The Supreme Court of India, in a significant judgment delivered on 3 July 2025, held that the Speaker of a Legislative Assembly does not enjoy constitutional immunity when exercising powers under the Tenth Schedule of the Constitution. A Bench comprising Justice B.V. Nagarathna and Justice N. Kotiswar Singh ruled that the Speaker's discretionary jurisdiction in anti-defection proceedings is subject to judicial scrutiny.
Background
The matter arose from anti-defection proceedings in the Telangana Legislative Assembly, where the petitioner challenged the Speaker's exercise of disqualification powers under the Tenth Schedule. The central constitutional question was whether Articles 122 and 212 of the Constitution — which bar courts from inquiring into legislative proceedings — shield the Speaker's decisions on disqualification from judicial review.
The Tenth Schedule, inserted by the Constitution (Fifty-second Amendment) Act, 1985, empowers the Speaker to decide disqualification petitions against members alleged to have defected from their party. However, since the landmark ruling in Kihoto Hollohan v. Zachillhu (1992), the scope of judicial review over the Speaker's Tenth Schedule functions has remained a contested area of constitutional law.
Key Holdings
The Supreme Court established the following principles:
No constitutional immunity for Tenth Schedule functions: The protections under Articles 122 and 212, which insulate legislative proceedings from court interference, do not extend to the Speaker's quasi-judicial role under the Tenth Schedule. The disqualification power is distinct from the Speaker's role in regulating legislative debate.
Speaker's discretion is justiciable: The Court affirmed that the Speaker, when adjudicating disqualification petitions under Paragraph 6(1) of the Tenth Schedule, acts in a quasi-judicial capacity. Such decisions must satisfy the requirements of natural justice and are amenable to judicial review on grounds of illegality, irrationality, and procedural impropriety.
Distinction between legislative and adjudicatory functions: The Bench drew a clear line between the Speaker's role in conducting House proceedings — which enjoys parliamentary privilege — and the adjudicatory function under the Tenth Schedule, which operates outside the realm of legislative privilege.
Accountability imperative: The Court observed that permitting the Speaker unchecked discretion in disqualification matters would undermine the constitutional scheme of the Tenth Schedule, which was designed to curb political defection.
Implications for Practitioners
This ruling reinforces the principle that anti-defection proceedings are not beyond judicial oversight, providing a firmer constitutional basis for challenging Speaker decisions. Constitutional law practitioners representing legislators facing disqualification proceedings should note that the full gamut of judicial review grounds — illegality, irrationality, and procedural fairness — are now expressly available.
For political parties and legislative leaders, the judgment narrows the scope within which Speakers can exercise discretion in disqualification matters. The practical effect is that Speakers must ensure procedural regularity, provide adequate hearing opportunities, and render reasoned decisions — any departure may invite successful judicial challenge.
The decision also carries implications for the ongoing debate about whether the Tenth Schedule should be reformed to transfer disqualification adjudication to an independent tribunal, a recommendation made by multiple law commissions but never implemented.