case Number: C.A. No.-005463-005464 / 2015
