Critically analyse the role of judicial review in enforcing the anti-defection law when Speakers fail to act within a reasonable time.

The Tenth Schedule, inserted by the 52nd Amendment (1985), vests disqualification for defection solely in the Presiding Officer, but prescribes no time-limit for deciding a petition [1]. That silence has made judicial review under Articles 32 and 226 the operative remedy — necessary, but an incomplete substitute for reform.

Why courts had to step in

• The Speaker remains a party member, so a defection into the ruling party is often judged by that party's own nominee; PRS notes this has drawn the office into disrepute [1].
• Absent a deadline, inaction becomes strategy — defectors have continued as members while petitions lay pending [1].
• In Keisham Meghachandra Singh (2020), the Supreme Court held the Speaker acts as a tribunal and must ordinarily decide within three months [2], converting delay itself into a reviewable wrong.

Strengths of judicial review

• Kihoto Hollohan (1992) preserved review for mala fide, perversity and breach of natural justice, preventing Para 6 finality from becoming absolute [3].
• It gives content to "voluntarily giving up membership", which covers conduct, not merely resignation — as when the Telangana High Court disqualified Khairatabad MLA Danam Nagender for contesting the 2024 Secunderabad Lok Sabha poll on a rival ticket, backdating disqualification to April 2024 [4].

Its limits

• Relief is retrospective on paper only: an order delivered roughly 29 months later cannot restore the term already enjoyed [4].
• It is litigant-driven — the aggrieved party must first move the court; the three-month rule carries no automatic sanction [2].
• Repeated intervention strains separation of powers and burdens courts with essentially political adjudication.

Judicial review thus repairs individual failures without curing the structural defect. Lasting reform lies in writing a binding deadline into the Tenth Schedule and shifting adjudication to the President/Governor acting on the Election Commission's advice [1], so that the constitutional promise of stable, mandate-respecting representation is secured by design rather than by litigation.