Q. With reference to anti-defection law, consider the following statements;
1.In defection cases, Speaker’s decision was subject to judicial review.
2.Presiding Officer can adjudicate defection complaint while a motion for his own removal is pending.
Which of the statements given above is/are correct?
Answer: A
Notes:
Statement 1 is correct: In 1992, Kilhoto Hollohan vs Zachillhu case, a Constitution Bench, while upholding the validity of the anti-defection law, held that the Speaker’s decision was subject to judicial review, albeit on limited grounds.
The court also made it clear that this should take place after a final decision, and there can be no interim order, except if there is an interim disqualification or suspension.
Statement 2 is incorrect: Based on a conclusion in Nabam Rebia (2016) that a Presiding Officer should not adjudicate any defection complaint while a motion for his own removal is pending.
Source: The Hindu
