PANAJI
The Bombay High Court at Goa on Tuesday declined to issue directions to the Speaker to dispose off the disqualification petitions pending before him within a time frame instead expressing its “hope and trust” that the Speaker who had taken a stand would be disposing the petitions expeditiously.
Hearing a petition filed by former Goa state Congress president Girish Chodankar who approached the High Court alleging that the Speaker had violated the outer limit of 90 days, a precedent that was set by the Supreme Court in the case of Keisham Meghachandra Singh vs. Speaker Manipur Legislative Assembly & Ors, the High Court felt that while the Speaker is bound to decide the disqualifications “within a reasonable period,” there existed “exceptional circumstances” because of which it would not be appropriate to direct the Speaker in the present case.
“We are not inclined to direct that the disqualification petition of the petitioner should be decided in a time bound manner as we are satisfied that there exists exceptional circumstances for which there are good reasons as to why it would not be appropriate to fix an outer limit within which the disqualification petition filed by the petitioner should be decided,” the High Court bench of Justices M S Karnik and Valmiki Sa Menezes, ruled.
“Taking an overall view of the matter, we are of the opinion that in the light of the law laid down by the Supreme Court in Keisham Meghachandra Singh (supra) the Speaker in acting as a Tribunal under the Tenth Schedule to the Constitution is bound to decide the disqualification petitions within a reasonable period,” the High Court said adding, however, that it had “no manner of doubt that the disqualification petition… will be decided expeditiously… and the law laid down in Keisham Meghachandra Singh (supra) is followed in its letter and spirit.”
In response to the petition, the Speaker took a view that he was first hearing the first disqualification petition filed by Congress president Amit Patkar who had filed a disqualification petition against Digambar Kamat and Michael Lobo, who were accused of trying to orchestrate a split in the Congress Legislature Party since the decision in Disqualification Petition No. 1 of 2022 will have a bearing on the other petitions.
The Speaker contended that he was “proceeding expeditiously” with the first disqualification petition since if the petition is allowed and the respondent nos. 2 and 3 are disqualified, respondent nos. 4 to 9 would not then constitute 2/3 members required for merger in terms of the Tenth Schedule and consequently the respondent nos. 4 to 9 would stand disqualified.
The High Court found that the Speaker was justified in hearing the first petition first and ruled that such an approach was not perverse or arbitrary.
The Speaker had also, challenged the maintainability of the petition, submitting that “the Speaker is a constitutional functionary and the Constitution of India confers high status on the Speaker” and as such a writ petition seeking mandamus to the Speaker would not be maintainable.”
The High Court however, rejected such contentions pointing to the Supreme Court’s ruling which “in no uncertain terms held that the Speaker acting in quasi judicial capacity under the Tenth Schedule is bound to decide disqualification petitions within a reasonable period” and that “when a Speaker refrains from deciding a petition within a reasonable time, there is clearly an error which attracts jurisdiction of the High Court in exercise of the power of judicial review.
“We have no hesitation in rejecting the preliminary objection of the respondents in the light of the decision of the Supreme Court that this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India in exercise of its powers of judicial review can issue a writ of mandamus to decide disqualification petitions,” the High Court also said.
Eight members of the 11-member Congress ‘defected’ to the BJP in September 2022 claiming protection under the tenth schedule of the constitution since they constituted two-thirds majority of the strength of the legislative party at the time. The ‘defection’ prompted disqualification petitions to be filed.
