Allow Cookies!
By using our website, you agree to the use of cookies
The Supreme Court bench of Justice A.K. Sikri, Justice Ashok Bhushan and Justice S. Abdul Nazeer heard the case R. Sakkrapani v Secretary, Tamil Nadu Legislative Assembly and others, where Senior counsel, Mukul Rohatgi was counsel for the 11 MLAs led by current Deputy Vhief Minister of Tamil Nadu, O.Paneer Selvam.
On this, Rohatgi contended that assuming that the High Court can take over the functions of the Speaker, and decide the disqualification petitions, it could lead to serious consequences and a “complete mismatch”. According to Rohatgi, the Speaker of the Tamil Nadu Assembly has been unable to decide the petition seeking disqualification of the 11 MLAs on account of the fact that the matter has been pending before some court. Mukul Rohatgi forwarded the contention that the judiciary can direct the Speaker to decide disqualification petitions within a time frame and if the Speaker is seen to abdicate his responsibility under the Tenth Schedule, the judiciary can step in and decide the pending disqualification petitions itself.
On the last contention as stated above, Justice Sikri recalled the doctrine of separation of powers among the judiciary, executive and legislature. In the hilarious turn of events, he jested while asking if judicial activism is justified on the ground that the executive is not deciding things in time, can the huge pendency of cases in the courts force a legislature or an executive to step in and take over the functions of the judiciary.
86540
103860
630
114
59824