Latest news with #AGMasih
Time of India
9 hours ago
- Politics
- Time of India
Parliament must review powers of speaker under anti-defection law: SC
NEW DELHI: In a significant judgment, the Supreme Court on Thursday said to protect foundations of democracy, Parliament must take a call on the effectiveness of the anti-defection law mechanism, which has been virtually blunted due to the widely-perceived partisanship of speakers, leading to delays in deciding disqualification petitions against political turncoats. Chief Justice B R Gavai and Justice A G Masih gave this ruling while directing the Telangana assembly speaker to decide within three months the disqualification petitions filed against 10 BRS MLAs who defected to Congress after it formed govt in the state following the Nov 2023 elections. The verdict marks a departure from the restraint that courts have shown in setting deadlines for speakers and could well be a precedent in settling defection-related cases in the future. The CJI-led bench also directed the speaker not to allow the 10 MLAs, facing disqualification proceedings, to protract proceedings. "In the event any of such MLAs attempt to protract the proceedings, the speaker would draw an adverse inference against him," the bench said. Telangana speaker breached Parliament trust: SC Constitutional courts have generally refrained from fastening speakers with a timeline to decide pending disqualification petitions. However, SC said since the Telangana speaker has delayed adjudication of disqualification petitions by more than a year, it warranted issuance of directions to him. by Taboola by Taboola Sponsored Links Sponsored Links Promoted Links Promoted Links You May Like Treatment That Might Help You Against Knee Pain (Search Now) Knee Pain Treatment | Search Ads Undo The bench was critical of the way the speaker issued notice on the disqualification petitions seven months after they were filed, and said such a delay breached the trust Parliament reposed in presiding officers to adjudicate defection cases fearlessly and expeditiously. In the 2023 elections to the 119-member assembly, Congress had won 64 seats, BRS 39, BJP eight, AIMM seven and CPI one. However, Congress's numbers rose after the defection of the 10 BRS MLAs. Writing the 74-page judgment recording numerous instances of speakers' deliberate inaction in speedy adjudication of disqualification petitions against MLAs, CJI Gavai said, "It is for Parliament to consider whether the mechanism of entrusting speakers the important task of deciding the issue of disqualification on the ground of defection is serving the purpose of effectively combating political defections or not?" "If the very foundation of our democracy and the principles that sustain it are to be safeguarded, it will have to be examined whether the present mechanism is sufficient or not. ..it is for Parliament to take a call on that," the CJI said. SC reiterated the settled law that speakers/chairman of assemblies, Lok Sabha or Rajya Sabha function as tribunals while deciding disqualification petitions under the anti-defection law, and that their decisions can be scrutinised by the HCs and the apex court. CJI Gavai examined the purpose behind enactment of the anti-defection law in 1985 through a constitutional amendment and said the only purpose of entrusting the work of adjudicating the disqualification petitions to the speaker/chairman was to avoid dilly-dallying and resultant delay in the courts of law or the Election Commission's office. He said, "Parliament decided to entrust the important question of adjudication of disqualification petitions, on account of defection, to the speaker/chairman expecting him to decide them fearlessly and expeditiously." CJI Gavai and Justice Masih said, "With the experience of over 30 years of working of the 10th Schedule to the Constitution, the question that we will have to ask ourselves is as to whether the trust which Parliament entrusted in high office of the speaker or the chairman of avoiding delays in deciding the issue with regard to disqualification has been adhered to by the incumbents in the high office of speaker and the chairman or not?" Referring to a chain of cases under the anti-defection law marred by inordinate delay in adjudication by speakers across states, already frowned upon by SC in as many cases, the bench said, "We need not answer this question, since the facts of the various cases themselves provide answer."
Indian Express
a day ago
- Politics
- Indian Express
Supreme Court to Telangana Speaker: decide on disqualification of BRS MLAs who defected to Congress within 3 months
The Supreme Court Thursday asked the Speaker of the Telangana Assembly to decide petitions seeking the disqualification of 10 Bharat Rashtra Samithi (BRS) MLAs who had defected to the ruling Congress expeditiously and not later than three months. A bench of Chief Justice of India (CJI) B R Gavai and Justice A G Masih was hearing petitions filed by BRS leaders who sought a directive to Speaker Gaddam Prasad Kumar for timely action on disqualification proceedings. The BRS had initially moved the Telangana High Court, where a single-judge bench gave the Speaker four weeks to fix a schedule for hearing the disqualification petitions. On appeal by the Speaker, a division bench on November 22, 2024, set aside the single-judge order and asked the Speaker to decide the petitions in a reasonable time. Setting aside the Telangana High Court division bench's order, the Supreme Court said the very objective of the anti-defection law was to curb the evil of political defections, and the only purpose of entrusting the role of adjudication to the Speaker was to avoid delay and to ensure expeditious decision on disqualification petitions. The bench noted that the Speaker, in his capacity as Tribunal, in deciding disqualification petitions, does not enjoy any 'constitutional immunity'. It asked the Telangana Speaker not to allow the MLAs, against whom disqualification petitions have been filed, to protract the proceedings. The court said an adverse inference can be drawn against any MLA who attempts a delaying tactic. The ruling pointed out that the Speaker had not even issued notice on the petitions seeking disqualification for almost seven months and said, 'If we do not issue any directions, it will amount to allowing the Speaker to repeat the widely criticised situation of 'operation successful, patient dead'.' Noting the recurring instances of Speakers allegedly sitting on disqualification proceedings, the Supreme Court also asked the Parliament to review the present mechanism contemplated under the 10th Schedule of the Constitution. 'Though we do not possess any advisory jurisdiction, it is for the Parliament to consider whether the mechanism of entrusting the Speaker/Chairman (with) the important task of deciding the issue of disqualification on the ground of defection is serving the purpose of effectively combating political defections or not. If the very foundation of our democracy and the principles that sustain it are to be safeguarded, it is to be examined whether the present mechanism is sufficient or not. At the cost of repetition, we observe that it is for the Parliament to take a call on that,' the Supreme Court said. The BRS filed the disqualification petitions before the Telangana Assembly Speaker in March-April 2024. This was after Danam Nagender, Kadiyam Srihari, Tellam Venkat Rao, Pocharam Srinivas Reddy, Kale Yadaiah, M Sanjay Kumar, Krishnamohan Reddy, Mahipal Reddy, Prakash Goud, and Arekapudi Gandhi, who were originally elected on a BRS ticket in the 2023 Telangana Assembly elections, switched to the Congress.
