Introduction:
The Kihoto Hollohan Judgment of the Supreme Court is related to the disqualification of legislators under the Tenth Schedule of the Constitution. The Tenth Schedule, also known as the Anti-Defection Law, was inserted into the Constitution in 1985 to address the issue of political defections and to ensure stability in the political system.

Background:
Before the introduction of the Tenth Schedule, political defections were rampant in Indian politics. Legislators would often switch parties for personal gains, resulting in the instability of governments and compromising the democratic process. To tackle this problem, the Tenth Schedule was enacted, which provides for the disqualification of members of Parliament and state legislatures on the grounds of defection.

Details of the Kihoto Hollohan Judgment:
The Kihoto Hollohan Judgment was delivered by a Constitution Bench of the Supreme Court in 1992. The case involved the disqualification of Kihoto Hollohan, a member of the Nagaland Legislative Assembly, who had defected from his political party.

The Supreme Court, in its judgment, upheld the constitutional validity of the Tenth Schedule and laid down important principles regarding the disqualification of legislators. The key points of the judgment are as follows:

1. The power to decide on disqualification rests with the Speaker/Chairman of the House: The Court held that the Speaker/Chairman of the House is the sole authority to decide on disqualification cases. However, this power is subject to judicial review.

2. Judicial review limited to procedural irregularities: The Court held that the Speaker's/Chairman's decision can be subject to judicial review only on the limited grounds of mala fides, perversity, or violation of natural justice. The Court emphasized that it will not interfere with the Speaker's/Chairman's decision unless there is a manifest error.

3. Political questions cannot be judicially resolved: The Court observed that disqualification cases involve political questions and, therefore, cannot be judicially resolved. It stated that the Speaker's/Chairman's decision should be final and binding, and the Courts should not enter into the political thicket.

4. Role of the Governor: The Court clarified that the Governor does not have any independent power to decide on disqualification cases. The Governor's role is limited to forwarding the disqualification petition to the Speaker/Chairman for appropriate action.

Conclusion:
The Kihoto Hollohan Judgment of the Supreme Court is a landmark judgment that clarified the powers of the Speaker/Chairman in deciding disqualification cases under the Tenth Schedule. It upheld the constitutional validity of the Anti-Defection Law and emphasized the importance of stability in the political system. The judgment played a crucial role in curbing political defections and ensuring the integrity of the legislative process.