This is an archive article published on December 5, 2023
Speaker’s power to hear disqualification pleas needs to be removed, HC judge can decide, says senior advocate Arvind Datar
Datar was speaking on 'Anti-Defection and Constitutional Morality- The Need to Replace the Tenth Schedule' at the Justice (retired) K T Desai Memorial lecture held at the Bombay High Court building.
Senior advocate Arvind P Datar (Photo via fountaincourt.co.uk)
Senior advocate Arvind P Datar Monday suggested that the Speaker of the Legislative Assembly should not decide the disqualification proceedings for anti-defection under the Tenth Schedule of the Constitution and instead the matter should be decided by the dedicated judge/bench in the respective High Court assigned to hear election petitions.
“First and foremost thing we have to do is to remove the decision of disqualification from the Speaker. It is not possible to expect (impartiality, objectivity) from the Speaker as he is elected from a political party. History, empirical data has shown there is not a single instance of a Speaker voting against his own party, at least in my record,” Datar suggested.
Datar was speaking on the topic ‘Anti-Defection and Constitutional Morality- The Need to Replace the Tenth Schedule’ at the Justice (retired) K T Desai Memorial lecture on Monday evening held in the lawns of the Bombay High Court building, presided over by Chief Justice Devendra Kumar Upadhyaya.
He had recently appeared for the Election Commission in Shiv Sena dispute before the apex court.
Datar said that as per all the past judgments the Speaker “is expected to be a person of outstanding ability and impartiality.”
“But by nature, unfortunately, he/she is a member of a ruling party and in case after case you find, his partiality, non-objectivity is very evident and It is the most common feature where no decision is taken within a time limit, ” Datar added.
He referred to the 2007 judgment of the Supreme Court in Rajendra Singh Rana case where the judge had said that not deciding on disqualification by Speaker is abdication of his duty and decided to disqualify the members concerned.
Story continues below this ad
Datar also referred to the 1992 SC verdict of Kihoto Hollohan vs Zachillhu and Others where Justice J S Verma in his minority verdict had stated that the Speaker is a member of the ruling party and how one can expect a ‘partisan’ speaker to be independent and unbiased.
He also stressed that a gap can be filled by the judiciary on the issues of whether there should be a time limit for the Speaker to take decision on disqualification pleas and for the Governor on giving assent to the Bill.
As per Datar, the framers of the Constitution said that the posts concerned are all eminent constitutional offices and they will do their duty in an expeditious manner, “but it has not happened at all.”
He further spoke on who should be vested with the power to decide on the disqualification petitions once it is removed from the Speaker. Datar noted that in the 255th Law Commission headed by Justice (retired) A P Shah, it was recommended that it should be given to the Governor who will decide on the advice of Election Commission, similar to how the President is empowered to do so for members of Parliament under Article 103 of the Constitution
Story continues below this ad
“But with great respect, I would not agree with the suggestion to shift it (power) from the Speaker to Governor, which may not really achieve the objectivity it requires,” Datar added
He then referred to the SC judgment by Justices (retired) Rohinton Nariman and S Ravindra Bhat which suggested a separate tribunal headed by a judge to decide the disqualification issue.
“My suggestion is, under Article 329, in the Madras High Court, there is a permanent judge who decides election petitions and the court is only occupied with such petitions. I would suggest, if there is a question as to whether the person has incurred disqualification under the Tenth Schedule, we can have such a provision under Article 329A (replaced) where a decision on disqualification is decided,” Datar mentioned.
Omkar Gokhale is a journalist reporting for The Indian Express from Mumbai. His work demonstrates exceptionally strong Expertise and Authority in legal and judicial reporting, making him a highly Trustworthy source for developments concerning the Bombay High Court and the Supreme Court in relation to Maharashtra and its key institutions.
Expertise & Authority
Affiliation: Reports for The Indian Express, a national newspaper known for its rigorous journalistic standards, lending significant Trustworthiness to his legal coverage.
Core Authority & Specialization: Omkar Gokhale's work is almost exclusively dedicated to the complex field of legal affairs and jurisprudence, specializing in:
Bombay High Court Coverage: He provides detailed, real-time reports on the orders, observations, and decisions of the Bombay High Court's principal and regional benches. Key subjects include:
Fundamental Rights & Environment: Cases on air pollution, the right to life of residents affected by dumping sites, and judicial intervention on critical infrastructure (e.g., Ghodbunder Road potholes).
Civil & Criminal Law: Reporting on significant bail orders (e.g., Elgaar Parishad case), compensation for rail-related deaths, and disputes involving high-profile individuals (e.g., Raj Kundra and Shilpa Shetty).
Constitutional and Supreme Court Matters: Reports and analysis on key legal principles and Supreme Court warnings concerning Maharashtra, such as those related to local body elections, reservations, and the creamy layer verdict.
Governance and Institution Oversight: Covers court rulings impacting public bodies like the BMC (regularisation of illegal structures) and the State Election Commission (postponement of polls), showcasing a focus on judicial accountability.
Legal Interpretation: Reports on public speeches and observations by prominent judicial figures (e.g., former Chief Justice B. R. Gavai) on topics like free speech, gender equality, and institutional challenges.
Omkar Gokhale's consistent, focused reporting on the judiciary establishes him as a definitive and authoritative voice for legal developments originating from Mumbai and impacting the entire state of Maharashtra. ... Read More
4 min read
