send mail to support@abhimanu.com mentioning your email id and mobileno registered with us! if details not recieved
Resend Opt after 60 Sec.
By Loging in you agree to Terms of Services and Privacy Policy
Claim your free MCQ
Please specify
Sorry for the inconvenience but we’re performing some maintenance at the moment. Website can be slow during this phase..
Please verify your mobile number
Login not allowed, Please logout from existing browser
Please update your name
Subscribe to Notifications
Stay updated with the latest Current affairs and other important updates regarding video Lectures, Test Schedules, live sessions etc..
Your Free user account at abhipedia has been created.
Remember, success is a journey, not a destination. Stay motivated and keep moving forward!
Refer & Earn
Enquire Now
My Abhipedia Earning
Kindly Login to view your earning
Support
Type your modal answer and submitt for approval
The Supreme Court took a stand against prolonged inaction by Speakers in deciding disqualification petitions under the anti-defection law. The court was hearing a case related to the disqualification of Bharat Rashtra Samithi (BRS) MLAs from Telangana who defected to the ruling Congress. What prompted the Supreme Court to question its own powerlessness?
1. The prolonged delay in decision-making by the Speaker.
2. The Speaker's quasi-judicial authority being absolute.
3. The Speaker remaining a mute spectator for years.
4. The lack of merger provision in the anti-defection law.
The Supreme Court was concerned about the Speaker's prolonged inaction, causing delays in decision-making (1).
The Speaker has quasi-judicial authority, but it should be subject to judicial review (3).
The lack of merger provision (4) is unrelated to the court's question of powerlessness.
The Speaker’s absolute authority wasn’t the central issue here (2).
By: susheel ProfileResourcesReport error
Access to prime resources
New Courses