Maharashtra Speaker Faces Backlash Over Civic Poll Disqualification Row
Maharashtra Speaker Narwekar faces strong opposition over his handling of disqualification petitions in civic poll row.
Photo by wuz
Key Facts
Maharashtra Speaker Rahul Narwekar facing criticism
Issue: Handling of disqualification petitions for Shiv Sena and NCP MLAs
Supreme Court deadline for decision: January 10, 2026
Speaker sought extension citing complexity
UPSC Exam Angles
GS Paper II - Indian Constitution: Anti-Defection Law (Tenth Schedule), Constitutional Amendments (52nd, 91st)
GS Paper II - Parliament and State Legislatures: Powers and functions of the Speaker, role in maintaining legislative decorum and adjudicating disputes.
GS Paper II - Judiciary: Judicial review, judicial activism, Supreme Court's role in upholding constitutional principles and setting deadlines.
GS Paper II - Governance: Issues related to impartiality of constitutional offices, political ethics, electoral reforms.
Visual Insights
Maharashtra Political Crisis and Speaker's Role: A Timeline
This timeline outlines the key events leading to the current controversy surrounding the Maharashtra Assembly Speaker's handling of disqualification petitions.
The political instability in Maharashtra stems from the fractured mandate in 2019 and subsequent defections, leading to complex legal battles over the legitimacy of different factions.
- 2019Maharashtra Assembly Elections; Shiv Sena-BJP alliance wins majority but fails to form government due to disagreements over power-sharing.
- 2019Shiv Sena forms government with NCP and Congress (Maha Vikas Aghadi - MVA). Uddhav Thackeray becomes Chief Minister.
- June 2022Eknath Shinde leads a rebellion within Shiv Sena, resulting in a split in the party.
- June 2022MVA government collapses. Eknath Shinde becomes Chief Minister with BJP support.
- 2022Disqualification petitions filed against rebel MLAs from both Shiv Sena factions under the Anti-Defection Law.
- July 2023NCP faces a split as Ajit Pawar joins the Shinde-led government.
- 2023Disqualification petitions filed against NCP MLAs who defected to the Ajit Pawar faction.
- 2023-2025Supreme Court intervenes, setting deadlines for the Speaker to decide on the disqualification petitions. Multiple extensions sought.
- January 10, 2026Original Supreme Court deadline for Speaker Narwekar to decide on disqualification petitions.
- January 2026Speaker Narwekar seeks extension from Supreme Court to decide on disqualification petitions, facing backlash and legal challenges.
More Information
Background
The Anti-Defection Law, enshrined in the Tenth Schedule of the Indian Constitution, was introduced by the 52nd Amendment Act of 1985. Its primary objective was to curb the menace of political defections, which had become rampant in Indian politics, leading to frequent changes in government and political instability – a phenomenon often termed 'Aaya Ram Gaya Ram'. Before this law, legislators could switch parties without legal consequences, often for personal gain, undermining the mandate of the electorate.
The law initially provided for disqualification if a member voluntarily gave up membership of their political party or voted/abstained contrary to the party whip. It also included an exception for 'splits' (when one-third of a party's legislators defected), which was later removed by the 91st Amendment Act of 2003, making 'merger' (two-thirds of members) the only exception. The Speaker of the Lok Sabha or the Chairman of the Rajya Sabha (or their counterparts in state legislatures) was designated as the adjudicating authority for disqualification petitions.
Latest Developments
In recent years, the implementation of the Anti-Defection Law has been marred by increasing politicization and delays, leading to significant judicial intervention. The Supreme Court, in various judgments, including the landmark Kihoto Hollohan case (1992), affirmed that the Speaker's decision under the Tenth Schedule is subject to judicial review, albeit after a final decision is made. However, the Constitution does not prescribe a specific timeline for the Speaker to decide on these petitions, which has often been exploited by Speakers to delay decisions, particularly in politically sensitive cases.
This delay has led to prolonged political uncertainty, allowed defecting MLAs to continue in office, and undermined the spirit of the law. The Supreme Court has repeatedly expressed concern over this inaction and has, in several instances (e.g., Manipur, Goa, and now Maharashtra), set deadlines for Speakers to adjudicate. There is a growing debate about reforming the law, with suggestions ranging from transferring the power of disqualification to a neutral body like the Election Commission or the President (acting on the EC's advice) to establishing an independent tribunal, to ensure impartiality and timely decisions.
