eng
competition

Text Practice Mode

Tarun KARLO TYAARI

created Apr 1st 2020, 14:13 by TARUNKUMAR2029725


0


Rating

468 words
0 completed
00:00
 
The Suprame Court's order stripping a Manipur Ministerof his office an barring him from entering the State Assembly may appear drastic and unusual, but is quite a resonable and necessary course of action. T.Shyamkumar was elected as a Vongress candidate, but depected to the BJP to join the Buren Singh Cabinet . In a landmark judgement in january, which put an end to the deliberate inaction of Presiding Officers on petitions for disqualifying defectors, a Bench headed by justice Rohinton F. Nariman had ruled that courts have to the power of fix a time-frame for Speakers to dispose of petitions under the antidefection law. In the Mnipur case, the court had given aresonable period of four weeks  The defection complaints is pending since 2017 but the Speaker failed to comply with it, On March 4 he had promised a decision within  10days but on March 18, he again sought time. It is in this extraordinary powers under Article 142 of the Constitution to take the sort of measures that what kick in if the defector concerned had been disqualified. The order is interim in nature, and the nezt heraing is on March 30. This means that the Speaker can stilldecide the matter, but a strong message has been sent out that courts will no more aid them in their attempts to protect defectors from the consequnces of their floor-crossing.
The possible objection to the order keeping the minister out are two fold: That it goes beyond teh court's power of judicial review, and that any interventionin a matter under the Tenth Schedule of the Constitution (The anti-defecion law) can be made only after the Speaker's final dicision. However, it ought to be borne in mind that it was out of respect for the Speaker's powers that the court refrained from deciding the matter itself, though there was ample evidence that the Speaker had failed to discharge his duty. His obvious reluctance to dicide the matter even within  an extended deadline necessitated the latest course of action .In any case, as pointed out in the january verdict, a 2007 precedent (Rajendra Singh Rana) is available to show that ' Failure to exercise jurisdiction is a stage at which the court can intervene. the order is a natural follow on measure after the earlier decision opened a window for judicial intervention whenever Speakers refuse to act on legitimate complaints that somemembers had incurred disqualification. It is quite disappointing that the Manipur  Speaker did not meet the court's deadline even after it was made clear that inaction is no more a legal option for him. This oly undrscores the importance of the other limb of the court's earlier judgment recommending that Parliament consider creating a new mechanism to raplace the ' Speaker as the adjudicating to  under the Tenth Schedule.

saving score / loading statistics ...