Half a Party, a Fourteen-Month Adjournment and the Tenth Schedule
In a 234-member Assembly, Party X won 18 seats. After a dispute over seat-sharing, 9 of its MLAs - exactly half its strength - announce a 'split' at a press conference, extend support to the ruling coalition, and one of them is sworn in as Minister for Rural Development. The Speaker belongs to the rival coalition. The party whip files disqualification petitions under the Tenth Schedule. The Speaker refers the petitions to the Privileges Committee and adjourns the House; fourteen months pass without a decision. The nine continue to vote, and the government's Finance Bill passes 118–116 with their support. The opposition moves the High Court seeking a direction to the Speaker to decide, while the Advocate-General argues that the Speaker's power is absolute and that proceedings inside the House cannot be questioned.
1. Does the 'split' defence protect the nine members after the 91st Amendment?
Read the worked answer
No. Paragraph 3 of the Tenth Schedule originally exempted a 'split', where one-third of a legislature party broke away. The 91st Amendment (2003) deleted that paragraph, and since then the only exemption is merger under paragraph 4, which requires two conditions: the original political party must merge with another party, and at least two-thirds of the members of the legislature party must have agreed to that merger and been accepted by the new party. Here neither condition is met. Nine out of eighteen is one-half, well short of two-thirds, and there is no merger with another party - only a declaration of 'split' and support extended to a coalition from outside. The position in law is that each of the nine has voluntarily given up membership of the party under paragraph 2(1)(a). Giving up need not be formal resignation: conduct is enough, as Ravi S. Naik held, and neither sitting with another party nor accepting office while claiming a non-existent split displaces the inference. The strength of the original party at the time of the alleged split is the relevant figure, and 9 is not two-thirds of 18.
2. Is the Speaker's fourteen-month delay reviewable? What is the correct judicial response?
Read the worked answer
Yes, in a limited form, and the Advocate-General's claim of absoluteness is wrong. Kihoto Hollohan v. Zachillhu (1992) upheld the Tenth Schedule but held the Speaker's decision subject to judicial review on grounds of jurisdiction, mala fides, violation of natural justice and perversity. The Speaker acts as a tribunal, not as a court immune from scrutiny. Delay is a recognised ground. Keisham Meghachandra Singh v. Speaker, Manipur (2020) held that a Speaker cannot keep a disqualification petition pending indefinitely; a reasonable period, ordinarily three months, is expected, and a court can direct a decision within a fixed time. Fourteen months of adjournment to a Privileges Committee, with the members continuing to vote and take office in the meantime, is inordinate and defeats the anti-defection purpose. The correct response is a mandamus fixing a short outer limit for decision, not an order deciding the merits of disqualification, which remains the Speaker's function in the first instance.
3. If the nine are disqualified later, does the Finance Bill that passed 118–116 fall?
Read the worked answer
No. The validity of the legislative proceeding is not affected. Article 212 provides that the validity of any proceeding in a state legislature shall not be called in question on the ground of any alleged irregularity of procedure, and the Finance Bill was passed by the House as duly constituted at the time. Until the Speaker records a disqualification, the members' votes are lawful; the Tenth Schedule operates prospectively in practice, not by retrospectively erasing votes already cast. What follows is political and constitutional, not an annulment: the nine seats fall vacant, by-elections follow, the Minister loses office - indeed Article 164(1B), inserted by the 91st Amendment, bars a member disqualified under the Tenth Schedule from being appointed a Minister - and the government must demonstrate its majority afresh. The correct remedy for the opposition is the disqualification petition and the by-elections, not a challenge to the Finance Bill's validity.