Sri
Rajendra Singh Rana & Ors Vs. Swami Prasad Maurya & Ors [2007] Insc 138 (14
February 2007)
CJI K.G. BALAKRISHNAN,H.K. SEMA DR.
AR. LAKSHMANAN P.K. BALASUBRAMANYAN & D.K. JAIN
(Arising out of SLP(C) No.4664 of
2006) [With Civil Appeal Nos.766-771 of 2007 arising out of S.L.P.(C) No. 4669
of 2006, S.L.P.(C) No.4671 of 2006, S.L.P.(C) No.4677 of 2006, S.L.P.(C) No.
6323 of 2006, S.L.P.(C) No. 10497 of 2006 and S.L.P.(C) No. 10498 of 2006] P.K.
BALASUBRAMANYAN, J.
-
Leave granted.
-
The elections for the constitution
of the 14th Legislative Assembly of the State of Uttar Pradesh were held in
February 2002. Since, none of the political parties secured the requisite
majority, a coalition Government was formed, headed by Ms. Mayawati, leader of
the Bahujan Samaj Party (hereinafter referred to as, 'B.S.P.'). B.S.P was
admittedly a recognised national party. The ministry was formed in May, 2002. On
25.8.2003, the cabinet is said to have taken a unanimous decision for
recommending the dissolution of the Assembly. Based on it, on 26.8.2003, Ms.
Mayawati submitted the resignation of her cabinet. Apparently, after the cabinet
decision to recommend the dissolution of the Assembly and before Ms. Mayawati
cabinet actually resigned, the leader of the Samajwadi Party staked his claim
before the Governor for forming a Government. On 27.8.2003, 13 Members of the
Legislative Assembly (hereinafter referred to as, 'M.L.As.') elected to the
Assembly on tickets of B.S.P., met the Governor and requested him to invite the
leader of the Samajwadi Party to form the Government. Originally, 8 M.L.As. had
met the Governor and 5 others joined them later in the day, making up the 13.
-
The Governor did not accept the
recommendation of Mayawati cabinet for dissolution of the Assembly. On
29.8.2003, the Governor invited the leader of the Samajwadi Party, Mr. Mulayam
Singh Yadav to form the Government and gave him a time of two weeks to prove his
majority in the Assembly. On 4.9.2003, Mr. Swami Prasad Maurya, leader of the
Legislature B.S.P filed a petition before the Speaker in terms of Article 191
read with the Tenth Schedule to the Constitution of India, praying that the 13
B.S.P. M.L.As. who had proclaimed support to Mulayam Singh Yadav before the
Governor on 27.8.2003, be disqualified in terms of paragraph 2 of the Tenth
Schedule to the Constitution on the basis that they had voluntarily given up
their membership of B.S.P., their original political party. On 05.09.2003, a
caveat was also filed on behalf of the B.S.P. before the Speaker of the
Legislative Assembly requesting the Speaker to hear the representative of B.S.P.
in case any claim of split is made by the members who had left the Party. On
06.09.2003, a request was made by 37 M.L.As., said to be on behalf of 40 M.L.As.
elected on B.S.P.
tickets, requesting the Speaker to
recognise a split in B.S.P. on the basis that one third of the Members of the
B.S.P.
legislature party consisting of 109
legislators, had in a body separated from the Party pursuant to a meeting held
in the M.L.A.'s hostel, Darulshafa, Lucknow on 26.8.2003. The Speaker took up
the said application for recognition of a split, the same evening. He verified
that the 37 Members who had signed the application presented to him had in fact
signed it since they were physically present before him. Overruling the
objections of Maurya, the leader of the legislature B.S.P., the Speaker passed
an order accepting the split in B.S.P. on the arithmetic that 37 out of 109
comprises one third of the Members of the legislature Party. This group came to
be known as the Lok Tantrik Bahujan Dal. But, the said Dal was short lived. For,
the Speaker, a little later, on 6.9.2003 itself, accepted that the said Dal had
merged with the Samajwadi Party. It is relevant to note that in the order dated
6.9.2003, the Speaker did not decide the application made by B.S.P.
seeking disqualification of 13 of its
M.L.As. who were part of the 37 that appeared before the Speaker and postponed
the decision on that application. It appears that on 8.9.2003, three more M.L.As.
appeared before the Speaker stating that they supported the 37 M.L.As. who had
appeared before him on 6.9.2003 and were part of that group. The Speaker
accepted their claim as well.
-
On 29.9.2003, Writ Petition No.
5085 of 2003 was filed in the High Court of Judicature at Allahabad before the
Lucknow Bench challenging the said order of the Speaker. On 1.10.2003, it came
up before a Division Bench of the High Court, and it is seen from the Order
Sheet maintained by the High Court that the Writ Petition was directed to be
listed on 8.10.2003 for further hearing. It was adjourned to 13.10.2003 and then
again to 22.10.2003 and to 29.10.2003 and further to 5.11.2003. It is recorded
in the Order Sheet that on 5.11.2003, learned counsel for the writ petitioner
was heard in detail. No order was passed, but the matter was adjourned to the
next day at the request of counsel, who was apparently representing the Advocate
General of the State. From 6.11.2003, the matter was adjourned to 10.11.2003 and
on the request of the learned Advocate General, it was directed to be listed on
14.11.2003. The same day, the Speaker before whom the petition filed by the writ
petitioner Maurya seeking disqualification of 13 of the members of the B.S.P.
was pending, after noticing what he had done earlier on 6.9.2003 and 8.9.2003,
passed an order adjourning the petition seeking disqualification, on the ground
that it would be in the interests of justice to await the decision of the High
Court in the pending Writ Petition since the decision therein on some of the
issues, would be relevant for his consideration. It was therefore ordered that
the petition for disqualification may be placed before him for disposal and
necessary action after the High Court had decided the Writ Petition.
