Question Description
Direction: You have been given some passages followed by questions based on this passage. You are required to choose the most appropriate option which follows from the passage. Only the information given in the passage should be used for choosing the answer and no external knowledge of law howsoever prominent is to be applied.There are two significant aspects to the Supreme Court's latest decision on the Speaker as the adjudicating authority under the anti-defection law. The first is that Parliament should replace the Speaker with a "permanent tribunal" or external mechanism to render quick and impartial decisions on questions of defection.Few would disagree with the Court's view that initial fears and doubts about whether Speakers would be impartial had come true. The second is its extraordinary ruling that the reference by another Bench, in 2016, of a key question to a Constitution Bench was itself unnecessary.The question awaiting determination by a larger Bench is whether courts have the power to direct Speakers to decide petitions seeking disqualification within a fixed time frame.Secure in the belief that no court would question the delay in disposal of disqualification matters as long as the matter was pending before a Constitution Bench, Speakers have been wilfully failing to act as per law.The reference to a larger Bench, in 2016 in S.A. Sampath Kumar vs. Kale Yadaiah was based on the landmark judgment in Kihoto Hollohan (1992) which upheld the validity of the Constitution's Tenth Schedule, or the anti-defection law. This verdict had also made the Speaker's order subject to judicial review on limited grounds. Finding several pending complaints before Speakers, the Bench, in 2016, decided that it was time for an authoritative verdict on whether Speakers can be directed to dispose of defection questions within a time frame. While fixing an outer limit of three months for Speakers to act on disqualification petitions, in the present case, Justice R.F. Nariman given four weeks to the Manipur Assembly Speaker to decide the disqualification question in a legislator's case. He also held that the reference was made on a wrong premise. As "failure to exercise jurisdiction" is a recognised stage at which the court can now intervene, the court has thus opened a window for judicial intervention in cases in which Speakers refuse to act. This augurs well for the enforcement of the law against defection in letter and spirit.Q. Two M.L.A.s had been elected on the ticket of MGP party, but they accompanied the leader of Congress (I) Legislative Party when he met the Governor to show that he had the support of 20 MLAs. On this conduct alone, the Speaker held that they had given up membership of the MGP party and disqualified them for being a member of the House. Does the conduct of speaker in giving the decision expeditiously, consistent with the ruling of the Supreme Court?a)Yes, it is consistent with the ruling of the Supreme Court since the Speaker is a neutral and impartial forum.b)No, it is not consistent with the ruling of the Supreme Court since the Speaker is incapable of deciding without causing prejudice and injustice.c)Yes, it is consistent with the ruling of the Supreme Court since the non-action by the Speaker would amount to failure in exercising his jurisdiction.d)No, it is not consistent with the ruling of the Supreme Court since deciding expeditiously doesn't mean deciding within a fixed time frame.Correct answer is option 'C'. Can you explain this answer? for CLAT 2024 is part of CLAT preparation. The Question and answers have been prepared according to the CLAT exam syllabus. Information about Direction: You have been given some passages followed by questions based on this passage. You are required to choose the most appropriate option which follows from the passage. Only the information given in the passage should be used for choosing the answer and no external knowledge of law howsoever prominent is to be applied.There are two significant aspects to the Supreme Court's latest decision on the Speaker as the adjudicating authority under the anti-defection law. The first is that Parliament should replace the Speaker with a "permanent tribunal" or external mechanism to render quick and impartial decisions on questions of defection.Few would disagree with the Court's view that initial fears and doubts about whether Speakers would be impartial had come true. The second is its extraordinary ruling that the reference by another Bench, in 2016, of a key question to a Constitution Bench was itself unnecessary.The question awaiting determination by a larger Bench is whether courts have the power to direct Speakers to decide petitions seeking disqualification within a fixed time frame.Secure in the belief that no court would question the delay in disposal of disqualification matters as long as the matter was pending before a Constitution Bench, Speakers have been wilfully failing to act as per law.The reference to a larger Bench, in 2016 in S.A. Sampath Kumar vs. Kale Yadaiah was based on the landmark judgment in Kihoto Hollohan (1992) which upheld the validity of the Constitution's Tenth Schedule, or the anti-defection law. This verdict had also made the Speaker's order subject to judicial review on limited grounds. Finding several pending complaints before Speakers, the Bench, in 2016, decided that it was time for an