The Supreme Court on Thursday (July 31) recommended to the Parliament to reconsider the provisions of the Tenth Schedule of the Constitution which entrust the Speaker of the House with the task of deciding a legislator’s disqualification on the ground of defection.

The Court’s suggestion was prompted by the recurring instances of Speakers delaying decisions on disqualification petitions, allowing the matter to remain pending till the expiry of the term of the Assembly, thereby enabling the defectors to escape scot-free.

A bench comprising Chief Justice of India BR Gavai and Justice AG Masih, while criticising the Telangana Speaker over the delay in deciding the disqualification petitions against ten BRS MLAs who defected to the Congress, urged the Parliament to revisit these provisions. The bench observed that the Constitution 52nd Amendment, which added the Tenth Schedule to the Constitution, made the Speaker the deciding authority with the objective of ensuring that the disqualification petitions wouldn’t face the procedural delays in the regular Courts. So, if the Speakers are keeping the matters pending, it would frustrate the objective of the Tenth Schedule.

The judgment authored by CJI BR Gavai appealed to the Parliament :

“Though we do not possess any advisory jurisdiction, it is for the Parliament to consider whether the mechanism of entrusting the Speaker/Chairman with the important task of deciding the issue of disqualification on the ground of defection is serving the purpose of effectively combating political defections or not. If the very foundation of our democracy and the principles that sustain it are to be safeguarded, it is to be examined whether the present mechanism is sufficient or not. At the cost of repetition, we observe that it is for the Parliament to take a call on that.”

The Court directed the Telangana Speaker to decide the disqualification petitions within a period of three months.

In 2020, the Supreme Court in Keisham Meghachandra Singh had opined that an independent tribunal was needed to decide the question of disqualification under the Tenth Schedule, as the Speakers can’t be expected to function free from political compulsions. The Court observed in that judgment as follows :

“It is time that Parliament have a rethink on whether disqualification petitions ought to be entrusted to a Speaker as a quasi-judicial authority when such Speaker continues to belong to a particular political party either de jure or de facto. Parliament may seriously consider amending the Constitution to substitute the Speaker of the Lok Sabha and Legislative Assemblies as arbiter of disputes concerning disqualification which arise under the Tenth Schedule with a permanent Tribunal headed by a retired Supreme Court Judge or a retired Chief Justice of a High Court, or some other outside independent mechanism to ensure that such disputes are decided both swiftly and impartially, thus giving real teeth to the provisions contained in the Tenth Schedule, which are so vital in the proper functioning of our democracy”

Case Title: PADI KAUSHIK REDDY Versus THE STATE OF TELANGANA AND ORS., SLP(C) No. 2353-2354/2025 (and connected cases) Citation : 2025 LiveLaw (SC) 755 Click Here To Read/Download Judgment