SYNOPSIS The instant writ petition is being preferred under Art. 32 of the Constitution seeking a direction from this Hon’ble Court to the Respondent No. 1 (the Speaker) to decide the disqualification petition filed by the Petitioner, against the Respondent Nos. 2 to 11, within a period of one month, as the same has been pending since 08.08.2019 i.e. for over a period of 9 months (7 months even excluding the lockdown period in Goa); and during the said period restrain the Respondent Nos. 2 to 11, who have ex-facie incurred disqualification under Tenth schedule of Constitution of India, from functioning and acting as Ministers and Members of the Legislative Assembly. Tersely stated the facts leading to the filing of the instant petition, is the failure of the Respondent No. 1 to decide a petition filed by the Petitioner, under para 2 of the Tenth Schedule of the Constitution, against the Respondent Nos. 2 to 11, for having voluntarily given up their membership of the original political party i.e. the Indian National Congress, even after a lapse of 7 months (after excluding the period during which Government offices were closed in view of the Covid-19 pandemic) from the date of filing of the said petition. As per the mandate of the Xth Schedule, and the judgment of this Hon’ble Court in Keisham Meghachandra Singh v Hon'ble Speaker Manipur Legislative Assembly and Others 2020 SCC OnLine SC 55 (at para 29), the Respondent No. 1 is required to decide a petition of this nature within a reasonable period of time, and in any case, absent exceptional circumstances, within a period of 3 months. The relevant portion of the said judgment reads as follows: “29. […] the Speaker, in acting as a Tribunal under the Tenth Schedule is bound to decide disqualification petitions within a reasonable period. What is reasonable will depend on the facts of each case, but absent exceptional circumstances for which there is good reason, a period of three months from the date on which the petition is filed is the outer limit within which disqualification petitions filed before the Speaker must be decided if the constitutional objective of disqualifying persons who have infracted the Tenth Schedule is to be adhered to. This period has been fixed keeping in mind the fact that ordinarily the life of the Lok Sabha and the Legislative Assembly of the States is 5 years and the fact that persons who have incurred such disqualification do not deserve to be MPs/MLAs even for a single day, as found in Rajendra Singh Rana (supra), if they have infracted the provisions of the Tenth Schedule.[…]” (Emphasis supplied) In the instant case, the aforesaid timeline prescribed by this Hon’ble Court, has been long breached. Importantly, during the pendency of the said petition, the Respondent Nos. 2 to 11 continue to participate as members of the Legislative Assembly, despite having ex facie incurred a disqualification under the Xth Schedule of the Constitution of India and in fact Respondent Nos. 2, 5 and 10 are Ministers in the Government. Recently, this Hon’ble Court faced with a breach of the aforesaid timeline, and a further extension granted by it, by its order dated 18.03.2020 in Keisham Meghachandra Singh v Hon'ble Speaker Manipur Legislative Assembly and Others Miscellaneous Application No. 820/2020 in Civil Appeal No. 547/2020, directed that the MLA concerned would not be allowed to enter the legislative assembly and would cease to be a Minister. Hence the instant writ petition. LIST OF DATES AND EVENTS DATE EVENT The Petitioner herein is the President of the Goa Pradesh Congress Committee (“GPCC”) of Indian National Congress. 11.03.2017 Assembly elections were held in the State of Goa and, on 11.03.2017, the Respondent Nos. 2 to 10, who had contested as candidates nominated by the Indian National Congress (“INC”), stood elected as members of the Goa Legislative Assembly from their respective constituencies. 2019 As a result of the vacancy created in the Assembly for the Panaji Constituency, in view of the death of Mr. Manohar Parrikar, the Respondent No. 11 contested and stood elected in the bye-elections held for the said constituency, being nominated by the GPCC. 10.07.2019 In an blatant breach of the faith reposed by the people of their constituencies in them, the aforesaid Respondent Nos. 2 to 11, purportedly claiming to form 2/3rd of the Legislative Party of the INC decided to merge the said legislature party with the BJP, and accordingly addressed a communication to that effect to the Hon’ble Speaker. Based on the said communication, the Respondent No. 1 was pleased to take note of the alleged merger of INC’s Legislative Party in the Goa Legislative Assembly, and allotted these ten MLA’s (Respondent Nos.2 