authoritative verdict on whether Speakers can be directed to dispose of defection questions within a time frame. While fixing an outer limit of three months for Speakers to act on disqualification petitions, in the present case, Justice R.F. Nariman given four weeks to the Manipur Assembly Speaker to decide the disqualification question in a legislator's case. He also held that the reference was made on a wrong premise. As "failure to exercise jurisdiction" is a recognised stage at which the court can now intervene, the court has thus opened a window for judicial intervention in cases in which Speakers refuse to act. This augurs well for the enforcement of the law against defection in letter and spirit.Q. Two M.L.A.s had been elected on the ticket of MGP party, but they accompanied the leader of Congress (I) Legislative Party when he met the Governor to show that he had the support of 20 MLAs. On this conduct alone, the Speaker held that they had given up membership of the MGP party and disqualified them for being a member of the House. Does the conduct of speaker in giving the decision expeditiously, consistent with the ruling of the Supreme Court?a)Yes, it is consistent with the ruling of the Supreme Court since the Speaker is a neutral and impartial forum.b)No, it is not consistent with the ruling of the Supreme Court since the Speaker is incapable of deciding without causing prejudice and injustice.c)Yes, it is consistent with the ruling of the Supreme Court since the non-action by the Speaker would amount to failure in exercising his jurisdiction.d)No, it is not consistent with the ruling of the Supreme Court since deciding expeditiously doesn't mean deciding within a fixed time frame.Correct answer is option 'C'. Can you explain this answer? covers all topics & solutions for CLAT 2024 Exam. Find important definitions, questions, meanings, examples, exercises and tests below for Direction: You have been given some passages followed by questions based on this passage. You are required to choose the most appropriate option which follows from the passage. Only the information given in the passage should be used for choosing the answer and no external knowledge of law howsoever prominent is to be applied.There are two significant aspects to the Supreme Court's latest decision on the Speaker as the adjudicating authority under the anti-defection law. The first is that Parliament should replace the Speaker with a "permanent tribunal" or external mechanism to render quick and impartial decisions on questions of defection.Few would disagree with the Court's view that initial fears and doubts about whether Speakers would be impartial had come true. The second is its extraordinary ruling that the reference by another Bench, in 2016, of a key question to a Constitution Bench was itself unnecessary.The question awaiting determination by a larger Bench is whether courts have the power to direct Speakers to decide petitions seeking disqualification within a fixed time frame.Secure in the belief that no court would question the delay in disposal of disqualification matters as long as the matter was pending before a Constitution Bench, Speakers have been wilfully failing to act as per law.The reference to a larger Bench, in 2016 in S.A. Sampath Kumar vs. Kale Yadaiah was based on the landmark judgment in Kihoto Hollohan (1992) which upheld the validity of the Constitution's Tenth Schedule, or the anti-defection law. This verdict had also made the Speaker's order subject to judicial review on limited grounds. Finding several pending complaints before Speakers, the Bench, in 2016, decided that it was time for an authoritative verdict on whether Speakers can be directed to dispose of defection questions within a time frame. While fixing an outer limit of three months for Speakers to act on disqualification petitions, in the present case, Justice R.F. Nariman given four weeks to the Manipur Assembly Speaker to decide the disqualification question in a legislator's case. He also held that the reference was made on a wrong premise. As "failure to exercise jurisdiction" is a recognised stage at which the court can now intervene, the court has thus opened a window for judicial intervention in cases in which Speakers refuse to act. This augurs well for the enforcement of the law against defection in letter and spirit.Q. Two M.L.A.s had been elected on the ticket of MGP party, but they accompanied the leader of Congress (I) Legislative Party when he met the Governor to show that he had the support of 20 MLAs. On this conduct alone, the Speaker held that they had given up membership of the MGP party and disqualified them for being a member of the House. Does the conduct of speaker in giving the decision expeditiously, consistent with the ruling of the Supreme Court?a)Yes, it is consistent with the ruling of the Supreme Court since the Speaker is a neutral and impartial forum.b)No, it is not consistent with the ruling of the Supreme Court since the Speaker is incapable of deciding without causing prejudice and injustice.c)Yes, it is consistent with the ruling of the Supreme Court since the non-action by the Speaker would amount to failure in exercising his jurisdiction.d)No, it is not consistent with the ruling of the Supreme Court since deciding expeditiously doesn't mean deciding within a fixed time frame.Correct answer is option 'C'. Can you explain this answer?.