-
In the High Court, the Writ
Petition had a chequered career. On 14.12.2003, when it came up, it was directed
to be listed the next week before the appropriate Bench. On 16.4.2004, it was
directed to be put up on 22.4.2004. On 22.4.2004, it was dismissed for default
with an observation that neither any counsel on behalf of the writ petitioner
nor on behalf of the Speaker was present. It may be noted that on 5.11.2003, the
High Court had recorded that it had heard counsel for the writ petitioner in
full and the adjournment for further hearing was at the behest of the Advocate
General. Even then, on 22.4.2004, the High Court chose to dismiss the Writ
Petition for default on the ground that counsel on both sides were not present.
An application for restoration was filed on 27.4.2004 and this application was
kept pending for about 8 months until on 20.12.2004, an order was passed
recalling the order dated 22.4.2004 dismissing the Writ Petition for default and
restoring it to its original number with a further direction to list the Writ
Petition before the appropriate Bench on 4.1.2005. On 4.1.2005, the Writ
Petition was adjourned at the request of the Advocate General to the next day.
On 5.1.2005, it was noticed by the Bench that the matter appeared to have been
heard in detail at the admission stage and the Writ Petition had neither been
admitted nor any notice ordered to the respondents and counsel for the writ
petitioner was again heard on the question of admission and the application for
interim relief he had filed and it was recorded that he had concluded his
arguments with the further direction to put up the Writ Petition the next day.
On 6.1.2005, it was recorded that
counsel for the writ petitioner did not press for interim relief at that stage
and hence the application for interim relief was being rejected.
-
On 6.1.2005, the Writ Petition was
admitted after hearing counsel for the writ petitioner and some counsel who
appeared for the respondents. Notices were ordered to be issued to the opposite
parties, the group of M.L.As. who had moved the Speaker for recognition of a
split. After some further postings, on 18.2.2005, orders were passed regarding
service of notice and the Writ Petition was directed to be posted for hearing on
10.3.2005. On 10.3.2005, finding that there was some attempt at evasion of
notices, the court ordered substituted service of notices and directed the
listing of the Writ Petition on 11.4.2005. On 11.4.2005, service of notice was
declared sufficient and the matter was directed to be posted on 2.5.2005 for
hearing. After a number of adjournments mainly at the instance of the
respondents in the Writ Petition, arguments were commenced. On 12.5.2005,
counsel for the writ petitioner concluded his arguments and the case was further
adjourned to 25.5.2005 for further hearing after taking certain counter
affidavits on record.
Ultimately, the argument of one of the
counsel for the respondents was started and the matter was adjourned to 6.7.2005
for completion of his arguments and for arguments by other counsel for the
respondents in the Writ Petition.
-
Meanwhile, on 7.9.2005, the Speaker
passed an order rejecting the petition filed by Maurya for disqualification of
13 M.L.As. of B.S.P. It may be noted that the Speaker had earlier adjourned that
application for being taken up after the Writ Petition was decided. Meanwhile,
the arguments went on in the High Court and the Writ Petition was directed to be
put up on 17.8.2005 for further arguments. The matter was adjourned to the next
day and again to subsequent dates.
-
On 8.9.2005, an application was
made on behalf of the respondents seeking dismissal of the Writ Petition in view
of the order of the Speaker dated 7.9.2005 dismissing the application seeking
disqualification of 13 M.L.As. filed by the writ petitioner. The said
application was dismissed the same day. On 9.9.2005, arguments were heard and
the matter was adjourned for further hearing.
-
On 21.10.2005, an application was
made on behalf of the writ petitioner praying for an amendment of the Writ
Petition. It was directed to be listed granting time to the respondents in the
Writ Petition to file objections. On 22.11.2005, the Order Sheet records an
order by one of the judges as follows:
"The matter was listed today only for
consideration and disposal of the amendment application together with
application for further hearing and by 4.00 PM arguments with respect to
amendment application could be concluded. As indicated in the order passed on
the application brother M.A. Khan (J) took out a typed and signed 'order'
rejecting the application for amendment. Like previous order, brother Hon'ble
M.A. Khan again took out a duly typed and signed judgment/ his opinion and
directed the bench Secretary to place the same on record as his "judgment" in
the main writ petition. The draft of the said judgment was also not circulated
to me nor was I ever been consulted by him. It is further pointed out that
brother Hon'ble M.A. Khan (J) did not indicate at any time that he had already
written out the judgment. Further at no point of time, I had indicated to
brother M.A. Khan (J) that the judgment in the writ petition may be prepared by
him. It goes without saying that neither the orders passed on the application
nor the so called judgment on the merits of the writ petition have been dictated
in the open court by brother Hon'ble M.A. Khan(J)."
-
Apparently, in view of these
happenings, the learned Chief Justice constituted a Full Bench for hearing the
Writ Petition. The amendment prayed for was allowed and the Writ Petition
ultimately heard finally and disposed of by the judgment under appeal. As per
the judgment under appeal, the Writ Petition was dismissed by the learned Chief
Justice while the other two learned Judges quashed the orders of the Speaker and
directed the Speaker to reconsider the matter with particular reference to the
petition for disqualification of 13 M.L.As. filed by the writ petitioner and
pass appropriate orders. Feeling aggrieved, these appeals have been filed.
-
Whatever may be our ultimate decision
on the merits of the case, we must express our unhappiness at the tardy manner
in which a matter of some consequence and constitutional propriety was dealt
with by the High Court.
More promptitude was expected of that
court and it should have ensured that the unfortunates happenings (from the
point of view of just and due administration of justice) were avoided. Though we
are normally reluctant to comment on the happenings in the High Court, we are
constrained to make the above observations to emphasis the need to ensure that
no room is given for criticism of the manner of working of the institution.
12. The respondents in the Writ
Petition, the M.L.As.
constituting 37 B.S.P. members who
left the party, are the appellants in all the appeals except the appeal arising
out of Special Leave Petition (Civil) No. 6323 of 2006 filed by the writ
petitioner Maurya. Whereas, the respondents in the Writ Petition challenge the
decision of the majority of the Bench remitting the matter to the Speaker, the
writ petitioner, in his appeal challenges the order of remand made by the
majority on a plea that on the pleadings and the materials available, the High
Court ought to have straightaway allowed the petition filed by the writ
petitioner for disqualification of the 13 M.L.As.
