MLAs defections: SC gives Speaker 3 months to decide
In its 74-page judgement, the court struck down the orders of the division bench of the High Court and wanted the Parliament to take a decision on the time-limit for the speaker to take a decision. It observed that it cannot allow a situation of 'operation successful, but patient dead' by allowing the petition to be kept pending, which would eventually allow the MLAs to benefit.
The apex court rejected the prayer by the petitioners that it should decide the disqualification petitions, referring to the precedents in Kihoto Hollahan and Subhash Desai cases of a similar nature.
BRS working president K T Rama Rao and MLA Padi Kaushik Reddy had filed the petitions against the MLAs' defections.
The Supreme Court observed that the MLAs should not ask for extending the process as if they persist with such a plea, the Speaker can take an adverse decision. Political defections have become a topic of discussions and if these are not stopped, these have the power to damage democracy, it held.
'We have also examined various speeches made in Parliament on this issue on various occasions. The Speaker's decision on disqualification proceedings is to avoid delay in courts. The Speaker is empowered to act against those who have changed parties. The powers of judicial review in relation to Articles 136, 226, 227 are very limited. The division bench erred in interfering with the orders of the single judge of the Telangana High Court. The Speaker, while acting as a judicial officer, acts as a tribunal subject to the jurisdiction of the High Court and the Supreme Court,' the court ruled.
The Court observed that the Speaker cannot get constitutional protection by acting in such a manner. 'We are setting aside the judgment of the division bench of the Telangana High Court on November 22, 2014. Even in important decisions, Speakers of the Legislative Assembly are delaying action against defectors who pose a threat to democracy. Therefore, there was a need for Parliament to review the existing mechanism for disqualification of MLAs under the Anti-Defection Act. Such actions become meaningless after years. It is unfortunate that the Speaker has issued a notice on the issue only after the Supreme Court had issued a notice'.
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
India Today
10 minutes ago
- India Today
Explained: Why India shouldn't lose sleep over Trump's 25% tariffs
When Donald Trump announced a sweeping 25% tariff order targeting Indian exports, effective August 1, it had all the hallmarks of a trade provocation. Yet in Delhi's ministries and Mumbai's market floors, the response was consensus across policy circles is clear: Trump's move is less about trade policy and more about leverage. A pressure from threatening retaliation, India is opting for dialogue. Commerce Minister Piyush Goyal told Parliament that the government would 'safeguard the interests of our farmers, workers, and small entrepreneurs".The Ministry of External Affairs reaffirmed that the broader US–India partnership 'has weathered transitions and challenges' and should not be derailed by short-term frictions.25% TARIFF TO HAVE LIMITED IMPACTStrategic affairs expert Brahma Chellaney has been one of the few voices raising alarm over what he calls the "lopsided" nature of the trade expectations coming from pointed out that even under a new trade accord, the United States would retain relatively high tariffs on Indian goods—comparable to what it maintains on Vietnam and the Philippines, around 19–20%. In return, India would be expected to impose zero tariffs on most US imports, a clearly uneven 25% tariff order, while headline-grabbing, is unlikely to trigger major macroeconomic tremors. According to estimates by ICRA, Nomura, and ANZ, the GDP impact is expected to be modest, around 0.2 to 0.4 percentage points. India exports roughly $87 billion worth of goods to the US annually—just 2 to 3% of its total likely to take a near-term hit include traditional export mainstays: textiles, gems and jewellery, auto components, and seafood. But core sectors like pharmaceuticals, IT services, and high-end engineering remain relatively INDIA A 'DEAD ECONOMY'? ASK AMERICAN CONSUMERSStill, the frustration behind the tariff move isn't rooted in deficit calculations alone. Trump has publicly derided India's economy as a 'dead economy,' but data tells another story, especially when it comes to what American consumers depend top four exports to the US—pharmaceuticals, textiles, electricals and electronics, and jewellery—form a critical part of American supply chains. India ranks among the top five import destinations for the US in pharma, textiles, and jewellery. In electronics, India is one of the fastest-growing exporters to the US.'The total volume of 'Made-in-India' smartphones grew 240% year-on-year and now accounts for 44% of smartphones imported into the US, up from only 13% of smartphone shipments in Q2 2024,' according to Canalys data cited in this India Today DIU report. In the last quarter, India emerged as the dominant player in mobile handset shipments to the tariffs on key import destinations such as India could push up domestic prices for American consumers, especially in sectors where substitution is neither immediate nor HOLDING UP THE INDIA–US TRADE DEAL?The underlying tensions go beyond tariffs. Chellaney warns