Kihoto hollohan vs zachillhu and others case

Himanshi Gupta Best Answer

The 1992 judgment of the Supreme Court in the Kihoto Hollohan versus Zachillu and Others has said that “judicial review cannot be available at a stage prior to the making of a decision by the Speaker/Chairman. Nor would interference be permissible at an interlocutory stage of the proceedings said the Supreme Court. The only exception for any interlocutory interference can be cases of interlocutory disqualifications or suspensions which may have grave, immediate and irreversible repercussions and consequence. Free speech The ruling party in Rajasthan has challenged the constitutionality of Paragraph 2(1)(a) of the Tenth Schedule which makes “voluntarily giving up membership of a political party” liable for disqualification. The MLAs have said the provision infringes into their right to express dissent and is a violation of their fundamental right to free speech as a legislator. The Rajasthan HC Bench explained that the reason for limiting the role of courts in ongoing defection proceedings is that the “office of the Speaker is held in the highest respect and esteem in parliamentary traditions. Exceptions to the Kihoto Judgment The judgment had said that even the scope of judicial review against an order of a Speaker or Chairman in anti-defection proceedings would be confined to jurisdictional errors. That is if its infirmities are based on a violation of constitutional mandate, mala fides, non-compliance with rules of natural justice and perversity.