Roadmap for Answer Writing

1. Introduction: Context Setting
   • Begin by explaining the role of the Speaker of State Legislative Assemblies and the concerns related to their bias and partisanship.
   • Briefly introduce the issue: Should the Speaker continue to hold the authority under the Anti-Defection Law, given these concerns?
2. Explanation of Anti-Defection Law 
   • Outline the provisions of the Tenth Schedule of the Indian Constitution, which gives the Speaker significant powers in matters of disqualification under the Anti-Defection Law.
   • Mention that the Speaker’s decision is final, with no time limit for making a ruling, and no judicial review is allowed unless the Speaker has made a decision.
3. Arguments for Curtailing the Powers of the Speaker 
   • Conflict of Interest: Explain how Speakers, often from the ruling party, may have a bias in disqualification cases (e.g., Karnataka Assembly crisis 2019).
   • Delay in Decision-making: Provide examples of delays in disqualification matters, such as the Manipur case, where a disqualification petition remained pending for almost three years until the Supreme Court intervened.
   • Recommendations for Change: Reference the Dinesh Goswami Committee, which recommended that the power of disqualification be vested in the Governor, who would act on the advice of the Election Commission.
4. Arguments Against Transferring the Power to Other Bodies 
   • Independent Panel: Explain the concern that creating an independent panel (such as a retired judge panel) could lead to judicial interference in political matters, as suggested in the Keisham Meghachandra Singh case.
   • Politicization of the Election Commission: Mention the potential issue with giving more power to the Election Commission, considering the executive’s role in its appointment process.
   • Suitability of the Speaker: Argue that Speakers, being integral to the legislative process, are generally best suited to decide on disqualification matters, as shown in the case of the Andhra Pradesh Assembly, where the Speaker disqualified eight MLAs for shifting loyalties in 2023.
5. Conclusion 
   • Suggest that instead of removing the Speaker’s powers entirely, the focus should be on reforming the office to ensure neutrality and impartiality in decision-making.
   • Draw from best practices in developed democracies like the UK and Ireland to promote fairness and independence in the Speaker’s role.

Relevant Facts

1. Karnataka Assembly Crisis (2019):
   • During the Karnataka Assembly crisis, the Speaker was accused of acting in favor of the ruling party by delaying decisions on disqualification of rebel MLAs, raising concerns of bias in the process.
2. Manipur Case:
   • A disqualification petition against defected MLAs in Manipur remained pending for almost three years with the Speaker before the Supreme Court intervened, highlighting the issue of delays in decision-making.
3. Dinesh Goswami Committee Recommendations:
   • The Dinesh Goswami Committee (1990) recommended that the power to disqualify legislators under the Tenth Schedule be transferred to the Governor, who would act on the advice of the Election Commission to ensure impartiality.
4. Keisham Meghachandra Singh Case:
   • The Keisham Meghachandra Singh case (2021) recommended an independent panel, including retired judges, to handle disqualification matters. However, it raised concerns about judicial interference in political decisions, potentially blurring the separation of powers.
5. Andhra Pradesh Speaker (2023):
   • The Speaker of the Andhra Pradesh Assembly disqualified eight MLAs in 2023, four from the ruling party and four from the opposition, for shifting loyalties. This demonstrated that Speakers can make unbiased decisions when required.