According to him, a remand was
unnecessary and considering the circumstances, a final order ought to have been
passed by the High Court.
-
Article 191 of the Constitution of
India deals with the disqualification for membership of legislative assemblies
just like Article 102 deals with disqualification for membership to the Houses
of Parliament. Article 102 and Article 191 came to be amended by the
Constitution (Fifty-second Amendment) Act, 1985 with effect from 1.3.1985
providing that a person shall be disqualified for being a member of either
Houses of Parliament or of Legislative Assembly or Legislative Council of a
State if he is so disqualified under the Tenth Schedule to the Constitution of
India. The Tenth Schedule was also added containing provisions as to
disqualification on ground of defection. The constitutional validity of this
amendment was ZACHILLHU & ORS. [(1992) 1 S.C.R. 686]. This Court upheld the
validity of the amendment subject to the finding that paragraph 7 of the Tenth
Schedule to the Constitution of India required ratification in terms of Article
368(c) of the Constitution of India and it had not come into force, so that
there was no need to pronounce on the validity of paragraph 7 to the extent it
precluded a judicial review of the decision of the Speaker. But it held that
judicial review could not be kept out, though such review might not be of a wide
nature. We are proceeding to examine the relevant aspects in the light of that
decision.
-
The application by writ petitioner
- Maurya to the Speaker, in the present case, was made under paragraph 2 of the
Tenth Schedule to the Constitution on the ground that the 13 Members who met the
Governor on 27.8.2003 had voluntarily given up their membership of B.S.P., their
original political party as defined in the Tenth Schedule. The claim on behalf
of the M.L.As. sought to be disqualified and those who claimed to have gone out
with them from B.S.P. is that the disqualification at the relevant time is
subject to the provisions of paragraphs 3, 4 and 5 of the Tenth Schedule and
since there has been a split in B.S.P in terms of paragraph 3 of the Tenth
Schedule and a subsequent merger of the 40 M.L.As.
with the Samajwadi Party in terms of
paragraph 4 of the Tenth Schedule, they could not be held to be disqualified on
the ground of defection in terms of paragraph 2(1)(a) of the Tenth Schedule. The
Speaker, as noticed, did not pass any order on the application for
disqualification of 13 M.L.As. made by Maurya, the leader of the B.S.P.
Legislature Party in terms of paragraph 2 of the Tenth Schedule but proceeded to
pass an order on the petition filed by 37 M.L.As. before him, claiming that
there has been a split in B.S.P. and they constituted one third of the
Legislature Party which had 109 members. When he passed the order on the claim
of the M.L.As. who had left B.S.P., the then Speaker postponed the decision on
the petition for disqualification filed by Maurya, later adjourned it to await
the decision in the Writ Petition, but still later, the successor Speaker went
back on that order and proceeded to dismiss it after entertaining an alleged
preliminary objection even while the Writ Petition was still pending and it was
being argued, on the ground that he had already recognised the split.
-
It was thereafter that the writ
petitioner sought for an amendment of the Writ Petition which was subsequently
allowed.
-
We will now revert to the action
that triggered the controversy. Eight of the M.L.As. of B.S.P. followed by five
other members of B.S.P. handed over identically worded letters to the Governor
on 27.8.2003. A running translation of the letters is as under:
"We under mentioned M.L.As. whose
signatures are marked below humbly request you that Shri Mulayam Singh Yadav Ji
be invited to form Government because the public of Uttar Pradesh neither want
election nor want President Rule."
These members were the members who
belonged to B.S.P. and they were requesting the Governor to invite the leader of
the opposition to form the Government. It is based on this action, that Maurya,
the leader of the Legislature B.S.P., had filed the petition before the Speaker
seeking disqualification of these 13 members on the ground that they had
voluntarily left B.S.P., recognised by the Election Commission as a national
party. It was while this proceeding was pending that on 6.9.2003, an application
for recognition of a split was moved by the 37 M.L.As. before the Speaker. Since
the leader of B.S.P. had filed a caveat before the Speaker, the Speaker chose to
hear the caveator while passing the order. Considering the nature of the
controversy involved, it appears to be proper to quote the said representation
or application made by the 37 M.L.As.
before the Speaker. The running
translation of the same reads:
"We, the following Members of the
Legislative Assembly, are notified as Members belonging to Bahujan Samaj Party.
There is dissatisfaction prevalent among the members of BSP on account of
dictatorial approach, wrong policies and misbehaviour towards the Members as
practiced by the BSP Leader Km.
Mayawati. Being aggrieved on account
of the aforesaid reasons, Members, office bearers and workers of the Bahujan
Samaj Party held a meeting in Darulsafa on 26.08.2003. All present unanimously
stated that Km.
Mayawati is occupied with fulfilment
of her personal interests alone at the cost of interests of the State of U.P.
and society.
Hence, it was unanimously resolved
that the Bahujan Samaj Party be split up and a new faction in the name of
Loktantrik Bahujan Dal be constituted under the Leadership of Shri Rajendra
Singh Rana, Member Legislative Assembly. We, the undersigned Members of
Legislative Assembly have constituted a separate group which represents the new
faction arising out of the split. Our number is more than one third of the total
number of Members of the erstwhile Bahujan Samaj Party of the Legislative
Assembly.
It is, therefore, requested that the
aforesaid Loktantrik Bahujan Dal be recognised as a separate group within the
Legislative Assembly and a separate arrangement for their seating inside the
Assembly be made."
It was signed by 37 M.L.As.
-
It is on this application that the
Speaker passed an order the same evening and it is that order that is the
subject matter of challenge in the Writ Petition filed before the High Court.
