In Keisham Meghachandra Singh v. Speaker, Manipur Legislative Assembly and Ors. reported in (2021) 16 SCC 503 the question that arose before this Court was whether courts can direct the Speaker to decide disqualification petitions pending before it within a reasonable period of time, and this Court speaking eruditely through R.F. Nariman, J., answering the aforesaid question in an affirmative held as under:
(i) First, that the Speaker, being the quasi-judicial authority for the purposes of the Tenth Schedule, is duty bound to take a decision on disqualification petitions within a reasonable time. Any failure of the Speaker in exercising his jurisdiction or refraining from deciding such petition within a reasonable time would be an error that would attract the scrutiny of the courts in judicial review, notwithstanding the exclusive jurisdiction to the exclusion of the courts that has been conferred upon the Speaker in terms of Paragraph 6 of the Tenth Schedule. The relevant observations read as under: –
“24. It is clear from a reading of the judgment in Rajendra Singh Rana and, in particular, the underlined portions [italicised herein] of paras 40 and 41 that the very question referred by the two-Judge Bench in S.A. Sampath Kumar has clearly been answered stating that a failure to exercise jurisdiction vested in a Speaker cannot be covered by the shield contained in Para 6 of the Tenth Schedule, and that when a Speaker refrains from deciding a petition within a reasonable time, there was clearly an error which attracted jurisdiction of the High Court in exercise of the power of judicial review.” (Emphasis supplied)
(ii) Secondly, it observed that although Paragraph 6 of the Tenth Schedule vests the Speaker with an exclusive jurisdiction to decide disqualification petitions and ousts the reach of courts in such matters, yet it does not mean that there is no scope of judicial review by the courts or that the power to pass any direction(s) to the Speaker acting under the Tenth Schedule does not exist. It was observed that the true purport of such exclusive jurisdiction was only to ensure that no obstacle comes in the way of the Speaker in deciding such petitions by way of injunctions from the courts. However, it by no means interdicts the exercise of judicial review in aiding a prompt decision on such disqualification petitions to ensure that the Speaker decides these issues within a reasonable period. The relevant observations read as under:
“30. A reading of the aforesaid decisions, therefore, shows that what was meant to be outside the pale of judicial review in para 110 of Kihoto Hollohan are quia timet actions in the sense of injunctions to prevent the Speaker from making a decision on the ground of imminent apprehended danger which will be irreparable in the sense that if the Speaker proceeds to decide that the person be disqualified, he would incur the penalty of forfeiting his membership of the House for a long period. Paras 110 and 111 of Kihoto Hollohan do not, therefore, in any manner, interdict judicial review in aid of the Speaker arriving at a prompt decision as to disqualification under the provisions of the Tenth Schedule. Indeed, the Speaker, in acting as a tribunal under the Tenth Schedule is bound to decide disqualification petitions within a reasonable period. […]”
(iii) Lastly, it held that although what would be a ‘reasonable period’ for deciding such petitions by the Speaker largely depends on the facts of each case yet, where there are no exceptional circumstances, the Speaker should arrive at a decision within an outer time-limit of three-months so that the avowed constitutional objective of anti-defection under the Tenth Schedule is not defeated. The relevant observations read as under:
“30. […] What is reasonable will depend on the facts of each case, but absent exceptional circumstances for which there is good reason, a period of three months from the date on which the petition is filed is the outer limit within which disqualification petitions filed before the Speaker must be decided if the constitutional objective of disqualifying persons who have infracted the Tenth Schedule is to be adhered to. This period has been fixed keeping in mind the fact that ordinarily the life of the Lok Sabha and the Legislative Assembly of the States is 5 years and the fact that persons who have incurred such disqualification do not deserve to be MPs/MLAs even for a single day, as found in Rajendra Singh Rana, if they have infracted the provisions of the Tenth Schedule.” (Emphasis supplied)
The aforesaid view was reiterated in State of Telangana v. Governor of Telangana reported in (2024) 1 SCC 405 wherein the Court whilst dealing with a similar issue pertaining to the pendency of a few bills before the Governor of Telangana, held that the expression “as soon as possible” in Article 200 has significant constitutional content and must be borne in mind by the constitutional authorities. The relevant observations read as under:
“2. The first proviso to Article 200 states that the Governor may “as soon as possible after the presentation” of the Bill for assent, return the Bill if it is not a Money Bill together with a message for reconsideration to the House or Houses of the State Legislature. The expression “as soon as possible” has significant constitutional content and must be borne in mind by constitutional authorities.”