Time is of the essence when it comes to conducting political maneuvers to bring the government down to a minority. The disgruntled MLAs need time to gather in sufficient numbers to oust the regime. The ruling parties need to close the window of opportunity soon, often using the threat of disqualification for defections. It is against this background that matters relating to MPs ineligible for defection are subject to judicial intervention – either to buy the time of dissidents or to allow disqualification proceedings to go on uninterrupted. by order of Shiv Sena’s disgruntled MLAs have time till July 12 The Supreme Court has effectively made it possible for him to fulfill his objective without the threat of disqualification, in responding to the notice of the Deputy Speaker under the anti-defection law in the Maharashtra Legislative Assembly. It is questionable whether the Court should have done so at any stage prior to the final decision under any specific restriction on judicial interference in disqualification proceedings. tenth schedule, in 1992 ( Kihoto Holohan vs. Zachilu), a Constitution Bench upholding the validity of the anti-defection law, Admitted that the Speaker’s decision was subject to judicial reviewAlthough on a limited basis. It also clarified that it has to be followed by a final decision, and there can be no interim order, except for an interim disqualification or suspension.
Interference may be due to the deputy speaker’s grant of just two days to reply to the legislators; But it is questionable whether the Court should now look into the question of when it can be decided after his possible disqualification. There are court decisions which state that compliance of natural justice is not based on the number of days given, but on whether sufficient opportunity was given before the decision. based on a conclusion in Nabam Rebia (2016 .)) that a presiding officer should not adjudicate a complaint of defection while a motion to remove himself is pending, the dissidents sent a motion for the removal of the deputy speaker. Having dismissed it, the rejection has also been questioned in the court, thus raising the question of a jurisdiction over the judicial power of the deputy speaker, who has to decide questions of disqualification in the speaker’s absence. The motion to remove the presiding officer should not be a ploy to circumvent the disqualification proceedings. If courts try to undo a decision to disqualify legislators camping in another state and questioning the chief minister’s majority for “voluntarily giving up membership” of their own party, they can apply anti-defection laws. undermines and renders decisions made redundant by the Constitution. bench. When defection is seen by the Constitution as a serious threat, the courts should not act to pursue it. The duty to protect those who have been wrongly disqualified is important, but so is calling the convicts whose motives are questionable.