Political Diary
New Delhi, 21 February 2023
Speaker’s Crown Of
Thorns
FOR BETTER OR WORSE?
By Poonam I Kaushish
Fatigued and bored of the volatile
cacophony of accusations flying thick and fast over American billionaire George
Soros’s comments on the Adani Hindenburg saga with BJP alleging he wants to
“destroy” Indian democracy? Flip
attention to the Supreme Court’s Constitution Bench hearing issues arising on
the Speaker’s role vis-a-vis
disqualification of MLAs under the Anti-Defection Law by him while a notice for
his removal is pending.
Recall, in Maharashtra last June Dy
Speaker (NCP MLA officiating as Speaker) became a convenient tool of MVA by
issuing disqualification notices to 16 Eknath Shinde’s Shiv Sena rebels post him
toppling Uddhav Thackeray led MVA Government. In a tit-for-tat the Shinde group
served a no-confidence motion against the Speaker.
Both sides moved Supreme Court which held: “Any change in the strength
and composition of the Assembly, by disqualifying sitting MLAs, for the period
during which the notice of resolution for the removal of the Speaker (or Dy
Speaker) is pending, would conflict with the express mandate of Article
179(c).”
“A member holding
office as Speaker or Dy Speaker may be removed from office by an Assembly
resolution passed by a majority of all the then members of the Assembly clearly
suggest that all those who were members of the House at the time when such a
resolution is moved should have the right to vote on it.” Significantly the Constituent
Assembly debates reveal that the phrase ‘all the then members’ was preferred to
‘members present and voting’ as it was precise.
This, the Court
averred means even MLAs who are liable to be disqualified have a right to vote
on the resolution to remove the Speaker, hence he cannot prevent such members
from voting on the resolution by disqualifying them beforehand thereby
restricting him from going ahead.
Furthermore it
cited its verdict on Nabam Rebia
vs. Dy Speaker, Arunachal Pradesh
Assembly, where it held that it would be Constitutionally impermissible for a
Speaker to adjudicate upon disqualification petitions under the Tenth Schedule,
while a notice of resolution for his own removal from the office of Speaker, is
pending. It queried how Speaker Rebia preemptively disqualified rebel MLAs on
grounds of defection before the Assembly could meet.
The focus of Thackeray’s lawyers was
whether the 2016 five-judge Bench ruling in Nabam Rebia case should be
reconsidered by a larger Bench. And, if the Rebia verdict was applicable to the
Maharashtra case.
Pertinently, in November 2015 when 21 MLAs of Congress’s 47 rebelled and joined
hands with 11 BJP legislators in the 60-member House, Arunachal Chief Minister
Tuki closed the Assembly gates so rebel Congress-BJP MLAs held an extraordinary
session in a community hall and removed Speaker Nabam Rebia who had
disqualified 14 of the 21 legislators.
The Governor acting without the
Chief Minister’s advice advanced the Assembly session from 14 January 2016 to
16 December and listed Speaker’s removal on the legislative agenda. On 15
December Speaker Rebia preemptively disqualified the rebel MLAs on the grounds
of defection before the Assembly could meet. The following day the resolution
to remove Speaker Rebia was adopted.
The Speaker challenged his
dismissal in Gauhati High Court which stayed the disqualification of Congress
MLAs and dismissed the Speaker’s plea. Subsequently, an appeal was filed
before a 5-Judge Bench in the Supreme Court whether a Speaker could disqualify
MLAs while a motion for his removal was pending before the House?
The Court concluded that
Speaker Rebia’s decision to disqualify rebel MLAs was an attempt to overcome
voting by ‘all the then members’ and evade disqualification. And he could not
initiate disqualification proceedings under the anti-defection law when a
resolution seeking his removal is pending.
In January 2016, while the
matter was being argued before the Apex Court the Centre dismissed Tuki’s
Government and imposed President’s Rule. The Court for the first time in its
history nullified President’s Rule and restored Tuki’s Government. However, Tuki
was soon voted out of power in a floor test and the Court’s decision was
reversed through political means.
Against this background and in our “Aaya Ram Gaya Ram” political milieu the
Speaker’s job has not only become all the more important and demanding but
today is the cynosure of all eyes. Given Parties have used Constitutional posts
as lollipops to reward or oblige Party workers, the Speakership is no
exception. Think. Although the Rules of Procedure are largely based on the
Westminster model, the all-important issue of having an independent Speaker was
overlooked.
As a former Lok Sabha Speaker
confided, “We are elected on Party tickets with Party funds how can we claim
independence? Moreover, even if we resign on becoming the Speaker, we would still
have to go back to the same Party for sponsorship for the next election.”
However, few appreciate his key role
without whom, according to Erskine May, “the House has no Constitutional
existence.” Although the Rules of
Procedure are largely based on the Westminster model, the all-important issue
of having an independent Speaker was overlooked.
Under the Westminster system of
Parliamentary democracy in Britain, an MP resigns from the Party on his
election as Speaker. Moreover, the Speaker is re-elected unopposed to the House
of Commons in subsequent elections. Sadly, barely a handful follow the premise that a Speaker is expected
to be above Party politics, not a plaything of the Party.
Consequently, most Speakers have
been Party members, especially after laying down Office or prior to it. From
second Speaker Ayyangar who became Bihar Governor on expiry of his term to GS
Dhillon and Manohar Joshi who switched roles from Ministers to Speakers, Balram
Jhakar never concealed his identity as a Congressman, Rabi Ray lived up to his
Janata Party’s expectation and Shivraj Patil who post Speakership, lost the
re-election, but was nominated by Congress to the Rajya Sabha and anointed Home
Minister. Sadly, today eyebrows are not even raised.
Against this backdrop Speakers have
to walk a tight rope. Play fair and ensure the Opposition has its say even as
the Government has its way. He has to set healthy and gracious conventions for the
high Constitutional office he holds which calls for fairness, uprightness and adherence
to Constitutional values and conventions.
Consequently, rules have to be
drastically changed to ensure the Speaker’s Constitutional post is respected as
it is sacrosanct. Legislators and Governments must desist from reducing his office
in to a Constitutional extension of the Government. Thereby, converting the
post in to a monument like Taj Mahal or Qutab Minar. We know what pigeons do to
them.
Remember, a Speaker is an honoured
position, a free position and should be occupied always by men of outstanding
ability and impartiality as what matters are not men but institutions. We must recognize a Speaker’s key role in our
democracy by adopting the British maxim: “Once Speaker always a Speaker.” ----
INFA
(Copyright, India News & Feature
Alliance)
|