On Speaker’s Powers in Anti-Defection Cases – The Speaker’s court

Source: This post on the Maharashtra Assembly Speaker’s ruling has been created based on the article “The Speaker’s court” published in “The Hindu” on 12^th January 2024.

UPSC Syllabus Topic: GS Paper 2 Indian Polity – Salient features of the Representation of People’s Act.

News: The article discusses the recent Maharashtra Assembly Speaker’s ruling in the defection case related to Shiv Sena factions.

A detailed article on Anti-Defection Law can be read here.

The recent decision by Maharashtra Assembly Speaker’s ruling in the case of disqualification petitions by rival factions of the Shiv Sena has brought to attention the Presiding Officer’s powers under the anti-defection law.

According to the author, if decisions on defection disputes are in the hands of Speakers instead of an independent authority, political considerations will keep leading to unfair rulings.

What was the Speaker’s ruling in this case?

Recognition of the Eknath Shinde Faction as Shiv Sena: The Speaker has ruled that there was no case to disqualify members of the Eknath Shinde or the Uddhav B. Thackeray (UBT) faction. It recognizes the Eknath Shinde faction as the ‘real political party’.

No Violation of Whip: The Speaker declared that the appointee of the UBT faction ceased to be the authorized whip, and that the appointee of the Shinde group was the valid whip. Hence, there was no case of the Shinde loyalists violating any whip.

What were the observations made by the Supreme Court earlier in this case?

1. The Speaker was wrong in recognising the Shinde faction’s appointee as the party’s whip.
2. No faction or group can argue that they constitute the original political party as a defence against disqualification on the ground of defection.
3. The percentage of members in each faction is irrelevant to the disqualification case (determining which faction is the real party being the relevant factor).
4. The Speaker may have to decide on which faction is the real party in this case of defection.
   For this, the party constitution and leadership structure submitted to the Election Commission could be considered.

What are the legal remedies available against the Speaker’s decision?

The UBT faction may now approach the Supreme Court again, on the grounds that the Speaker’s decisions are against the Court’s observations.

Question for practice:

“If decisions on defection disputes are in the hands of Speakers instead of an independent authority, political considerations will keep leading to unfair rulings.” Discuss.