to 11) seats in the Assembly along with the members of the BJP. 10.07.2019 On the very same day, the Goa Legislative Assembly also issued a bulletin bearing No.149 dated 10.07.2019 stating the aforesaid facts. The said information was also published in the official gazette dated 10.07.2019 for the information of the general public. The Petitioner states that consequent to the aforesaid bulletin, the affiliation of the aforesaid ten MLA’s (Respondent Nos.2 to 11) is shown to have changed from INC to BJP in the records of the Goa State Legislative Assembly. Note: The Xth Schedule of the Constitution recognises the merger of a “Political Party” in contradistinction to the “Legislature Party”. Even the deeming fiction contained in para 4(iii), is provided as a measure to ascertain a merger of the political party that has already taken place. This order of the Speaker turns para 4 of the Xth schedule on its head inasmuch there is not an iota of evidence to suggest that this supposed merger was preceded by a merger of the political party. 24.07.2019 The office bearers of the GPCC duly passed a resolution to institute a disqualification petition before the Speaker of the Assembly under the Xth Schedule of the Constitution against the Respondent Nos. 2 to 11 for defection. 08.08.2019 Since the Petitioner was of the view that the said action of voluntarily giving up membership of the original political party, would amount to disqualification under para 2 of Xth Schedule of the Constitution of India, the Petitioner filed a disqualification petition bearing Disqualification Petition No. 3/2019 before the Respondent No. 1. 23.09.2019 The Petitioner received a notice from the Respondent No. 1 stating that the aforesaid petition would be heard on 15.10.2019. 15.10.2019 The Respondent No. 1 though conducted a hearing, after hearing the Petitioner, informed him that the next course of action would be intimated subsequently. However, for a period of 2 months the Petitioner did not receive any communication from the Respondent No. 1. 31.12.2019 As the Respondent No. 1 did not communicate any subsequent date to the Petitioner or communicate any further course of action in the matter, the Petitioner filed an application in the form of an MCA in the said disqualification petition, stating therein that the delay in the disposal of the disqualification petition had the effect of defeating the very purpose and objectives of the anti-defection law, as contained in Schedule Xth of the Constitution. 25.01.2020 Thereafter, vide communication dated 25.01.2020 from the Respondent no.1, the Petitioner was called for the hearing by Respondent No. 1 which was scheduled on 13.02.2020. 13.02.2020 The Petitioner, through his lawyer, was present for the hearing, which was scheduled by the Respondent No. 1 by his communication dated 25.01.2020. The Respondent Nos. 2 to 11 were also duly represented by their lawyer at the said hearing, who, at the time of the hearing sought a period of 5 weeks to file their reply. The Petitioner opposed the grant of 5 weeks, and submitted that only a reasonable time of 1 week should be given, if at all. Pertinently, the Petitioner relied upon the judgment of this Hon’ble Court in Keisham Meghachandra Singh v Hon'ble Speaker Manipur Legislative Assembly and Others 2020 SCC OnLine SC 55 (at para 29), and requested the Respondent No. 1 to complete the proceedings within the time frame laid down by this Hon’ble Court. The Respondent No.1 informed the parties that he had noted the aforesaid judgment, and that he would intimate the next course of action subsequently. 01.06.2020 Hence the instant petition. 1 IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA CIVIL ORIGINAL JURISDICTION (Petition under Article 32 of the Constitution of IndiA) WRIT PETITION (C) NO. ……. OF 2020 IN THE MATTER OF: GIRISH CHODANKAR …PETITIONER VERSUS THE SPEAKER, GOA STATE LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY & ORS … RESPONDENTS BETWEEEN In this Hon’ble Court 1. GIRISH CHODANKAR, Petitioner No. 1 son of Raya Chodankar, 51 years of age, Indian national, President of Goa Pradesh Congress Committee of Indian National Congress, V/s 1. THE SPEAKER, Respondent No. 1. GoA StAte LegislAtive Assembly, Porvorim, Goa -403521 2. CHANDRAKANT KAVALEKAR Respondent No. 2. Member of LegislAtive Assembly (Quepem Constituency) GoA StAte LegislAtive Assembly Porvorim Goa. 403521 3. ISIDORE FERNANDES Respondent No. 3. Member of LegislAtive Assembly 2 (CAnconA Constituency) GoA StAte LegislAtive Assembly Porvorim Goa. 403521 4. NILKANTH HALARNKAR Respondent No. 4. Member of LegislAtive Assembly (Tivim Constituency) GoA StAte LegislAtive Assembly Porvorim Goa. 403521 5. JENNIFER MONSERRATE Respondent No.