Practice Questions (MCQs)
1. Consider the following statements regarding the Anti-Defection Law in India: 1. The 52nd Amendment Act, 1985, added the Tenth Schedule to the Constitution. 2. A nominated member is disqualified if he joins any political party after the expiry of six months from the date on which he takes his seat. 3. The 91st Amendment Act, 2003, removed the provision relating to 'split' in a political party as an exception to disqualification. Which of the statements given above is/are correct?
- A.1 and 2 only
- B.2 and 3 only
- C.1 and 3 only
- D.1, 2 and 3
Show Answer
Answer: D
Statement 1 is correct: The 52nd Amendment Act of 1985 introduced the Tenth Schedule, commonly known as the Anti-Defection Law, to the Constitution. Statement 2 is correct: As per the Tenth Schedule, a nominated member is disqualified if they join any political party after the expiry of six months from the date on which they take their seat. They have a six-month window to decide whether to join a party. Statement 3 is correct: The 91st Amendment Act of 2003 removed the 'split' provision (which allowed one-third of members to defect without disqualification) from the Tenth Schedule. After this amendment, only a 'merger' (two-thirds of members) is an exception to disqualification.
2. With reference to the Speaker of a State Legislative Assembly and disqualification petitions, consider the following statements: 1. The decision of the Speaker on a question of disqualification under the Tenth Schedule is final and cannot be challenged in any court of law. 2. The Constitution of India specifies a fixed timeframe within which the Speaker must decide on disqualification petitions. 3. The Speaker of a State Legislative Assembly holds office during the pleasure of the Governor. Which of the statements given above is/are correct?
- A.1 only
- B.2 and 3 only
- C.3 only
- D.None of the statements
Show Answer
Answer: D
Statement 1 is incorrect: In the Kihoto Hollohan v. Zachillhu case (1992), the Supreme Court ruled that the Speaker's decision under the Tenth Schedule is subject to judicial review, though only after a final decision has been made. Statement 2 is incorrect: The Constitution does not specify a fixed timeframe for the Speaker to decide on disqualification petitions. This lack of a timeline is a major point of criticism and has led to judicial interventions setting deadlines. Statement 3 is incorrect: The Speaker of a State Legislative Assembly is elected by the Assembly from amongst its members and holds office till the dissolution of the Assembly, unless he ceases to be a member or resigns. He does not hold office during the pleasure of the Governor.
3. The Anti-Defection Law, while aiming to curb political instability, has been criticized for which of the following reasons? 1. Undermining the freedom of speech and expression of individual legislators. 2. Strengthening the power of political parties and their leadership. 3. Often being used as a tool for political maneuvering by the ruling party. 4. Promoting 'horse-trading' by making defections more lucrative. Select the correct answer using the code given below:
- A.1, 2 and 3 only
- B.2, 3 and 4 only
- C.1, 3 and 4 only
- D.1, 2, 3 and 4
Show Answer
Answer: A
Statement 1 is correct: The law restricts a legislator's ability to vote according to their conscience, effectively binding them to the party whip, thereby undermining their freedom of speech and expression within the legislature. Statement 2 is correct: By making party discipline paramount, the law centralizes power within political parties and their leadership, reducing the autonomy of individual members. Statement 3 is correct: The Speaker, often a member of the ruling party, can delay decisions or make partisan rulings, using the law as a tool for political maneuvering to benefit the ruling alliance. Statement 4 is incorrect: The law aims to *curb* horse-trading by disqualifying defectors. While it might not eliminate it entirely (as seen in cases of mass defections or 'mergers'), its intent is to make individual defections less lucrative by imposing disqualification. The criticism is that it *fails* to curb horse-trading effectively, not that it *promotes* it.
Source Articles
Maharashtra civic poll row: The loudest voices are against Speaker Narwekar | Political Pulse News - The Indian Express
Maharashtra civic elections | From 10 to 69, unopposed wins spike this time but it was a rarity earlier | Mumbai News - The Indian Express
8.6% fewer candidates in Maharashtra civic polls: Panvel, Mumbai, Kolhapur see up to 39% dip | Mumbai News - The Indian Express
Maharashtra Local Body Election Results 2025 Live Updates: Maharashtra Nagar Parishad, Nagar Palika, Panchayat Election Results | Election Commission of Maharashtra Result, Vote Counting Latest Update
Major parties battle protests, rebellion and anger on the last day of nomination for Maharashtra civic polls | Mumbai News - The Indian Express