The order of the Speaker records that as per the contents of the application, a
meeting of members, office bearers and Members of Legislative Assembly belonging
to B.S.P. was held on 26.8.2003 in the Darulshafa and in this meeting, it was
unanimously resolved that a new faction in the name of Loktantrik Bahujan Dal
under the leadership of Rajendra Singh Rana be constituted. The Speaker
proceeded to reason that the number of members who have constituted the group
are seen to be 37 out of 109 and that would constitute one-third of the total
number of Legislators belonging to B.S.P. In view of the objections raised by
Maurya, who had filed the caveat before him, the Speaker verified whether 37
members had signed the representation or application. Since they were present
before him and were identified, he proceeded on the footing that 37 M.L.As. of
B.S.P. had appeared before him with the claim. The Speaker noticed the
contention of the caveator that the burden of proving any split in the original
political party lay on the 37 M.L.As. and that unless they establish a split in
the original political party, they could not resort to paragraph 3 of the Tenth
Schedule to the Constitution and claim that there has been a split in the
political Party and consequently they have not incurred disqualification under
paragraph 2 of the Tenth Schedule. Further, overruling the contention of the
caveator that the decision relating to the split could be taken only by the
Election Commission and overruling the contention that the original 13 members
who had left the Party or voluntarily given up their membership of the Party did
not constitute one- third of the total number of the Legislators belonging to
B.S.P.
and hence they are disqualified, the
Speaker proceeded to say that the first condition to satisfy the requirement of
paragraph 3 of the Tenth Schedule was only that the members must have made a
claim that the original legislature Party had split and they should show that as
a consequence, the legislature Party has also split and that the split group had
one-third of the members of the legislature Party. Therefore, the Speaker taking
note of the one-third legislators before him proceeded on the basis that it
would be sufficient if a claim is made of a split in the original political
Party. The Speaker formulated the position thus:
"Under para 3 following conditions
have to be fulfilled:-
-
The making of a claim by any Member
of a House that he and some other members of his legislature party have
constituted a group representing a faction which has arisen as a consequence of
split in his original political party.
-
The newly constituted group has at
least one third of the total number of members of such legislature party.
If in a case the aforesaid two
conditions are fulfilled, the person making such a claim and the other members
will not be disqualified from the membership of the Legislative Assembly on the
grounds mentioned in para 2 of the 10th Schedule."
The Speaker also overruled the
argument that only 13 M.L.As.
had originally quit the original
political party and they should be disqualified and the others subsequently
joining them would not improve the position. The Speaker proceeded to observe
that he had to decide the question of disqualification of the 13 M.L.As. raised
by Maurya functioning as a Tribunal and he would be taking a decision thereon at
the appropriate time. It was thus that the claim of 37 members of a split, was
recognised by the Speaker. The Speaker thus did not decide whether there was a
split in the original political party, even prima facie.
-
The same day, the Speaker also
entertained another application from the 37 M.L.As. and ordered that he was
recognising the merger of the Lok Tantrik Bahujan Dal in the Samajwadi Party.
-
The Speaker had relied on an
observation in Ravi S.
acceptance of the position adopted by
the 37 M.L.As. for recognition of a split that it was enough if they made a
claim of split in the original political party. In paragraph 36 of that
judgment, after setting down the two requirements as :
-
The member of a House should make a
claim that he and other members of his legislature party constitute the group
representing a faction which has arisen as a result of a split in his original
party; and (ii) Such group must consist of not less than one-third of the
members of such legislature party.
This Court observed:
"In the present case the first
requirement was satisfied because Naik has made such a claim.
The only question is whether the
second requirement was fulfilled."
But the Speaker failed to notice the
following sentence in paragraph 38 of the same judgment wherein it was stated:
"As to whether there was a split or
not has to be determined by the Speaker on the basis of the material placed
before him."
Thus, there was no finding by the
Speaker that there was a split in the original political party, a condition for
application of paragraph 3 of the Tenth Schedule.
-
Now we may notice the position
adopted by the High Court in the judgment under Appeal while dealing with the
Writ Petition filed by Maurya challenging the order of the Speaker. The learned
Chief Justice took the view that the Speaker was justified in finding a split on
the basis of a claim of split in the original political party and one-third
members of the legislature party separating by taking into account all events
upto the time of his taking a decision on the question of split. The learned
Chief Justice held that the snowballing effect of a split could be taken note of
and that the Speaker had not committed any illegality in not considering and
deciding the petition filed by Maurya seeking disqualification of 13 M.L.As. in
the first instance and in keeping it pending.
He thus upheld the decision of the
Speaker. But the other two learned judges, though they gave separate reasons,
basically took the view that the Speaker was in error in not deciding the
application seeking disqualification of the 13 members first and in proceeding
to decide the application for recognition of a split made by the 37 legislators
before him. Since the proceeding arose out of a petition seeking a
disqualification in terms of paragraph 2 of the Tenth Schedule to the
Constitution, in terms of paragraph 6 of the Tenth Schedule, a decision on the
claim for disqualification could not be kept by, even while recognising a split.
They therefore quashed the order of the Speaker and directed the Speaker to
reconsider the question of defection raised by the writ petitioner Maurya, in
the light of the stand adopted by some of the M.L.As. before the Speaker that
there has been a split in terms of paragraph 3 of the Tenth Schedule and so they
have not incurred the disqualification in terms of paragraph 2 of the Tenth
Schedule. This majority view and the interference with the order of the Speaker
is challenged by the various respondents in the Writ Petition forming the group
of 37. The writ petitioner himself has challenged that part of the order which
purports to remand the proceeding to the Speaker by taking up the position that
on the materials, the High Court ought to have straightaway held that the
defence under paragraph 3 of the Tenth Schedule to the Constitution has not been
made out by the 37 members of B.S.P. and that the 13 of them in the first
instance and the balance 24 in the second instance stood disqualified in terms
of paragraph 2(1)(a) of the Tenth Schedule to the Constitution.
-
Elaborate arguments have been raised
before us on the interpretation of the Tenth Schedule, the content of the
various paragraphs and on the facts of the present case.
Based on the arguments it is first
necessary to deal with the scope and content of the Tenth Schedule in the light
of the object with which it was enacted.
