As per case facts, disqualification petitions were filed against several MLAs who defected from one political party to another. The Speaker delayed acting on these petitions for over seven months, ... leading the opposition MLAs to file a writ petition. A Single Judge directed the Speaker to set a schedule for hearing within four weeks, but the Division Bench set this aside, stating the Speaker must act within a "reasonable period." The petitioners appealed, citing the long delay and the need for a specific timeline. The question arose whether the High Court and Supreme Court, exercising judicial review, could direct the Speaker—who acts as a tribunal under the Tenth Schedule and whose decision is subject to limited judicial review—to decide a pending disqualification petition within a fixed, specific time frame. Finally, the Supreme Court, reiterating the Speaker's role as a Tribunal (citing Kihoto Hollohan) and noting the long, unexplained delay as a failure to exercise jurisdiction, restored the Single Judge's intent. The Court ruled that the Speaker must conclude the disqualification proceedings against the MLAs within a period of three months from the date of the judgment (harmonizing with the three-month outer limit set in Keisham Meghachandra Singh), emphasizing that any further delay would frustrate the very purpose of the Tenth Schedule and cautioning against any protraction by the delinquent MLAs.