Gyanendra Kumar Singh & Ors. Etc. vs Bihar Legislative Assembly, Patna & Anr. Etc. Etc.
Background
In 2014, the Speaker of the 15th Bihar Legislative Assembly disqualified four MLAs (Gyanendra Kumar Singh, Rahul Kumar, Ravindra Rai and Neeraj Kumar Singh) under the anti-defection provisions of the Tenth Schedule of the Constitution. The Speaker's order went further than just disqualifying them: it also directed that they would not get any facilities available to an "Ex-Member" of the Assembly. The disqualification order was stayed and the members enjoyed the benefit of that stay throughout, but by the time the appeal reached the Supreme Court, the 15th Assembly itself had long been dissolved and the 17th Assembly was in session.
Decision Breakdown
Since the Assembly whose membership was in dispute no longer existed, the Court held it unnecessary to decide whether the underlying disqualification itself was correct, and left that question open. Instead, relying on its earlier ruling in Shrimanth Balasaheb Patil v. Speaker, Karnataka Legislative Assembly (2020) 2 SCC 595, the Court held that a Speaker acting under the Tenth Schedule has no power to add extra consequences, such as denying an "Ex-Member's" facilities, beyond the disqualification itself; such additional directions exceed the Speaker's jurisdiction. Accordingly, the Court set aside only the extra directions in paragraph 28 of the Speaker's order (beyond the disqualification itself), while leaving the disqualification question untouched, and disposed of the appeals with no order as to costs.
Lesson Learnt
A Speaker deciding a disqualification case under the anti-defection law can only disqualify. They cannot tack on additional penalties or restrictions (like denying post-membership facilities) that the Tenth Schedule does not expressly authorise; any such extra directions are beyond their power and liable to be struck down.