Solutions for Direction: You have been given some passages followed by questions based on this passage. You are required to choose the most appropriate option which follows from the passage. Only the information given in the passage should be used for choosing the answer and no external knowledge of law howsoever prominent is to be applied.There are two significant aspects to the Supreme Court's latest decision on the Speaker as the adjudicating authority under the anti-defection law. The first is that Parliament should replace the Speaker with a "permanent tribunal" or external mechanism to render quick and impartial decisions on questions of defection.Few would disagree with the Court's view that initial fears and doubts about whether Speakers would be impartial had come true. The second is its extraordinary ruling that the reference by another Bench, in 2016, of a key question to a Constitution Bench was itself unnecessary.The question awaiting determination by a larger Bench is whether courts have the power to direct Speakers to decide petitions seeking disqualification within a fixed time frame.Secure in the belief that no court would question the delay in disposal of disqualification matters as long as the matter was pending before a Constitution Bench, Speakers have been wilfully failing to act as per law.The reference to a larger Bench, in 2016 in S.A. Sampath Kumar vs. Kale Yadaiah was based on the landmark judgment in Kihoto Hollohan (1992) which upheld the validity of the Constitution's Tenth Schedule, or the anti-defection law. This verdict had also made the Speaker's order subject to judicial review on limited grounds. Finding several pending complaints before Speakers, the Bench, in 2016, decided that it was time for an authoritative verdict on whether Speakers can be directed to dispose of defection questions within a time frame. While fixing an outer limit of three months for Speakers to act on disqualification petitions, in the present case, Justice R.F. Nariman given four weeks to the Manipur Assembly Speaker to decide the disqualification question in a legislator's case. He also held that the reference was made on a wrong premise. As "failure to exercise jurisdiction" is a recognised stage at which the court can now intervene, the court has thus opened a window for judicial intervention in cases in which Speakers refuse to act. This augurs well for the enforcement of the law against defection in letter and spirit.Q. Two M.L.A.s had been elected on the ticket of MGP party, but they accompanied the leader of Congress (I) Legislative Party when he met the Governor to show that he had the support of 20 MLAs. On this conduct alone, the Speaker held that they had given up membership of the MGP party and disqualified them for being a member of the House. Does the conduct of speaker in giving the decision expeditiously, consistent with the ruling of the Supreme Court?a)Yes, it is consistent with the ruling of the Supreme Court since the Speaker is a neutral and impartial forum.b)No, it is not consistent with the ruling of the Supreme Court since the Speaker is incapable of deciding without causing prejudice and injustice.c)Yes, it is consistent with the ruling of the Supreme Court since the non-action by the Speaker would amount to failure in exercising his jurisdiction.d)No, it is not consistent with the ruling of the Supreme Court since deciding expeditiously doesn't mean deciding within a fixed time frame.Correct answer is option 'C'. Can you explain this answer? in English & in Hindi are available as part of our courses for CLAT. Download more important topics, notes, lectures and mock test series for CLAT Exam by signing up for free.

Here you can find the meaning of Direction: You have been given some passages followed by questions based on this passage. You are required to choose the most appropriate option which follows from the passage. Only the information given in the passage should be used for choosing the answer and no external knowledge of law howsoever prominent is to be applied.There are two significant aspects to the Supreme Court's latest decision on the Speaker as the adjudicating authority under the anti-defection law. The first is that Parliament should replace the Speaker with a "permanent tribunal" or external mechanism to render quick and impartial decisions on questions of defection.Few would disagree with the Court's view that initial fears and doubts about whether Speakers would be impartial had come true. The second is its extraordinary ruling that the reference by another Bench, in 2016, of a key question to a Constitution Bench was itself unnecessary.The question awaiting determination by a larger Bench is whether courts have the power to direct Speakers to decide petitions seeking disqualification within a fixed time frame.Secure in the belief that no court would question the delay in disposal of disqualification matters as long as the matter was pending before a Constitution Bench, Speakers have been wilfully failing to act as per law.The reference to a larger Bench, in 2016 in S.A. Sampath Kumar vs. Kale Yadaiah was based on the landmark judgment in Kihoto Hollohan (1992) which upheld the validity of the Constitution's Tenth Schedule, or the anti-defection law. This verdict had also made the Speaker's order subject to judicial review on limited grounds. Finding several