NDTV
22-07-2025
- Politics
- NDTV
2-Month Gap Between Case, Arrest In Marriage Cruelty Cases To Stay: Top Court
New Delhi: The Allahabad High Court guidelines that advise going slow with arrest in cases involving matrimonial disputes will stay, the Supreme Court said today while hearing a case where the husband and his father had spent months in jail after the wife filed a slew of false cases against them. The guidelines framed by the High Court will remain in effect and should be implemented by the authorities, the court said. Endorsing the safeguards, a bench comprising Chief Justice of India BR Gavai and Justice AG Masih, said the husband was jailed for 109 days and his father for 103 days as a result of the criminal cases filed by the wife. "What they have suffered cannot be resituated or compensated in any manner" the court said. The woman, who is an IPS officer, has been asked to issue an unconditional public apology, which the court said was just a moral redress. Under the Allahabad High Court's guidelines, no arrest or police action can take place against the accused without a cooling off period after the First Information Report is filed. This period extends to two months and during this, any further issues will be directed to the district's Family Welfare Committee. Every district shall have at least one or more Family Welfare Court comprising at least three members. Only those cases shall be referred to the Family Welfare Committee in which the offence is punishable under Section 498-A (cruelty), along with other sections attracts a sentence of imprisonment of less than 10 years. The guidelines aim to curb the growing tendency among litigants to implicate the husband and his entire family by making sweeping allegations.
NDTV
22-07-2025
- NDTV
"Apologise": Supreme Court As Cop Gets Husband, Father-In-Law Jailed In False Cases
An IPS officer has been asked to issue an unconditional public apology to her former husband and in-laws for the "physical and mental agony" they underwent after she filed multiple criminal cases against them during a marital dispute. While ordering this, the Supreme Court also cancelled all the ongoing cases. The Bench of Chief Justice of India BR Gavai and Justice AG Masih also dissolved the marriage since the couple were separated since 2018. The court ordered that their daughter will stay with her mother and the husband and family members will be able to meet her. In its verdict, the court said the husband had to spend 109 days and his father 103 days in jail due to criminal cases filed by the wife. "What they have suffered cannot be compensated in any way," the court said, ordering the officer to tender a public apology. "The woman and her parents shall tender an unconditional apology to her husband and his family members, which shall be published in the national edition of a well-known English and a Hindi newspaper," said the judges. This apology shall also be published and circulated on Facebook, Instagram, YouTube and other similar social media platforms within 3 days of the order, the judges said. It would not be construed as an admission of liability and shall have no effect on the legal rights, obligations or consequences arising under the law. The court also asked the woman "not to use her position and power" or that of her colleagues to initiate any proceedings against the husband and his family. The husband was warned not to use her apology in any manner either. The woman had filed separate criminal cases against the husband and his family and a parallel one in the family court for divorce and maintenance. Her husband too, had filed tit-for-tat cases. Besides, there were cases filed by third parties. Both husband and wife had filed an application in the Supreme Court to transfer the cases to their respective jurisdiction.
NDTV
05-06-2025
- Politics
- NDTV
Top Court Refuses To Interfere With High Court Order In Temple Consecration Case
New Delhi: The Supreme Court on Wednesday refused to entertain a plea challenging the constitution of a committee by the Madras High Court to decide the schedule for Kumbhabhishekam (consecration ceremony) for Arulmigu Subramaniya Swamy Temple in Tamil Nadu's Thoothukudi district. The court, however, allowed the petitioner to file a review plea in the High Court against its order. A bench of Justices PK Mishra and AG Masih was hearing a plea by the Vidhayahar of the temple when it passed the directives. It noted that the petitioner had already participated in the committee that, he claimed, was biased. In his plea, the petitioner argued the High Court had failed to address the core constitutional and religious grievance that state authorities cannot override religious autonomy and temple customs, particularly when he is the only recognised figure competent to chalk out the schedule. "The order under challenge is thus arbitrary, devoid of impartiality, and suffers from a manifest error of law," the plea said. Appearing for the petitioner in the top court, senior advocate K Parameshwar also said the state's interference was unwarranted. "The prescription of a 'mahurat' is purely a religious function. It has nothing to do with regulation of the state," he said. The lawyer said the temple in question is considered one of the six largest temples of Lord Karthikay in Tamil Nadu. He said the petitioner belongs to a family that was traditionally tasked to decide the schedules for religious ceremonies at the temple. The High Court's move has led the state to completely take over the temple's essential functions, he added. "It is pertinent to note that three out of five members of the committee had, even prior to the present proceedings, gave an opinion at the instance of the Respondents/Govt authorities, suggesting a time different than what was recommended by the Petitioner, thereby making the constitution of the committee, biased, prejudicial and a futile exercise," the plea said. Instead of adjudicating upon the matter, the High Court created a committee, failing to address the issue of constitutional religious rights of the petitioner, it added.
