Impartiality of Speaker under a cloud

Corona pandemic has taught us many things. It has helped in reminding us of our ancient methods of healthy living and usage of various ingredients to boost the immunity levels in our body. Along with this, its time all political parties, national and regional focus attention on reviving the lost glory of constitutional positions in the country.

We have seen how since 1977, the Apex Court had been critical of the role of Governors particularly regarding the exercise of Article 356 to dismiss a state government. There were occasions when it had cautioned them not to become puppets in the hands of the Centre. Despite the flak, governors continued to behave as political appointees who must obey the master's voice.

The Supreme Court in its judgment in the BP Singhal case on May 7, 2010, said, "Governor is the constitutional head of the state. He is not an employee or an agent of the Union government nor a part of any political team." But things have not changed till date. Allegations keep pouring in from opposition parties that Governors continue to behave as if they were part of the political dispensation that appointed them. When these very parties who level allegations come to power, they also follow the same pattern and defend the undefendable acts.

Another important position is that of a Speaker. A Speaker is supposed to be the epitome of impartiality and regarded to be the true guardian of the traditions of parliamentary democracy. The role of the Speaker is multi-faceted; part-Chair, part-referee. But of late it is being seen that they too are getting mired in controversies. The question that is being asked is if governors are to keep off politics, should Speakers, who enjoy an equally dignified position under the Constitution, not behave accordingly?

The Speaker enjoys a unique position because while a government may fall with simple majority of members present and voted, to remove a Speaker the number of votes against him must be higher than half of the total strength of the House.

Jawaharlal Nehru had nicely articulated the Speaker's role: "The Speaker represents the House. He represents the dignity of the House, the freedom of the House, and because the House represents the nation, in a particular way, the Speaker becomes symbol of the nation's freedom and liberty. Therefore, that should be an honoured position. A free position and should be occupied always by persons of outstanding ability and impartiality."

But then is that happening in our country? In 1992, the Speaker of Manipur assembly disqualified an MLA. The affected MLA went to Supreme Court which set aside the decision of the Speaker. He refused to accept the court verdict and ultimately, the Apex Court had to summon him in contempt. Even then he refused to appear.

In Arunachal Pradesh and Uttarakhand, the Speakers in both Assemblies were alleged to have helped the ruling parties by disqualifying the MLAs under the Tenth Schedule so that the then ruling party could benefit and keep its flock together.

The Speaker under the Constitution has the power to disqualify if a member quits the party on whose ticket and symbol he had won and crosses over to another party. But he should not use it as a means to help the ruling party. Similarly, as per Constitution, the Speaker and the Governor are expected to follow the ethos of the Constitution and not to take sides in the political thicket.

But there have been any number of incidents where the Speakers in various States have been alleged to have taken decisions to protect the interests of the party in power. For example, in Andhra Pradesh we have seen that when over 20 members from the opposition YSRCP joined TDP their disqualification issue was put on back burner and they even became ministers in the cabinet.

Such incidents have now thrown up arguments that the power of disqualification of a member should not be given to a Speaker since the Speakers continue to be members of the ruling party. Normally, a Speaker is expected to resign from the membership of the party on whose ticket he had been elected to ensure that he acts in an impartial manner. But that was never seen at least in the last four decades. All Speakers continue to be members of a political party either de jure or de facto.

There have been suggestions that the speakers should not have the quasi-judicial powers to disqualify a member and instead a permanent tribunal headed by a retired Supreme Court judge or a retired chief justice to deal with such cases be set up. In short, many felt that there should be an independent mechanism to examine the cases where disqualification of a member has been sought.

Such a body could do away with the delay in disqualification of a member. What is happening now is that since the Speaker has absolute power and as there is no time limit within which he has to decide and certain procedure to be followed has been laid down in Tenth Schedule, the decision is kept in abeyance on one pretext or the other and in many cases even the term of the assembly comes to an end and still no decision is announced.

The Speaker is not supposed to participate in programmes like campaign in elections or hold political meetings. When Balram Jakhar used to be the Speaker of Lok Sabha, he had an MP who used to raise questions pertaining to the constituency from where the Speaker was elected.

But now we have some who feel that they are speakers only when they have to conduct the proceedings of the Assembly and during non-session days they are political leaders of the party to which they belong. We have recently seen the kind of comments the Speaker of Andhra Pradesh Assembly had made against the leader of Opposition and the TDP leaders and his comments even on another constitutional body the High Court judges.

This raises the fundamental question. Has time come for the political parties to give training in the provisions of Constitution and the responsibilities of the office the politicians hold? Even when a constable is appointed, he is made to undergo one-year training in CrPC and other related rules. May be its high time, the politicians who are elevated to constitutional positions should also undergo some training with regard to various constitutional provisions. All political parties need to seriously ponder over this if democracy has to survive in the country.