that the United States is not just demanding better market access but is pushing India to rewrite domestic policy in ways that could have long-term noted that India would be expected to open its agricultural and dairy markets, even though industrial-scale American imports could shatter India's family farms and undermine its food United States also expects India to ramp up purchases of American energy products by tens of billions of dollars annually. And despite already being a growing buyer of US arms, India would be nudged to increase its defence imports expectations haven't been officially acknowledged by Indian negotiators. But several of these themes have surfaced in earlier trade talks between the two countries, and officials say regulatory changes are already being quietly evaluated, including customs streamlining and possible tariff rationalisation on select capital INDIA MUST STAND ITS GROUNDExporters, meanwhile, are not standing still. Many are pivoting toward the EU, ASEAN, and Middle East markets, especially in sectors like engineering goods and climate-aligned manufacturing. The recently signed India–UK free trade agreement is expected to generate over Rs 500 billion annually and contribute 0.06% to India's GDP in the long term, signalling new avenues for growth.'A 25% US tariff may put some pressure on India's export-driven sectors like engineering goods, textiles, and jewellery. This move underscores the growing trend of protectionism and may compel India to diversify export markets, push for FTA negotiations, and accelerate domestic value addition to maintain global competitiveness,' said Ajay Garg, CEO, SMC Global Securities.'While Trump's trade policies unsettle global supply chains, India's resilience and economic agility are emerging as key differentiators. Notably, regional competitors like Bangladesh and Sri Lanka are still facing steeper tariffs, weakening their edge,' Garg added. 'Amid global uncertainty, India remains one of the fastest-growing major economies, poised to lead the next phase of emerging market growth.'Still, the deeper concern lies not in tariffs themselves, but in what they represent. Chellaney argues that this isn't merely about trade, it's about shaping the architecture of India's future economic dependencies. 'Conceding quietly,' he says, 'can become a pattern.'Opposition parties have accused the government of being too passive in the face of what they see as a coercive gambit. But export bodies and trade associations have largely backed New Delhi's calm approach. They have urged exporters to renegotiate contracts directly with US buyers, share cost burdens, and reinforce India's reputation as a reliable trade insist that India's sovereignty on food security, defence procurement, and digital trade remains non-negotiable, regardless of tariff TARIFF PLAYBOOKIt may be noted that the 25% tariff order isn't about economics; it's Trump playing the same old game. Trump's tariff playbook thrives on calibrated disruption: loud threats, sudden reversals, and pressure designed to unsettle rather than resolve. Sometimes he calls India a close ally. The next moment, it's a 'dead economy.' The inconsistency is the now, India is not retaliating, but there's little reason to lose sleep over what may well be another of Trump's arm-twisting theatrics.- Ends advertisement
News18
an hour ago
- News18
NEET UG 2025: SC Declines To Consider Plea Alleging Errors In Question Paper
Last Updated: NEET-UG 2025: The petitioner's counsel argued that the three questions were incorrect, citing two expert opinions that supported this claim. On Friday, the Supreme Court declined to hear a plea asserting that there were 'serious errors" in three questions from the NEET-UG 2025 examination. A bench of Justices P S Narasimha and A S Chandurkar advised the petitioner's counsel to approach the relevant high court. The National Testing Agency conducts the National Eligibility cum Entrance Test-Undergraduate (NEET-UG) for admissions to MBBS, BDS, AYUSH, and other related courses in both government and private institutions nationwide. The petitioner's counsel argued that the three questions were incorrect, citing two expert opinions that supported this claim. He stated that these questions affected the petitioner's score by 13 marks. 'These (three) questions were absolutely wrong. I have taken two expert opinions and those experts also concur with my views. They have certified my views," the counsel of the petitioner argued. The bench noted that the exam had already concluded. 'You withdraw this and go to the high court," the bench suggested, emphasising not wanting to deny the petitioner any remedy. The counsel requested that the Supreme Court appoint a panel of experts to review the questions within three days and consider their opinions. After the bench expressed unwillingness to entertain the plea, the petitioner's counsel decided to withdraw it. On July 4, the Supreme Court also declined to entertain a separate petition challenging the NEET-UG 2025 results due to an alleged error in one of the questions. view comments First Published: Disclaimer: Comments reflect users' views, not News18's. Please keep discussions respectful and constructive. Abusive, defamatory, or illegal comments will be removed. News18 may disable any comment at its discretion. By posting, you agree to our Terms of Use and Privacy Policy.