-
The Constitution (Fifty-Second
Amendment) Act, 1985 amended Articles 102 and 191 of the Constitution by
introducing sub-articles to them and by appending the Tenth Schedule introducing
the provisions as to disqualification on the ground of defection. They were
introduced to meet the threat-posed to democracy by defection. A ground of
disqualification from the membership of the Parliament or of the Assembly on the
ground of defection was introduced. The constitutional validity of the amendment
and the inclusion of the Tenth Schedule was upheld by this Court in Kihoto
Hollohan (supra) except as regards paragraph 7 thereof, which was held to
require ratification in terms of Article 368(2) of the Constitution. It is not
in dispute that paragraph 7 of the Tenth Schedule is not operative in the light
of that decision. The constitution Bench held that the right to decide has been
conferred on a high dignitary, namely, the Speaker of the Parliament or the
Assembly and the conferment of such a power was not anathema to the
constitutional scheme.
Similarly, the limited protection
given to the proceedings before the Speaker in terms of paragraph 6 of the Tenth
Schedule to the Constitution was also justified even though the said protection
did not preclude a judicial review of the decision of the Speaker. But that
judicial review was not a broad one in the light of the finality attached to the
decision of the Speaker under paragraph 6(1) of the Tenth Schedule and the
judicial review was available on grounds like gross violation of natural
justice, perversity, bias and such like defects. It was following this that the
Ravi S. Naik (supra) decision was rendered by two of the judges who themselves
constituted the majority in Kihoto Hollohan (supra) and the observations above
referred to but which were explained subsequently, were made. Suffice it to say
that the decision of the Speaker rendered on 6.9.2003 was not immune from
challenge before the High Court under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution
of India.
-
Learned counsel for the writ
petitioner raised an interesting argument. He submitted that the Speaker in
terms of paragraph 6 of the Tenth Schedule was called upon to decide the
question of disqualification and only to a decision by him on such a question,
that the qualified finality in terms of paragraph 6(1) got attached and not to a
decision independently taken, purporting to recognise a split. He pointed out
that in this case, the Speaker had not decided the petition for disqualification
filed against the 13 M.L.As., and the Speaker had only proceeded to decide the
application made by 37 members subsequently for recognising them as a separate
group on the ground that they had split from the original B.S.P. in terms of
paragraph 3 of the Tenth Schedule.
He submitted that no such separate
decision was contemplated in a proceeding under the Tenth Schedule since the
claim of split was only in the nature of a defence to a claim for
disqualification on the ground of defection and it was only while deciding the
question of defection that the Speaker could adjudicate on the question whether
a claim of split has been established. When an independent decision is purported
to be taken by the Speaker on the question of split alone, the same was a
decision outside the Tenth Schedule to the Constitution and consequently, the
decision of the Speaker was open to challenge before the High Court just like
the decision of any other authority within the accepted parameters of Articles
226 and 227 of the Constitution. In other words, according to him, the qualified
finality conferred by paragraph 6(1) of the Tenth Schedule was not available to
the order of the Speaker in this case.
-
On behalf of the 37 M.L.As., it is
contended that it is not correct to describe paragraphs 3 and 4 of the Tenth
Schedule merely as defences to paragraph 2 and the allegation of defection, that
paragraphs 3 and 4 confer independent power on the speaker to decide a claim
made under those paragraphs. It is submitted that reliance placed on paragraph 6
and the contention that a question of disqualification on the ground of
defection must arise, before the Speaker could decide as a defence or answer,
the claim of split or the claim of merger was not justified. Whatever be the
decisions that were taken by the Speaker in terms of paragraph 3, paragraph 4 or
paragraph 2 of the Tenth Schedule, enjoyed the qualified immunity as provided in
paragraph 6 of the Tenth Schedule.
-
In the context of the introduction
of sub-Article (2) of Article 102 and Article 191 of the Constitution, a
proceeding under the Tenth Schedule to the Constitution is one to decide whether
a Member has become disqualified to hold his position as a Member of the
Parliament or of the Assembly on the ground of defection. The Tenth Schedule
cannot be read or construed independent of Articles 102 and 191 of the
Constitution and the object of those Articles. A defection is added as a
disqualification and the Tenth Schedule contains the provisions as to
disqualification on the ground of defection. A proceeding under the Tenth
Schedule gets started before the Speaker only on a complaint being made that
certain persons belonging to a political party had incurred disqualification on
the ground of defection. To meet the claim so raised, the Members of the
Parliament or Assembly against whom the proceedings are initiated have the right
to show that there has been a split in the original political party and they
form one-third of the Members of the legislature of that party, or that the
party has merged with another political party and hence paragraph 2 is not
attracted. On the scheme of Articles 102 and 191 and the Tenth Schedule, the
determination of the question of split or merger cannot be divorced from the
motion before the Speaker seeking a disqualification of a member or members
concerned. It is therefore not possible to accede to the argument that under the
Tenth Schedule to the Constitution, the Speaker has an independent power to
decide that there has been a split or merger of a political party as
contemplated by paragraphs 3 and 4 of the Tenth Schedule to the Constitution.
The power to recognise a separate group in Parliament or Assembly may rest with
the Speaker on the basis of the Rules of Business of the House. But that is
different from saying that the power is available to him under the Tenth
Schedule to the Constitution independent of a claim being determined by him that
a member or a number of members had incurred disqualification by defection. To
that extent, the decision of the Speaker in the case on hand cannot be
considered to be an order in terms of the Tenth Schedule to the Constitution.
The Speaker has failed to decide the question, he was called upon to decide, by
postponing a decision thereon. There is therefore some merit in the contention
of the learned counsel for the B.S.P. that the order of the Speaker may not
enjoy the full immunity in terms of paragraph 6(1) of the Tenth Schedule to the
Constitution and that even if it did, the power of judicial review recognised in
the court in Kihoto Hollohan (supra) is sufficient to warrant interference with
the order in question.
-
In a sense, this aspect may not be
of a great importance in this case since going by the stand adopted on behalf of
the 37 M.L.As., the Speaker was justified in keeping the petition seeking
disqualification of 13 M.L.As. pending, even while he proceeded to accept a case
of split in the B.S.P..
