Kihoto Hollohan vs Zachillhu
Kihoto Hollohan v. Zachillhu (1992) 1 SCC 309
1. Court:
Supreme Court of India
2. Background / Facts:
The case arose from a dispute regarding the powers of the Speaker of a Legislative Assembly to disqualify members under the Tenth Schedule of the Indian Constitution (also called the Anti-Defection Law).
Kihoto Hollohan and others were members of the Mizoram Legislative Assembly. Some members were disqualified by the Speaker under the Tenth Schedule for defection (changing parties or violating party directives).
The disqualified members challenged the Speaker’s decision, arguing that the Tenth Schedule was unconstitutional.
The central question was whether the decision of the Speaker on disqualification could be challenged before courts or was final.
3. Legal Issues:
Is the Speaker’s decision under the Tenth Schedule subject to judicial review?
Does the Tenth Schedule violate the basic structure of the Constitution?
What is the extent of the Speaker’s power and discretion under the Anti-Defection Law?
Are the decisions by the Speaker justiciable or are they final and binding?
4. Provisions Involved:
Article 102(2) and Article 191(2): Disqualification of Members of Parliament and State Legislative Assemblies on grounds of defection.
Tenth Schedule (added by the 52nd Amendment in 1985): Contains provisions regarding disqualification on grounds of defection.
Article 212: Prohibits courts from inquiring into proceedings of the Legislature.
5. Judgment:
The Supreme Court upheld the constitutional validity of the Tenth Schedule and the Anti-Defection Law.
The Court held that the decision of the Speaker or Chairman regarding disqualification under the Tenth Schedule is final and binding, and generally not subject to judicial review.
However, the Court carved out an exception: the Speaker’s decision can be challenged on limited grounds of malafide, perversity, or violation of constitutional principles.
The Court ruled that such limited judicial review would not violate Article 212 (which bars interference in legislative proceedings).
The judgment thus struck a balance between the autonomy of the Speaker and the power of the judiciary to ensure justice and prevent abuse of power.
The Court also clarified that the Anti-Defection Law does not violate the basic structure of the Constitution.
6. Legal Principles Established:
Finality of Speaker’s Decision: Speaker’s decision on disqualification under Tenth Schedule is final and binding, to prevent frequent judicial intervention in political matters.
Limited Judicial Review: Courts can examine the decision only on limited grounds such as mala fide, arbitrariness, or violation of constitutional mandate.
Anti-Defection Law Validity: The Anti-Defection Law is constitutional and serves the purpose of political stability and preventing opportunistic defection.
Protection of Legislative Proceedings: Article 212 prevents courts from enquiring into legislative proceedings except when fundamental rights or constitutional principles are violated.
Basic Structure Doctrine: The Anti-Defection Law does not alter or damage the basic structure of the Constitution.
7. Related Case Law:
| Case | Principle |
|---|---|
| Niranjan Singh v. Speaker, Punjab Assembly (1971) | Speaker’s decision on disqualification is final and not subject to judicial review. |
| S.R. Bommai v. Union of India (1994) | Basic structure doctrine and federalism emphasized. |
| Indira Nehru Gandhi v. Raj Narain (1975) | Judicial review is a part of the basic structure. |
| Ravi S. Naik v. Union of India (1994) | Anti-defection law upheld as valid. |
8. Significance:
The case is a landmark judgment on the Anti-Defection Law and the powers of the Speaker in India.
It laid down the important principle that while the Speaker’s decision should be respected to maintain legislative discipline, it is not immune from limited judicial scrutiny.
It seeks to balance political stability with protection against misuse of power by the Speaker.
The judgment has been pivotal in subsequent disqualification cases involving defections in legislatures across India.
It helped maintain the sanctity of the Anti-Defection Law in curbing political defections and floor-crossing.
It clarified the interpretation of Article 212, reinforcing the separation of powers between judiciary and legislature while upholding the rule of law.
RELATED Blog
0 comments