Indian Express
2 hours ago
- Indian Express
No consensus is the new normal: Op Sindoor debate reveals Govt-Opposition divide runs deep
The rare political consensus in the country in the aftermath of the Pahalgam terror attack and the subsequent military conflict with Pakistan was short-lived, fracturing with the surprise announcement of the ceasefire on May 10. And the special discussion in Parliament this week has only deepened the bitterness between the Treasury and the Opposition benches, with the political class deeply divided on the key issue of national security after the marathon three-day debate. The discussion in both Houses presented an opportunity to the government and the Opposition to show a semblance of unity and reflect a common resolve against terrorism emanating from Pakistan. While almost every second speaker spoke about the need for talking in one voice, a look at the speeches from both sides of the aisle shows that consensus is a rare commodity in 'New India', and that is perhaps the new normal. The only common element in all the speeches was the praise of the valour of the security forces, now a political prerequisite. Prime Minister Narendra Modi did not reply to the debate in Rajya Sabha and fielded Union Home Minister Amit Shah, prompting an Opposition walkout. The needle moved a lot from the government's point of view. It believes that the Home Minister's announcement of the gunning down of the Pahalgam terrorists, the PM's emphatic assertion that 'no leader in the world asked India to stop its military operation (Sindoor)', and External Affairs Minister S Jaishankhar's candid statement about the government's differences with the US on Pakistan and that New Delhi had taken up every issue it has with Washington DC — including the deportation of Indians, visas and the cause of students — have put an end to all questions and speculation surrounding Operation Sindoor and the US role. The Opposition, however, is not satisfied. While Leader of the Opposition Rahul Gandhi's dare to the PM to show 'courage' and declare US President Donald Trump a liar if he was not speaking the truth was plain political rhetoric, the Opposition believes Modi and the government ducked vital questions: on security and intelligence failure that resulted in the Pahalgam attack, fixing of accountability in that context, the losses suffered by the Indian Air Force, and Trump's role. While the PM skipped any mention of Trump and his repeated assertions of having brokered the ceasefire, Defence Minister Rajnath Singh danced around the issue of the fighter jets lost on the first day of the conflict, saying, 'In any exam, the result matters. We should see whether a student is getting good marks in an exam and not focus on whether his pencil was broken or the pen was lost.' To keep the pressure on the government, the Congress raised its nationalist pitch. Right from Gandhi to other leaders, the refrain was that the government should not have agreed to halt the military action, given its claim that Pakistan was asking for a ceasefire. Uncharacteristic of the Congress, but the party believes it can score a political point or two over the government by taking this stance. But as is its wont, former Union Home Minister P Chidambaram's remarks that those behind the Pahalgam attack could be homegrown terrorists and 'there is no evidence' they came from Pakistan gave the government ample political opportunity to once again box the party into a corner. Gandhi's speech was spirited and so was that of Wayanad MP Priyanka Gandhi Vadra, his sister, who reminded the government of the resignations of Vilasrao Deshmukh as Maharashtra Chief Minister and Shivraj Patil as Union Home Minister after the 2008 Mumbai terror attacks. Gandhi was scathing in his attack on the PM. He not just dared him to call out Trump, but said, 'It is dangerous in this time for the Prime Minister to use the forces to protect his image. It is dangerous for the country. The forces should only be used in the national interest, the forces should be used with freedom. If you want them to be used … then go all the way, fight properly and defeat them once and for all,' he said. The debate often dipped into the past. The Congress speakers mentioned the creation of Bangladesh by the Indira Gandhi government despite US pressure to back off and contrasted it with the ceasefire announcement by Trump. And the Treasury benches, right from the PM to Shah, delved into the record of Congress governments (bringing in Jawaharlal Nehru to Sonia Gandhi) both vis-a-vis Pakistan and handling of terrorism, pointing out repeatedly that the Congress showed weakness in moments including Partition, the India-Pakistan wars of 1947–1948 and 1965, the Indus Waters Treaty, and the 1962 war with China. The Congress, expectedly, carries a lot of baggage. And not surprisingly, its leaders, apart from the mention of Indira Gandhi, were focused on trying to pin down the government on the issues at hand. The government, apart from chest thumping over Operation Sindoor, singled out the Congress, reeling out incidents from history. While other INDIA bloc parties were on the same page as the Congress in targeting the government, none came to the Congress's rescue while it faced the brunt of the BJP attack.