The question really is whether the
Speaker was justified in doing so. As we have indicated above, the whole
proceeding under the Tenth Schedule to the Constitution is initiated or gets
initiated as a part of disqualification of a member of the House. That
disqualification is by way of defection. The rules prescribed by various
legislatures including the U.P.
legislature contemplate the making of
an application to the Speaker when there is a complaint that some member or
members have voluntarily given up his membership or their memberships in the
party. It is only then that in terms of the Tenth Schedule, the Speaker is
called upon to decide the question of disqualification raised before him in the
context of paragraph 6 of the Tenth Schedule. Independent of a claim that
someone has to be disqualified, the scheme of the Tenth Schedule or the rules
made thereunder, do not contemplate the Speaker embarking upon an independent
enquiry as to whether there has been a split in a political party or there has
been a merger. Therefore, in the context of Articles 102 and 191 and the scheme
of the Tenth Schedule to the Constitution, we have no hesitation in holding that
the Speaker acts under the Tenth Schedule only on a claim of disqualification
being made before him in terms of paragraph 2 of the Tenth Schedule.
-
The Speaker, as clarified in Kihoto Hollohan (supra), has necessarily to decide that question of
disqualification as a Tribunal. In the context of such a claim against a member
to disqualify him, that member, in addition to a plea that he had not
voluntarily given up his membership of the Party or defied the whip issued to
him, has also the right to show that there was a split in the original political
party that other legislators have also come out of the legislature party as a
consequence of that split, that they together constituted one-third of the total
number of legislators elected on the tickets of that party. He has also the
right to take up a plea that there has been a merger of his party with another
party in terms of paragraph 4 of the Tenth Schedule. Call it a defence or
whatever, a claim under paragraph 3 as it existed prior to its deletion or under
paragraph 4 of the Tenth Schedule, are really answers to a prayer for
disqualifying the member from the legislature on the ground of defection.
Therefore, in a case where a Speaker is moved by a legislature party or the
leader of a legislature party to declare certain persons disqualified on the
ground that they have defected, it is certainly open to them to plead that they
are not guilty of defection in view of the fact that there has been a split in
the original political party and they constitute the requisite number of
legislators or that there has been a merger. In that context, the Speaker cannot
say that he will first decide whether there has been a split or merger as an
authority and thereafter decide the question whether disqualification has been
incurred by the members, by way of a judicial adjudication sitting as a
Tribunal. It is part and parcel of his jurisdiction as a Tribunal while
considering a claim for disqualification of a member or members to decide that
question not only in the context of the plea raised by the complainant but also
in the context of the pleas raised by those who are sought to be disqualified
that they have not incurred disqualification in view of a split in the party or
in view of a merger.
-
The decision of a Full Bench of the
Punjab &
India & Ors. [A.I.R. 1987 Punjab &
Haryana 263] was relied upon to contend that the Speaker gets jurisdiction to
render a decision in terms of the Tenth Schedule to the Constitution of India
only when in terms of paragraph 6 thereof a question of disqualification arose
before him. The Full Bench by a majority held:
"Under, para. 6, the Speaker would
have the jurisdiction in this matter only if any question arises as to whether a
member of the House has become subject to disqualification under the said
Schedule and the same has been referred to him for decision. The purpose of
requirement of a reference obviously is that even when a question as to the
disqualification of a member arises, the Speaker is debarred from taking suo
motu cognizance and he would be seized of the matter only when the question is
referred to him by any interested person. The Speaker has not been clothed with
a suo motu power for the obvious reason that he is supposed to be a non-party
man and has been entrusted with the jurisdiction to act judicially and decide
the dispute between the conflicting groups. The other prerequisite for invoking
the jurisdiction of the Speaker under para.
6 is the existence of a question of
disqualification of the some member. Such a question can arise only in one way,
viz., that any member is alleged to have incurred the disqualification
enumerated in para 2(1) and some interested person approaches the Speaker for
declaring that the said member is disqualified from being member of the House
and the claim is refuted by the member concerned."
It was argued on behalf of the 37
M.L.As. that this position adopted by the Full Bench does not reflect the
correct position in law since there is nothing in the Tenth Schedule which
precludes the Speaker from rendering an adjudication either in respect of a
claim under paragraph 3 of the Schedule or paragraph 4 of the Schedule,
independent of any question arising before him in terms of paragraph 2 of the
Schedule.
Considering the scheme of the Tenth
Schedule in the context of Articles 102 and 191 of the Constitution and the
wording of paragraph 6 and the conferment of jurisdiction on the Speaker
thereunder, we are inclined to the view that the position adopted by the
majority of the High Court of Punjab &
Haryana in the above decision as to
the scope of the Tenth Schedule, reflects the correct legal position. Under the
Tenth Schedule, the Speaker is not expected to simply entertain a claim under
paragraphs 3 and 4 of the Schedule without first acquiring jurisdiction to
decide a question of disqualification in terms of paragraph 6 of the Schedule.
The power if any, he may otherwise exercise independently to recognise a group
or a merger, cannot be traced to the Tenth Schedule to the Constitution. The
power under the Tenth Schedule to do so accrues only when he is called upon to
decide the question referred to in paragraph 6 of that Schedule.
-
In the case on hand, the Speaker
had a petition moved before him for disqualification of 13 members of the B.S.P.
When that application was pending before him, certain members of B.S.P. had made
a claim before him that there has been a split in B.S.P. The Speaker, on the
scheme of the Tenth Schedule and the rules framed in that behalf, had to decide
the application for disqualification made and while deciding the same, had to
decide whether in view of paragraph 3 of the Tenth Schedule, the claim of
disqualification has to be rejected. We have no doubt that the Speaker had
totally misdirected himself in purporting to answer the claim of the 37 M.L.As.
that there has been a split in the party even while leaving open the question of
disqualification raised before him by way of an application that was already
pending before him.
