Polity · 28 Aug 2026

Tenth Schedule Speaker disqualification timeline

Assertion (A): The Tenth Schedule of the Constitution does not prescribe any binding timeline within which the Speaker must decide a disqualification petition.
Reason (R): In Keisham Meghachandra Singh v. Hon'ble Speaker, Manipur (2020), the Supreme Court held that its suggested three-month outer limit for deciding disqualification petitions is a binding statutory deadline enforceable against the Speaker.
Which one of the following is correct in respect of the above statements?

ABoth A and R are true and R is the correct explanation of A
BBoth A and R are true, but R is NOT the correct explanation of A
CA is true, but R is false
DA is false, but R is true
This question is based on: A Notice Dated the Exact Day of the Hearing
Take this in full test mode → Instructions for 28 Aug 2026
About this question

Why in news

The Lok Sabha Secretariat issued disqualification notices to 20 rebel TMC MPs more than two months after petitions were filed and only on the exact day the Supreme Court sat to hear a plea on the delay.

Why for UPSC

This probes the frequently blurred UPSC distinction between binding statutory requirements and advisory judicial guidance - the exact gap this real episode exposed in the Tenth Schedule's design.

Prelims summary

The Tenth Schedule prescribes no binding timeline for Speaker decisions on disqualification. The Supreme Court's three-month guideline in Keisham Meghachandra Singh (2020) remains advisory, not enforceable, leaving Speakers wide discretion over timing.

On web, answers are shown once after a test — no save or reattempt. For unlimited reattempts, Hindi medium, and Mentor Observations, use the TAN App.