Q. Which of the following statements is/are correct regarding the powers of the presiding officer related to the Anti-defection law?
Choose the correct answer using the code given below:
Q. Which of the following statements is/are correct regarding the powers of the presiding officer related to the Anti-defection law?
Choose the correct answer using the code given below:
The correct option is C 3 only
Explanation:
The 10th Schedule of the Indian Constitution is designed to prevent political defections prompted by the lure of office or material benefits or other like considerations. The Anti-defection law was passed by Parliament in 1985 and reinforced in 2002. The ‘Anti-Defection Law’ was inserted by the 52nd Amendment (1985) to the Constitution.
Statement 1 is incorrect: Originally, the Act provided that the presiding officer’s decision was final and could not be questioned in any court of law. But, in the Kihoto Hollohan case (1993), the Supreme Court declared this provision as unconstitutional on the ground that it seeks to take away the jurisdiction of the SC and the high courts. Hence it is the judicial interpretation that provides for judicial review in this case.
Statement 2 is incorrect: There is no such provision that calls for consultation with the Election Commission.
Statement 3 is correct: In the Kihoto Hollohan case (1993), the court held that while deciding a question under the 10th Schedule, the presiding officer should function as a tribunal.
Explanation:
The 10th Schedule of the Indian Constitution is designed to prevent political defections prompted by the lure of office or material benefits or other like considerations. The Anti-defection law was passed by Parliament in 1985 and reinforced in 2002. The ‘Anti-Defection Law’ was inserted by the 52nd Amendment (1985) to the Constitution.
Statement 1 is incorrect: Originally, the Act provided that the presiding officer’s decision was final and could not be questioned in any court of law. But, in the Kihoto Hollohan case (1993), the Supreme Court declared this provision as unconstitutional on the ground that it seeks to take away the jurisdiction of the SC and the high courts. Hence it is the judicial interpretation that provides for judicial review in this case.
Statement 2 is incorrect: There is no such provision that calls for consultation with the Election Commission.
Statement 3 is correct: In the Kihoto Hollohan case (1993), the court held that while deciding a question under the 10th Schedule, the presiding officer should function as a tribunal.
