Jaldi-Vidhi

S.A. Sampath Kumar v. Kale Yadaiah

Case details and hearing information from the Constitution Bench Pendency Portal.

557

Message: show

S.A. Sampath Kumar v. Kale Yadaiah

2024-12-26T09:28:17.709870+05:30

This case examines the courts’ authority to impose a time limit on the Speaker of a legislative assembly for deciding a dispute.

Petitioners Arguments: In Kihoto Hollohan v. Zachillhu , it was held that a quia timet action would not be permissible. However, a quia timet action is an action in the nature of stay of proceedings before the Speaker, and the direction that the Speaker should decide a particular dispute within a certain time does not fall within such an action. A Division Bench of the Supreme Court, in Speaker, Haryana Vidhan Sabha v. Kuldeep Bishnoi , granted a similar direction. Additionally, a three-judge bench in Speaker, Orissa Legislative Assembly v. Utkal Keshari Parida upheld a similar direction given by the Orissa High Court.
Responders Arguments: In Kihoto Hollohan , it was laid down that a quia timet action would not be permissible. In P. Ramanatha Aiyar's Advanced Law Lexicon, a quia timet action is the right to be protected against anticipated future injury that cannot be prevented by the present action. Therefore, a direction of this nature by the High Court would fall within the ambit of such an action.
Last Listed On: 2016-11-08
Start Date: 2016-11-08
Card Stage Date: 2016-11-08
Review Petition No: SLP(C) No. 33677/2015
Case Status: Pending
Bench Status: Not Constituted
Subject Matter: Constitution
Pendency: 9 years, 7 months, 22 days

5 Judge Bench

2024-01-04T12:23:31.606715+05:30

Reference to larger bench

2024-02-07T08:07:41.724704+05:30

Consider As Stage Of Pendency: true

Date of institution of case

2024-02-07T08:07:40.886454+05:30

Date of reference to 5 Judge Bench

2024-12-30T08:38:36.514676+05:30

2025-01-17T09:25:21.764380+05:30

The present petition is an appeal against the judgement of the Andhra Pradesh High Court dated 28-09-2015 which directed the Speaker of the legislative assembly to decide a disqualification petition within a stipulated time. On 23-04-2014, disqualification petitions had been referred to the Speaker of the Telangana Legislative Assembly and no decision has been rendered by the Speaker on those petitions yet. The main point of contention is whether a High Court, through its writ jurisdiction vide Article 226 of the Constitution of India , can order a Speaker of a legislative assembly, acting under powers granted by the Tenth Schedule of the Constitution of India , to decide a particular disqualification petition within a stipulated time. A quia timet action , that is a stay of proceedings before the Speaker, has been held to be not permissible by the Supreme Court in Kihoto Hollohan v. Zachillhu Another primary point of contention between the two parties was whether a High Court order directing a Speaker to decide a dispute within a stipulated time falls within the ambit of a quia timet action .

2025-01-17T09:26:27.036972+05:30

Whether a speaker of a legislative assembly, acting under powers granted to him under the Tenth Schedule of Constitution of India (as a quasi judicial authority) can be ordered by a High Court, exercising its writ jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India , to decide a particular disqualification petition pending before him within a certain time? Whether such a direction would not fall foul of the quia timet action doctrine mentioned in paragraph 110 of Kihoto Hollohan v. Zachillhu ?

Article 226 of the Constitution

2025-01-17T08:56:35.826116+05:30

2025-01-17T09:27:23.516359+05:30

The Speaker of the Telangana State Legislative Assembly has chosen not to render any decision on the disqualification petitions till date. The question regarding the extent of the High Court’s power needs to be authoritatively decided by a larger bench of five judges.