Decided: 18 February, 1992
Bench: Sharma, L.M. (J), Venkatachaliah, M.N. (J), Verma, Jagdish Saran (J), Reddy, K. Jayachandra (J), Agrawal, S.C. (J)
FACTS
In this case, a pivotal legal challenge arose concerning the validity of the Tenth Schedule introduced by the Constitution (Fifty Second Amendment) Act, 1985. This amendment replaced four significant articles of the Constitution—101(3)(a), 102(2), and 190(3)(a)—with the Tenth Schedule. The Supreme Court, confronted with multiple applications concurrently, rendered a momentous 3:2 decision affirming the constitutionality of the Anti-Defection Law embodied within the Tenth Schedule. The majority opinion, articulated by Justices M.N. Venkatachaliah, K.J. Reddy, and S.C. Agrawal, upheld the validity of the law. Conversely, the dissenting opinion was articulated by Justices L.M. Sharma and J.S. Verma. Notably, concomitant with affirming the law's constitutional validity, the Supreme Court also delineated that the speaker's determinations pursuant to legislation restraining a Member of the Legislative Assembly (MLA) due to defection are amenable to Judicial Review. This judicial pronouncement implied the acknowledgment that the speaker's orders under the anti-defection law are subject to scrutiny and assessment by the judiciary. This ruling bears significance as it not only validated the constitutional underpinnings of the Anti-Defection Law but also underscored the judiciary's authority to review and adjudicate upon decisions made by legislative authorities in matters concerning defection.
ISSUES
Is it true that the Speaker should only have such vast powers if there is always a plausible possibility of bias?
Are the amendments to the 52nd Amendment constitutional?
Whether or not Judicial Review is accessible before the Speaker/Chairman decides?
Is Judicial Review applicable to the tenth schedule of rules?
RATIONAL
The law doesn't shape people's lifestyles; rather, it is people's lifestyles that influence the contours of the law. A finality clause isn't a mystical formula that shields decisions from Judicial Review. The conclusiveness of a decision is contingent upon its alignment with legal principles. Judicial review, under Articles 136, 226, and 227 of the Constitution, concerning Speaker/Chairman orders, is confined to specific errors like breaches of constitutional mandates, instances of bad faith, non-adherence to principles of natural justice, or grossly erroneous judgments. Courts maintain the stance that despite a provision of finality, they retain the authority to ascertain if the actions of the concerned authority exceed its lawful powers. An action can be deemed beyond the authority's scope if it contravenes a mandatory provision of the governing law that confers such power. Actions tainted by bad faith or an improper use of authority, driven by irrelevant factors, would be considered as exceeding lawful authority.
JUDGMENT
Certain judges have underscored that the constitutional framework pertaining to the resolution of disputes concerning the exclusion of members subsequent to elections mandates the involvement of impartial entities external to the legislative body. This deviation from the established structure has been identified as a breach of fundamental constitutional principles. Notably, this viewpoint aligns with the stance articulated by the Election Commission, a significant constitutional entity comprising individuals of high standing such as the President or Governor. The Election Commission's perspective resonates with the dissenting opinion of the minority judge in this particular case. This contention echoes a recommendation dating back to 1977.
In the year 1977, specific guidelines were formulated and recommended to address the disqualification on grounds of defection. These guidelines proposed that such cases could also be referred to the Election Commission to seek their opinion. Subsequently, this opinion would be presented to the President or Governor for appropriate action, mirroring the process followed for other disqualifications outlined in Articles 102 and 191 of the Constitution. This recommendation was rooted in the understanding that Paragraph 6 of the Tenth Schedule doesn't establish an area immune from judicial scrutiny. It was established that the authority to resolve disputes falling within the purview of the Speaker or Chairman carries a judicial nature. A pivotal aspect in this context was the inclusion of the 'finality clause,' which facilitated access to the judgment for nearly all involved parties involved in the dispute resolution process. This clause served as a mechanism leading to the conclusion of the matter.
Comments