This failure on the part of the
Speaker to decide the application seeking a disqualification cannot be said to
be merely in the realm of procedure. It goes against the very constitutional
scheme of adjudication contemplated by the Tenth Schedule read in the context of
Articles 102 and 191 of the Constitution. It also goes against the rules framed
in that behalf and the procedure that he was expected to follow. It is therefore
not possible to accept the argument on behalf of the 37 M.L.As. that the failure
of the Speaker to decide the petition for disqualification at least
simultaneously with the petition for recognition of a split filed by them, is a
mere procedural irregularity. We have no hesitation in finding that the same is
a jurisdictional illegality, an illegality that goes to the root of the so
called decision by the Speaker on the question of split put forward before him.
Even within the parameters of judicial review laid down in Kihoto Hollohan
(supra) and in Jagjit Singh vs. State of Haryana ( 2006(13) SCALE 335) it has to
be found that the decision of the Speaker impugned is liable to be set aside in
exercise of the power of judicial review.
-
There is another aspect. The
Speaker, after he kept the determination of the question of disqualification
pending, passed an order that the said petition will be dealt after the High
Court had taken a decision on the Writ Petition pending before it and directed
that the said petition be taken up after the Writ Petition was disposed of.
Then, suddenly, without any apparent reason, the Speaker took up that
application even while the Writ Petition was pending and dismissed the same on
7.9.2005 by purporting to accept a so called preliminary objection raised by the
13 M.L.As. sought to be disqualified, to the effect that his recognition of the
split of the 37 M.L.As. including themselves, has put an end to that
application. This last order is clearly inconsistent with the Speaker's earlier
order dated 14.11.2003 and still leaves open the question whether the petition
seeking disqualification should not have been decided first or at least
simultaneously with the application claiming recognition of a split. If the
order recognising the split goes, obviously this last order also cannot survive.
It has perforce to go.
-
Considerable arguments were
addressed on the scope of paragraph 2 and paragraph 3 of the Tenth Schedule with
particular reference to the point of time that must be considered to be
relevant. Whereas it was argued on behalf of leader of B.S.P. that the liability
or disability is incurred at the point of voluntarily giving up the membership
of the political party, according to the 37 M.L.As. who left, the relevant point
of time is the time when the Speaker takes a decision on the plea for
disqualification. As a corollary to the above, the contention on the one side is
that if on the day the disqualification is incurred there has been no split in
terms of paragraph 3, those disqualified who had given up their membership of
the party must be declared disqualified, the argument on the other side is that
if by the time the Speaker takes the decision, the persons sought to be
disqualified are able to show that there has been a split in the original party
and by that time they have a strength of one third of the Legislature party, the
Speaker will have necessarily to accept the split and reject the petition for
disqualification. In other words, according to this argument all developments
until the point of decision by the Speaker are to be taken note of by him, while
deciding the question of disqualification. They canvas the acceptance of what
the learned Chief Justice of the High Court has called the snowballing effect of
persons severing their connections with the original party and joining the
quitters subsequently and not confining the decision to the point of their
alleged severing their connection with the original party.
-
It is argued on behalf of 37 MLAs
that the disqualification on the ground of defection should not be held as a
sword of Damocles against honest political dissent and the prevention of honest
political dissent is not the object sought to be achieved by the Tenth Schedule.
This submission is sought to be supported by the argument that at the relevant
time paragraph 3 provided that if on the basis of a split in the original party
one third of the members of the Legislature party have voluntarily give up their
membership of the original political party, they could not be disqualified. The
relevant observations in Kihoto Hollohan (supra) are referred to. It is also
pointed out that paragraph 4 which is still retained, also contemplates leaving
of one's own party by merging of that party with another political party though
by definition, that may also amount to defection in terms of paragraph 2.
-
It may be true that collective
dissent is not intended to be stifled by the enactment of sub-article (2) of
Articles 102 and 191 of the Tenth Schedule. But at the same time, it is clear
that the object is to discourage defection which has assumed menacing
proportions undermining the very basis of democracy. Therefore, a purposive
interpretation of paragraph 2 in juxtaposition with paragraphs 3 and 4 of the
Tenth Schedule is called for. One thing is clear that defection is a ground for
disqualifying a member from the House. He incurs that disqualification if he has
voluntarily given up his membership of his original political party, meaning the
party on whose ticket he had got elected himself to the House. In the case of
defiance of a whip, the party concerned is given an option either of condoning
the defiance or seeking disqualification of the member concerned. But, the
decision to condone must be taken within 15 days of the defiance of the whip.
This aspect is also relied on for the contention that the relevant point of time
to determine the question is when the Speaker actually takes a decision on the
plea for disqualification.
-
As we see it, the act of
disqualification occurs on a member voluntarily giving up his membership of a
political party or at the point of defiance of the whip issued to him.
Therefore, the act that constitutes
disqualification in terms of paragraph 2 of the Tenth Schedule is the act of
giving up or defiance of the whip. The fact that a decision in that regard may
be taken in the case of voluntary giving up by the Speaker at a subsequent point
of time cannot and does not postpone the incurring of disqualification by the
act of the Legislator.
Similarly, the fact that the party
could condone the defiance of a whip within 15 days or that the Speaker takes
the decision only thereafter in those cases, cannot also pitch the time of
disqualification as anything other than the point at which the whip is defied.
Therefore in the background of the object sought to be achieved by the Fifty
Second Amendment of the Constitution and on a true understanding of paragraph 2
of the Tenth Schedule, with reference to the other paragraphs of the Tenth
Schedule, the position that emerges is that the Speaker has to decide the
question of disqualification with reference to the date on which the member
voluntarily gives up his membership or defies the whip. It is really a decision
ex post facto. The fact that in terms of paragraph 6 a decision on the question
has to be taken by the Speaker or the Chairman, cannot lead to a conclusion that
the question has to be determined only with reference to the date of the
decision of the Speaker. An interpretation of that nature would leave the
disqualification to an indeterminate point of time and to the whims of the
decision making authority. The same would defeat the very object of enacting the
law. Such an interpretation should be avoided to the extent possible. We are,
therefore, of the view that the contention that only on a decision of the
Speaker that the disqualification is incurred, cannot be accepted. This would
mean that what the learned Chief Justice has called the snowballing effect, will
also have to be ignored and the question will have to be decided with reference
to the date on which the membership of the Legislature party is alleged to have
been voluntarily given up.
