Express News Service
NEW DELHI: Stressing the fact that 10th schedule of the Constitution that deals with disqualification was introduced to provide for disposal of complaints is being ‘misused’ and ‘subverted’ by every government, Senior Advocate Kapil Sibal for former Maharashtra CM Uddhav Thackeray on Tuesday told Supreme Court that the speaker of the state Legislative Assembly can never act as an unbiased umpire.
“History has seen that Speakers always supported their party. Speaker can never act as an unbiased umpire. We had the 10th schedule to cure the constitutional morality and now it’s being subverted by every government. Now new shenanigans is happening,” Senior Advocate Kapil Sibal said.
Laying emphasis on the fact that the “speaker” as an arbiter under 10th schedule should be “impartial”, CJI D Y Chandrachud said, “What is worrying is if you say speaker can take all action until his disqualification when it is put to vote, the consequence is he can affect his own removal by acting in the motion… that can have an adverse affect.”
In an attempt to convince the bench for having a re look at SC’s 2016 verdict in Nebam Rabia wherein SC had ruled that assembly speaker cannot proceed with a plea for disqualification of MLAs if a prior notice seeking his removal is pending decision in the House, he said, “impugned observations have created a constitutional hiatus and given an escape route to “constitutional sinners”.
NEW DELHI: Stressing the fact that 10th schedule of the Constitution that deals with disqualification was introduced to provide for disposal of complaints is being ‘misused’ and ‘subverted’ by every government, Senior Advocate Kapil Sibal for former Maharashtra CM Uddhav Thackeray on Tuesday told Supreme Court that the speaker of the state Legislative Assembly can never act as an unbiased umpire.
“History has seen that Speakers always supported their party. Speaker can never act as an unbiased umpire. We had the 10th schedule to cure the constitutional morality and now it’s being subverted by every government. Now new shenanigans is happening,” Senior Advocate Kapil Sibal said.
Laying emphasis on the fact that the “speaker” as an arbiter under 10th schedule should be “impartial”, CJI D Y Chandrachud said, “What is worrying is if you say speaker can take all action until his disqualification when it is put to vote, the consequence is he can affect his own removal by acting in the motion… that can have an adverse affect.”
In an attempt to convince the bench for having a re look at SC’s 2016 verdict in Nebam Rabia wherein SC had ruled that assembly speaker cannot proceed with a plea for disqualification of MLAs if a prior notice seeking his removal is pending decision in the House, he said, “impugned observations have created a constitutional hiatus and given an escape route to “constitutional sinners”.
