Keisham Meghachandra Singh v. Speaker, Manipur Legislative Assembly
Supreme Court of India · 21 January 2020 · 3 judges
A Speaker deciding disqualification petitions under the Tenth Schedule must do so within a reasonable time, ordinarily three months; courts may review inaction, and the Manipur Speaker was directed to decide within four weeks.
Facts
After the March 2017 Manipur Assembly election, Respondent No. 3, elected as a Congress Party candidate, joined the BJP-led government and was sworn in as a Minister. Thirteen petitions seeking his disqualification under paragraph 2(1)(a) of the Tenth Schedule were filed before the Speaker between April and July 2017, but none was decided. The appellant's writ petition in the Manipur High Court sought a declaration of disqualification and a writ of quo warranto. The High Court held that the Speaker had to decide within a reasonable time and that the respondent's conduct attracted paragraph 2(1)(a), but declined relief because the question whether a court can direct a Speaker to decide within a time frame was pending before a five judge Bench of the Supreme Court.
Questions before the Court
- Can a court, in judicial review, direct a Speaker to decide a disqualification petition under the Tenth Schedule within a time limit, or is that barred as a quia timet action under Kihoto Hollohan?
- Should the hearing await the pending five judge Bench reference in S.A. Sampath Kumar v. Kale Yadaiah?
- Can the Supreme Court issue quo warranto against the Minister or itself decide the disqualification petition?
What the Court held
- The question referred in S.A. Sampath Kumar was already answered by the five judge Bench in Rajendra Singh Rana: a Speaker's failure to exercise jurisdiction is not covered by the shield of paragraph 6, and failure to decide within a reasonable time attracts judicial review. The hearing need not be deferred.
- Paragraph 110 of Kihoto Hollohan bars only quia timet actions that would prevent the Speaker from deciding; it does not bar judicial review in aid of a prompt decision on disqualification.
- The Speaker, acting as a Tribunal, must decide disqualification petitions within a reasonable period; absent exceptional circumstances, three months from filing is the outer limit.
- Disqualification must first be decided by the Speaker as the exclusive authority, so quo warranto could not issue and the Court would not itself decide the petition, unlike Rajendra Singh Rana where the Assembly's term was ending. The Speaker was directed to decide within four weeks.
Why it matters
The judgment sets an outer limit of three months, absent exceptional circumstances, for Speakers to decide Tenth Schedule disqualification petitions, and explains that Kihoto Hollohan does not bar judicial review aimed at securing a decision. It also recommends that Parliament consider replacing the Speaker as arbiter of disqualification disputes with a permanent Tribunal headed by a retired Supreme Court Judge or High Court Chief Justice, or another independent mechanism.
In the Court's words
Copied from the official judgment; each passage links to its page.
“Indeed, the Speaker, in acting as a Tribunal under the Tenth Schedule is bound to decide disqualification petitions within a reasonable period. What is reasonable will depend on the facts of each case, but absent exceptional circumstances for which there is good reason, a period of three months from the date on which the petition is filed is the outer limit within which disqualification petitions filed before the Speaker must be decided if the constitutional objective of disqualifying persons who have infracted the Tenth Schedule is to be adhered to.”
“the very question referred by the Two Judge Bench in S.A. Sampath Kumar (supra) has clearly been answered stating that a failure to exercise jurisdiction vested in a Speaker cannot be covered by the shield contained in paragraph 6 of the Tenth Schedule, and that when a Speaker refrains from deciding a petition within a reasonable time, there was clearly an error which attracted jurisdiction of the High Court in exercise of the power of judicial review.”
“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”
Provisions interpreted
Related judgments
- Explains Kihoto Hollohan v. Zachillhu (1992)“Paragraphs 110 and 111 of Kihoto Hollohan (supra) do not, therefore, in any manner, interdict judicial review in aid of the Speaker arriving at a prompt decision as to disqualification” (page 27)
- Followed in State of Tamil Nadu v. Governor of Tamil Nadu (2025)
Case and bench
- Parties
- Keisham Meghachandra Singh v. The Hon'ble Speaker Manipur Legislative Assembly
- Case
- Civil Appeal No. 547 of 2020 (arising out of SLP (Civil) No. 18659 of 2019)
- Decided
- 21 January 2020
- Bench
- R.F. Nariman, Aniruddha Bose, V. Ramasubramanian
- Opinions
- Unanimous. Judgment of the Court delivered by R.F. Nariman, J.