pending complaints before Speakers, the Bench, in 2016, decided that it was time for an authoritative verdict on whether Speakers can be directed to dispose of defection questions within a time frame. While fixing an outer limit of three months for Speakers to act on disqualification petitions, in the present case, Justice R.F. Nariman given four weeks to the Manipur Assembly Speaker to decide the disqualification question in a legislator's case. He also held that the reference was made on a wrong premise. As "failure to exercise jurisdiction" is a recognised stage at which the court can now intervene, the court has thus opened a window for judicial intervention in cases in which Speakers refuse to act. This augurs well for the enforcement of the law against defection in letter and spirit.Q. Two M.L.A.s had been elected on the ticket of MGP party, but they accompanied the leader of Congress (I) Legislative Party when he met the Governor to show that he had the support of 20 MLAs. On this conduct alone, the Speaker held that they had given up membership of the MGP party and disqualified them for being a member of the House. Does the conduct of speaker in giving the decision expeditiously, consistent with the ruling of the Supreme Court?a)Yes, it is consistent with the ruling of the Supreme Court since the Speaker is a neutral and impartial forum.b)No, it is not consistent with the ruling of the Supreme Court since the Speaker is incapable of deciding without causing prejudice and injustice.c)Yes, it is consistent with the ruling of the Supreme Court since the non-action by the Speaker would amount to failure in exercising his jurisdiction.d)No, it is not consistent with the ruling of the Supreme Court since deciding expeditiously doesn't mean deciding within a fixed time frame.Correct answer is option 'C'. Can you explain this answer? defined & explained in the simplest way possible. Besides giving the explanation of Direction: You have been given some passages followed by questions based on this passage. You are required to choose the most appropriate option which follows from the passage. Only the information given in the passage should be used for choosing the answer and no external knowledge of law howsoever prominent is to be applied.There are two significant aspects to the Supreme Court's latest decision on the Speaker as the adjudicating authority under the anti-defection law. The first is that Parliament should replace the Speaker with a "permanent tribunal" or external mechanism to render quick and impartial decisions on questions of defection.Few would disagree with the Court's view that initial fears and doubts about whether Speakers would be impartial had come true. The second is its extraordinary ruling that the reference by another Bench, in 2016, of a key question to a Constitution Bench was itself unnecessary.The question awaiting determination by a larger Bench is whether courts have the power to direct Speakers to decide petitions seeking disqualification within a fixed time frame.Secure in the belief that no court would question the delay in disposal of disqualification matters as long as the matter was pending before a Constitution Bench, Speakers have been wilfully failing to act as per law.The reference to a larger Bench, in 2016 in S.A. Sampath Kumar vs. Kale Yadaiah was based on the landmark judgment in Kihoto Hollohan (1992) which upheld the validity of the Constitution's Tenth Schedule, or the anti-defection law. This verdict had also made the Speaker's order subject to judicial review on limited grounds. Finding several pending complaints before Speakers, the Bench, in 2016, decided that it was time for an authoritative verdict on whether Speakers can be directed to dispose of defection questions within a time frame. While fixing an outer limit of three months for Speakers to act on disqualification petitions, in the present case, Justice R.F. Nariman given four weeks to the Manipur Assembly Speaker to decide the disqualification question in a legislator's case. He also held that the reference was made on a wrong premise. As "failure to exercise jurisdiction" is a recognised stage at which the court can now intervene, the court has thus opened a window for judicial intervention in cases in which Speakers refuse to act. This augurs well for the enforcement of the law against defection in letter and spirit.Q. Two M.L.A.s had been elected on the ticket of MGP party, but they accompanied the leader of Congress (I) Legislative Party when he met the Governor to show that he had the support of 20 MLAs. On this conduct alone, the Speaker held that they had given up membership of the MGP party and disqualified them for being a member of the House. Does the conduct of speaker in giving the decision expeditiously, consistent with the ruling of the Supreme Court?a)Yes, it is consistent with the ruling of the Supreme Court since the Speaker is a neutral and impartial forum.b)No, it is not consistent with the ruling of the Supreme Court since the Speaker is incapable of deciding without causing prejudice and injustice.c)Yes, it is consistent with the ruling of the Supreme Court since the non-action by the Speaker would amount to failure in exercising his jurisdiction.d)No, it is not consistent with the ruling of the Supreme Court since deciding expeditiously doesn't mean deciding within a fixed