Hey there, if you have been following Indian politics, you have also probably heard about those high-stakes moments where the Speaker of the Lok Sabha (that's our lower house of Parliament) makes a call that can flip governments or disqualify lawmakers. Additionally also Think about the drama in Maharashtra a couple of years back, or the ongoing debates around anti-defection laws. But here is the big question: Can courts actually review these decisions, or is the Speaker's word final? It's a tricky area that touches on the separation of powers in our democracy. As someone who's dived into constitutional law a bit, let me break it down for you in plain English, drawing from key Supreme Court judgments and legal principles. We'll look at different types of decisions the Speaker makes and see where the judiciary fits in.
In any democracy, the balance between the Legislature, Executive, and Judiciary is extremely important. The India follows the principle of separation of powers, where each organ has its own responsibilities. However, these duties often intersect, and this overlap sometimes raises questions about authority. One such debate revolves around the decisions of the Speaker of Parliament—can they be challenged in a court of law?
Who is a Speaker and is his role?
I am sure that you have ever watched a parliamentary debate. When you watch a parliamentary debate, the Speaker of the House seems to be the ultimate authority. With a gavel in hand and the power to say "Order, order!", they can be called the umpire of the legislative game. But what happens when that umpire makes a call that seems fundamentally unfair or even unconstitutional? Is their decision final, or can it be challenged in a court of law. This isn't just a theoretical question. It's one of the most critical and tense balancing acts in Indian democracy: the line between parliamentary privilege and judicial review.
The Speaker of the Lok Sabha (and similarly, the Chairperson of the Rajya Sabha) is the presiding officer of the House. They:
- Maintain order during debates
- Decide who speaks
- Certify whether a bill is a Money Bill
- Handle issues of defection under the Tenth Schedule
- Conduct House business impartially
The Speaker is expected to be neutral even though they usually belong to a political party.
Why is the Speaker’s Decision Considered Special?
The Constitution gives special autonomy to the Speaker. For example:
- The Speaker’s certification of a Money Bill (Article 110) was initially considered final.
- Decisions on disqualification under the Tenth Schedule were treated as final and not subject to judicial review (as per 52nd Constitutional Amendment).
This created an impression that the Speaker’s authority cannot be questioned in courts.
But Then Comes Judicial Review
Judicial review is a basic feature of the Indian Constitution. It means that courts have the power to examine the actions of any authority, including the Legislature or Executive, to ensure they do not violate the Constitution. So the question is: Can courts review the decisions of the Speaker when the Constitution grants them special authority?
Turning Point
There is an debate over whether the Speaker’s decisions can be judicially reviewed which begins with Article 122 of the Indian Constitution, which says that courts cannot question the validity of parliamentary proceedings on grounds of procedural irregularities—essentially, what happens in the House stays in the House. The reasoning behind this is clear: allowing courts to intervene in every dispute or procedural disagreement would paralyze the legislature and blur the separation of powers. The Speaker, therefore, has been seen as the final authority on matters of procedure within the House. However, this understanding was challenged with the introduction of the Tenth Schedule, or the Anti-Defection Law, which empowered the Speaker to decide whether a member should be disqualified for switching parties. This transformed the Speaker from a neutral umpire into a decision-maker with serious political implications, capable of affecting the balance of power in government. When questions arose about potential bias—particularly whether a Speaker from the ruling party might misuse this authority—the judiciary stepped in, recognizing that unchecked power, even within Parliament, could threaten the principles of fairness and constitutional integrity.
Whether the Parliament Speaker's Decisions Are Subject to Judicial Review?
Today, it is clear that:
Yes, the Speaker’s decisions can be judicially reviewed.
Judicial review applies especially when:
- There is procedural irregularity
- The decision violates the Constitution
- There is mala fide use of power
However, courts avoid interfering in:
- Internal parliamentary procedures
- Decisions taken within the four walls of the House, unless constitutional limits are crossed
So, thats the reason the Speaker enjoys freedom, but not absolute freedom.
Supreme Court’s Stand: Key Judgments
Now let's know how this entire debate was settled by the Supreme Court in a landmark 1992 case of Kihoto Hollohan v. Zachillhu. The court draw a brilliant line on a sand. It said that when a Speaker is deciding on a disqualification case under the Tenth Schedule, they are not just acting as a procedural head of the House. They are acting as a quasi-judicial tribunal (a sort of judge). And also because judicial review is a "basic structure" of the Indian Constitution, you cannot take away the High Court's and Supreme Court's power to review the decision of any tribunal.
I am sure that now you got the answer, which is a qualified yes. The Speaker's decision can be challenged in court.
Judgements regarding Is the Parliament Speaker's Decisions Are Subject to Judicial Review UPSC?
1. Kihoto Hollohan vs. Zachillhu (1992)
This judgment changed the debate significantly.
What the Supreme Court said:
- The Speaker’s decisions under the Tenth Schedule (anti-defection law) are subject to judicial review.
- However, courts can review the Speaker’s decision only after it is made—not while the decision-making process is ongoing.
So, the Speaker is not completely free from judicial scrutiny.
✔ Result: Judicial review allowed
✖ But no interference during the process
2. Raja Ram Pal vs. Speaker, Lok Sabha (2007)
This case dealt with expulsion of MPs in the “cash-for-query” scam.
What the Supreme Court held here:
The Speaker’s decisions are subject to judicial review, especially when there is:
- Mala fide intention,
- Unconstitutionality,
- Violation of procedures.
Result: Judicial review allowed when constitutional limits are breached.
3. Aadhaar Case / Money Bill Issue (2018–2024)
A debate arose around the Speaker’s decision to certify certain bills as Money Bills.
In 2018, the Supreme Court upheld Aadhaar as a Money Bill.
In 2024, a 7-judge bench held that the Speaker’s decision on Money Bills is also judicially reviewable.
The hon'ble Supreme court said that the Speaker’s certification is not final—courts can scrutinize.
What Can the Courts Actually Review?
This section is the most important part. We now the Kihoto judgment, there the court didn't got a free pass to interfere in everything. The court made it clear it will not step in for a simple "procedural irregularity" (which Article 122 still protects). However, a court can and will strike down a Speaker's decision if it is found to be:
- Unconstitutional: The decision violates a clear provision of the Constitution.
- Mala Fide (in Bad Faith): The Speaker was clearly biased or acted with a dishonest motive.
- A Violation of Natural Justice: The Speaker didn't follow the basic rules of fairness, like failing to give the member a chance to be heard.
- Perverse: The decision is so wildly irrational that no reasonable person could have ever reached it.
Disclaimer: This information shared here is for academic purpose and general awareness only. The author is not responsible for any loss that have been occur to any one. The author written this article based on their knowledge and understanding, and with the help of case laws.
Conclusion
So, at conclusion of this article title "Unpacking Whether the Parliament Speaker's Decisions Are Subject to Judicial Review? " The answer the question is clearly:
Yes, the Parliament Speaker’s decisions can be judicially reviewed—especially when they violate constitutional principles or are driven by bad faith.
Judicial review acts as a safety valve, protecting democracy from the misuse of institutional power.
References:
- Kihoto Hollohan v. Zachillhu 1992 Supp (2) SCC 651
- Raja Ram Pal v. Hon’ble Speaker, Lok Sabha (2007) 3 SCC 184
- Aadhaar (Money Bill) Judgments
K.S. Puttaswamy (Aadhaar-II) v. Union of India (2018) (2019) 1 SCC 1
