SC Removes Speaker Immunity in Defection Cases
Why focus: SC ruling on 10th Schedule & Articles 122/212 — core GS2 Polity, highly probable Assertion-Reason on Speaker's constitutional immunity.
In News
What Happened
Why It Matters
Background
History & Context
What Changed
- ▶
BEFORE: Speakers often delayed disqualification decisions indefinitely, claiming immunity from court directives under Articles 122 and 212 of the Constitution. NOW: The Supreme Court explicitly removed this immunity for Tenth Schedule matters, ruling that the Speaker acts as a tribunal, not in a legislative capacity.
- ▶
BEFORE: Courts generally waited for the Speaker to make a final decision before intervening, leading to prolonged delays where defectors often completed their electoral terms. NOW: Courts can issue time-bound directives (like the three-month deadline) to compel the Speaker to decide disqualification petitions.
- ▶
BEFORE: The distinction between the Speaker's legislative functions and adjudicatory functions under the Tenth Schedule was often blurred to avoid judicial scrutiny. NOW: The judgment clearly isolates the adjudicatory role, making it strictly amenable to judicial review and administrative deadlines.
Prelims Angle
NCERT Connection
Practice Questions
Q1
Correct Statement(s)Which of the following statements is/are correct regarding the powers of the Speaker under the Tenth Schedule? 1. The Supreme Court has ruled that the Speaker enjoys absolute immunity from judicial review under Articles 122 and 212 while deciding defection cases. 2. According to the Kihoto Hollohan judgment (1992), the Speaker acts as a tribunal when deciding disqualification petitions.