time frame.Correct answer is option 'C'. Can you explain this answer?, a detailed solution for Direction: You have been given some passages followed by questions based on this passage. You are required to choose the most appropriate option which follows from the passage. Only the information given in the passage should be used for choosing the answer and no external knowledge of law howsoever prominent is to be applied.There are two significant aspects to the Supreme Court's latest decision on the Speaker as the adjudicating authority under the anti-defection law. The first is that Parliament should replace the Speaker with a "permanent tribunal" or external mechanism to render quick and impartial decisions on questions of defection.Few would disagree with the Court's view that initial fears and doubts about whether Speakers would be impartial had come true. The second is its extraordinary ruling that the reference by another Bench, in 2016, of a key question to a Constitution Bench was itself unnecessary.The question awaiting determination by a larger Bench is whether courts have the power to direct Speakers to decide petitions seeking disqualification within a fixed time frame.Secure in the belief that no court would question the delay in disposal of disqualification matters as long as the matter was pending before a Constitution Bench, Speakers have been wilfully failing to act as per law.The reference to a larger Bench, in 2016 in S.A. Sampath Kumar vs. Kale Yadaiah was based on the landmark judgment in Kihoto Hollohan (1992) which upheld the validity of the Constitution's Tenth Schedule, or the anti-defection law. This verdict had also made the Speaker's order subject to judicial review on limited grounds. Finding several pending complaints before Speakers, the Bench, in 2016, decided that it was time for an authoritative verdict on whether Speakers can be directed to dispose of defection questions within a time frame. While fixing an outer limit of three months for Speakers to act on disqualification petitions, in the present case, Justice R.F. Nariman given four weeks to the Manipur Assembly Speaker to decide the disqualification question in a legislator's case. He also held that the reference was made on a wrong premise. As "failure to exercise jurisdiction" is a recognised stage at which the court can now intervene, the court has thus opened a window for judicial intervention in cases in which Speakers refuse to act. This augurs well for the enforcement of the law against defection in letter and spirit.Q. Two M.L.A.s had been elected on the ticket of MGP party, but they accompanied the leader of Congress (I) Legislative Party when he met the Governor to show that he had the support of 20 MLAs. On this conduct alone, the Speaker held that they had given up membership of the MGP party and disqualified them for being a member of the House. Does the conduct of speaker in giving the decision expeditiously, consistent with the ruling of the Supreme Court?a)Yes, it is consistent with the ruling of the Supreme Court since the Speaker is a neutral and impartial forum.b)No, it is not consistent with the ruling of the Supreme Court since the Speaker is incapable of deciding without causing prejudice and injustice.c)Yes, it is consistent with the ruling of the Supreme Court since the non-action by the Speaker would amount to failure in exercising his jurisdiction.d)No, it is not consistent with the ruling of the Supreme Court since deciding expeditiously doesn't mean deciding within a fixed time frame.Correct answer is option 'C'. Can you explain this answer? has been provided alongside types of Direction: You have been given some passages followed by questions based on this passage. You are required to choose the most appropriate option which follows from the passage. Only the information given in the passage should be used for choosing the answer and no external knowledge of law howsoever prominent is to be applied.There are two significant aspects to the Supreme Court's latest decision on the Speaker as the adjudicating authority under the anti-defection law. The first is that Parliament should replace the Speaker with a "permanent tribunal" or external mechanism to render quick and impartial decisions on questions of defection.Few would disagree with the Court's view that initial fears and doubts about whether Speakers would be impartial had come true. The second is its extraordinary ruling that the reference by another Bench, in 2016, of a key question to a Constitution Bench was itself unnecessary.The question awaiting determination by a larger Bench is whether courts have the power to direct Speakers to decide petitions seeking disqualification within a fixed time frame.Secure in the belief that no court would question the delay in disposal of disqualification matters as long as the matter was pending before a Constitution Bench, Speakers have been wilfully failing to act as per law.The reference to a larger Bench, in 2016 in S.A. Sampath Kumar vs. Kale Yadaiah was based on the landmark judgment in Kihoto Hollohan (1992) which upheld the validity of the Constitution's Tenth Schedule, or the anti-defection law. This verdict had also made the Speaker's order subject to judicial review on limited grounds. Finding several pending complaints before Speakers, the Bench, in 2016, decided that it was time for an