Justice Kant : Is it not a fact that in Kihoto case, the very authority of Speaker was not challenged? We are confronted with a situation where the continuation of the Speaker is challenged.
"Judicial review cannot be available at a stage prior to the making of a decision by the Speaker/Chairman and a quia- timet action would not be permissible.Nor would interference be permissible at an interlocutory stage of the proceedings" - Singhvi reads from Kihoto.
Kamat reads out the para from Kihoto.
Singhvi comes online again. He takes over from Kamat.
Singhvi refers to para 109 of Kihoto Hollohan.
"Even after a final order, your lordship's scrutiny is limited"...
Singhvi's video freezes.
Sr Adv Devadutt Kamat takes over.
Justice Kant : But are we really dealing with the proceedings of the Assembly?
Singhvi : Yes, your lordships are dealing with the questions like notice not given, notice of 2 days not enough.
Singhvi : Article 212 bars your lordships scrutiny when the Speaker is deciding. All internal management is barred from judicial scrutiny.
Singhvi refers to Article 212 to say that there is a Constitutional bar on the Courts inquiring into the legislative procedure.
Justice Kant : Where a Speaker's removal under Article 179(c) is under consideration, whether such Speaker is competent to decide under 10th Schedule? Whether this issue has been considered in any of the cases.
Singhvi refers to decision in Manipur MLAs case to say there are limited grounds for Court to interfere in interim - when the Speaker disqualifies MLA in interim,
- Court can pass interim orders setting time limit for final decision.
Justice Kant : Was it also a case where the continuation of Speaker was in question?
Singhvi : No. That was not in issue until Nabam Rebia in 2016. But in Nabam,Court interfered with a final order. Nabam Rebia is consistent with Kihoto in holding that let Speaker decide finally.