Q. Consider the following statements with reference to the Anti-Defection Law:
1. Petition can be given by a member of the House to disqualify another member on grounds of defection.
2. The decision taken by presiding officer regarding disqualification arising out of defection, is not subject to Judicial review.
3. The law does not specify a time-period for the Presiding Officer to decide on a disqualification of members.
How many of the above-given statements are correct?
Exp) Option b is the correct answer.
The Tenth Schedule was inserted in the Constitution in 198 It lays down the process by which legislators may be disqualified on grounds of defection by the Presiding Officer of a legislature. The anti-defection law sought to prevent political defections.
Statement 1 is correct: Legislators may be disqualified on grounds of defection by the Presiding Officer of a legislature based on a petition by any other member of the House.
Statement 2 is incorrect: Originally, the anti-defection law provided that the decision of the presiding officer is final and cannot be questioned in any court.
However, in Kihoto Hollohan Case (1993), the Supreme Court declared this provision as unconstitutional on the ground that it seeks to take away the jurisdiction of the Supreme Court and the high courts.
Hence the decision taken by presiding officer of the house is subject to judicial review on the grounds of mala fides.
Statement 3 is correct: The anti-defection law does not specify a time-period for the Presiding Officer to decide on a disqualification of members. The courts can intervene only after the Presiding Officer has decided on the matter, the petitioner seeking disqualification has no option but to wait for this decision to be made.