authoritative verdict on whether Speakers can be directed to dispose of defection questions within a time frame. While fixing an outer limit of three months for Speakers to act on disqualification petitions, in the present case, Justice R.F. Nariman given four weeks to the Manipur Assembly Speaker to decide the disqualification question in a legislator's case. He also held that the reference was made on a wrong premise. As "failure to exercise jurisdiction" is a recognised stage at which the court can now intervene, the court has thus opened a window for judicial intervention in cases in which Speakers refuse to act. This augurs well for the enforcement of the law against defection in letter and spirit.Q. Two M.L.A.s had been elected on the ticket of MGP party, but they accompanied the leader of Congress (I) Legislative Party when he met the Governor to show that he had the support of 20 MLAs. On this conduct alone, the Speaker held that they had given up membership of the MGP party and disqualified them for being a member of the House. Does the conduct of speaker in giving the decision expeditiously, consistent with the ruling of the Supreme Court?a)Yes, it is consistent with the ruling of the Supreme Court since the Speaker is a neutral and impartial forum.b)No, it is not consistent with the ruling of the Supreme Court since the Speaker is incapable of deciding without causing prejudice and injustice.c)Yes, it is consistent with the ruling of the Supreme Court since the non-action by the Speaker would amount to failure in exercising his jurisdiction.d)No, it is not consistent with the ruling of the Supreme Court since deciding expeditiously doesn't mean deciding within a fixed time frame.Correct answer is option 'C'. Can you explain this answer? theory, EduRev gives you an ample number of questions to practice Direction: You have been given some passages followed by questions based on this passage. You are required to choose the most appropriate option which follows from the passage. Only the information given in the passage should be used for choosing the answer and no external knowledge of law howsoever prominent is to be applied.There are two significant aspects to the Supreme Court's latest decision on the Speaker as the adjudicating authority under the anti-defection law. The first is that Parliament should replace the Speaker with a "permanent tribunal" or external mechanism to render quick and impartial decisions on questions of defection.Few would disagree with the Court's view that initial fears and doubts about whether Speakers would be impartial had come true. The second is its extraordinary ruling that the reference by another Bench, in 2016, of a key question to a Constitution Bench was itself unnecessary.The question awaiting determination by a larger Bench is whether courts have the power to direct Speakers to decide petitions seeking disqualification within a fixed time frame.Secure in the belief that no court would question the delay in disposal of disqualification matters as long as the matter was pending before a Constitution Bench, Speakers have been wilfully failing to act as per law.The reference to a larger Bench, in 2016 in S.A. Sampath Kumar vs. Kale Yadaiah was based on the landmark judgment in Kihoto Hollohan (1992) which upheld the validity of the Constitution's Tenth Schedule, or the anti-defection law. This verdict had also made the Speaker's order subject to judicial review on limited grounds. Finding several pending complaints before Speakers, the Bench, in 2016, decided that it was time for an authoritative verdict on whether Speakers can be directed to dispose of defection questions within a time frame. While fixing an outer limit of three months for Speakers to act on disqualification petitions, in the present case, Justice R.F. Nariman given four weeks to the Manipur Assembly Speaker to decide the disqualification question in a legislator's case. He also held that the reference was made on a wrong premise. As "failure to exercise jurisdiction" is a recognised stage at which the court can now intervene, the court has thus opened a window for judicial intervention in cases in which Speakers refuse to act. This augurs well for the enforcement of the law against defection in letter and spirit.Q. Two M.L.A.s had been elected on the ticket of MGP party, but they accompanied the leader of Congress (I) Legislative Party when he met the Governor to show that he had the support of 20 MLAs. On this conduct alone, the Speaker held that they had given up membership of the MGP party and disqualified them for being a member of the House. Does the conduct of speaker in giving the decision expeditiously, consistent with the ruling of the Supreme Court?a)Yes, it is consistent with the ruling of the Supreme Court since the Speaker is a neutral and impartial forum.b)No, it is not consistent with the ruling of the Supreme Court since the Speaker is incapable of deciding without causing prejudice and injustice.c)Yes, it is consistent with the ruling of the Supreme Court since the non-action by the Speaker would amount to failure in exercising his jurisdiction.d)No, it is not consistent with the ruling of the Supreme Court since deciding expeditiously doesn't mean deciding within a fixed time frame.Correct answer is option 'C'. Can you explain this answer? tests, examples and also practice CLAT tests.