Recently the Supreme Court of India recommended that Parliament should rethink as to whether disqualification petitions ought to be entrusted to a Speaker as a quasi-judicial authority when such a Speaker continues to belong to a particular political party either de jure or de facto.

SUPREME COURT RECOMMENDATION

Provision of a ‘Permanent Tribunal’:

The SC was of the opinion that Parliament may seriously consider a Constitutional amendment to substitute-

“The Speaker of the Lok Sabha and Legislative Assemblies with a ‘permanent Tribunal headed by a retired Supreme Court judge or a retired Chief Justice of a High Court.

Or

some other outside independent mechanism.”

What the ‘Permanent Tribunal’ achieve?

  • Impartiality and timely decisions in case of disputes.
  • It will give teeth to the provisions contained in the Tenth Schedule, which are so vital in the proper functioning of India’s democracy’.

Range of functions of the Speaker

  • Role under 10th schedule: Under 10th Schedule, the nature of duties of the Speaker, is as an “arbiter” or a “quasi-judicial body”. But it also extends to a range of its functions.
  • Other functions performed by the Speaker. While facilitating the business of the House and to maintain decorum in the House, the Speaker has ‘extensive functions to perform in matters regulatory, administrative and judicial, falling under her domain.
  • She enjoys vast authority under the Constitution and the Rules, as well as inherently’.
  • Ultimate interpreter: She is the ‘ultimate interpreter and arbiter of those provisions which relate to the functioning of the House. Her decisions are final and binding and ordinarily cannot be easily challenged.

She decides the duration of debates, can discipline members and even override decisions by committees.

A representative of the House: She represents the collective voice of the House and is the sole representative of the House in the international arena’

Issue of alleged bias

  • On several occasions, the Speaker’s role has been questioned on the allegation of bias. The office has been criticised for being an agent of pernicious partisan politics.
  • The Supreme Court has observed in “Jagjit Singh versus State of Haryana”…”certain questions have been raised about the confidence in the matter of impartiality on some issues having political overtones which are decided by the Speaker in his capacity as a Tribunal.”
  • As a minority view, Justice J.S. Verma in Kihoto Hollohan vs Zachillhu And Others observed: “The Speaker being an authority within the House and his tenure being dependent on the will of the majority therein, the likelihood of suspicion of bias could not be ruled out.”
  • What is the problem with the neutrality of the Speaker? Howsoever desirable the proposition of neutrality maybe, in the present circumstances, it would be unrealistic to expect a Speaker to completely abjure all party considerations.
  • There are structural issues regarding the manner of appointment of the Speaker and her tenure in office.
  • Why the Speaker prefers to maintain party membership: A member is appointed to the office of the Speaker if a motion nominating her is carried in the House. Since the electoral system and conventions in India have ‘not developed to ensure protection to the office, there are cogent reasons for Speakers to retain party membership.
  • Elections are not always by consensus and there have been cases when different parties have fielded their own candidates.
  • All political parties’ campaign in the constituency of the Speaker.
  • Even if the Speaker is re-elected to the House, the office of the Speaker in India is still open for elections.

Way forward

What is required is not merely incidental changes in the powers of the Speaker; rather a major revamp in the structure of the office itself is necessary.

The scheme should be brought wherein Speakers should renounce all political affiliations, membership and activity once they have been elected, both within the Assembly and in the country as a whole.

Replicating the UK model:

Reference can be sought from the United Kingdom where the ‘main characteristic of the Speaker of the House of Commons is neutrality.

Once elected, the Speaker gives up all-partisan affiliation, as in other Parliaments of British tradition, but remains in office until retirement, even though the majority may change.

She does not express any political views during debates and is an election candidate without any ticket.

Impartiality, fairness and autonomy in decision-making are the hallmarks of a robust institution.

It is the freedom from interference and pressures which provide the necessary atmosphere where one can work with an absolute commitment to the cause of neutrality as a constitutional value.

Conclusion

At a time when India’s fall in ranks in the latest Democracy Index has evoked concern, it is expected that Parliament will pay heed to the reasoning of the Supreme Court and take steps to strengthen the institution of the Speaker.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

error: Content is protected !!
Cart Item Removed. Undo
  • No products in the cart.