-
In the case on hand, the question
would, therefore be whether on 27.3.2003 the 13 members who met the Governor
with the request to invite the leader of the Samajwadi Party to form the
Government had defected, on 27.8.2003 and whether they have established their
claim that on 26.8.2003 there had been a split in the Bahujan Samaj Party and
one third of the members of the Legislature of that party had come out of that
party. It may be noted that the clear and repeated plea in the counter affidavit
to the writ petition is that a split had occurred on 26.8.2003. This was also
the stand of the petitioner before the Speaker for recognition of a split. The
position as on 6.9.2003 when the 37 MLAs presented themselves before the Speaker
would not have relevance on the question of disqualification which had allegedly
been incurred on 27.8.2003.
-
The question whether for
satisfying the requirements of paragraph 3, it was enough to make a claim of
split in the original political party or it was necessary to at least prima
facie establish it, fell to be considered in the rendered by a Bench of three
Judges to which one of us, (Balasubramanyan, J.) was a party. Dealing with an
argument that a claim of split in the original political party alone is
sufficient in addition to showing that one-third of the members of the
legislature Party had formed a separate group, the learned Chief Justice has
explained the position as follows:
"Learned counsel for the petitioner,
however, relies upon paragraph 37 in Ravi S. Naik's case in support of the
submission that only a claim as to split has to be made and it is not necessary
to prove the split. The said observations are:
'In the present case the first
requirement was satisfied because Naik has made such a claim. The only question
is whether the second requirement was fulfilled.' The observations relied upon
are required to be appreciated in the light of what is stated in the next
paragraph, i.e., paragraph 38, namely:
'As to whether there was a split or
not has to be determined by the Speaker on the basis of the material placed
before him.' Apart from the above, the acceptance of the contention that only
claim is to be made to satisfy the requirements of paragraph 3 can lead to
absurd consequences besides the elementary principle that whoever makes a claim
has to establish it. It will also mean that when a claim as to split is made by
a member before the speaker so as to take benefit of paragraph 3, the Speaker,
without being satisfied even prima facie about the genuineness and bonafides of
the claim, has to accept it. It will also mean that even by raising a frivolous
claim of split of original political party, a member can be said to have
satisfied this stipulation of paragraph 3. The acceptance of such broad
proposition would defeat the object of defection law, namely, to deal with the
evil of political defection sternly.
We are of the view that for the
purposes of paragraph 3, mere making of claim is not sufficient. The prima facie
proof of such a split is necessary to be produced before the Speaker so as to
satisfy him that such a split has taken place."
-
Thus, in the above decision, it
has been clarified that it is not enough that a claim is made of a split in the
original party, in addition to showing that one third of the members of the
Legislature Party have come out of the party, but it is necessary to prove it at
least prima facie. Those who have left the party, will have, prima facie, to
show by relevant materials that there has been a split in the original party.
The argument, therefore, that all that the 37 MLAs were required to do was to
make a claim before the Speaker that there has been a split in the original
party and to show that one third of the members of the Legislature party have
come out and that they need not produce any material in support of the split in
the original political party, cannot be accepted. The argument that the ratio of
the decision in Jagjit Singh (supra) requires to be reconsidered does not appeal
to us. Even going by Ravi S. Naik (supra) it could not be said that the learned
Judges have held that a mere claim in that behalf is enough. As pointed out in
Jagjit Singh (supra) the sentence in paragraph 37 in Ravi S. Naik's case (supra)
cannot be read in isolation and it has to be read along with the relevant
sentence in paragraph 38 quoted in Jagjit Singh (supra).
-
Acceptance of the argument that
the legislators are wearing two hats, one as members of the original political
party and the other as members of the legislature and it would be sufficient to
show that one third of the legislators have formed a separate group to infer a
split or to postulate a split in the original party, would militate against the
specific terms of paragraph 3. That paragraph speaks of two requirements, one, a
split in the original party and two, a group comprising of one third of the
legislators separating from the legislature party. By acceding to the two hat
theory one of the limbs of paragraph 3 would be made redundant or otios. An
interpretation of that nature has to be avoided to the extent possible. Such an
interpretation is not warranted by the context. It is also not permissible to
assume that the Parliament has used words that are redundant or meaningless. We,
therefore, overrule the plea that a split in the original political party need
not separately be established if a split in the legislature party is shown.
-
On the side of the 37 M.L.As., the
scope of judicial review being limited was repeatedly stressed to contend that
the majority of the High Court had exceeded its jurisdiction.
Dealing with the ambit of judicial
review of an order of the Speaker under the Tenth Schedule, it was held in
Kihoto Hollohan (supra):
"In the present case, the power to
decide disputed disqualification under Paragraph 6(1) is preeminently of a
judicial complexion.
-
The fiction in Paragraph 6(2),
indeed, places it in the first clause of Article 122 or 212, as the case may be.
The words "proceedings in Parliament" or "proceedings in the legislature of a
State" in Paragraph 6(2) have their corresponding expression in Articles 122(1)
and 212(1) respectively. This attracts an immunity from mere irregularities of
procedures.
That apart, even after 1986 when the
Tenth Schedule was introduced, the Constitution did not evince any intention to
invoke Article 122 or 212 in the conduct of resolution of disputes as to the
disqualification of members under Articles 191(1) and 102(1). The very deeming
provision implies that the proceedings of disqualification are, in fact, not
before the House; but only before the Speaker as a specially designated
authority. The decision under paragraph 6(1) is not the decision of the House,
nor is it subject to the approval by the House. The decision operates
independently of the House. A deeming provision cannot by its creation transcend
its own power. There is, therefore, ho immunity under Articles 122 and 212 from
judicial scrutiny of the decision of the Speaker or Chairman exercising power
under Paragraph 6(1) of the Tenth Schedule."
After referring to the relevant
aspects, it was held:
"By these well-known and accepted
tests of what constitute a Tribunal, the Speaker or the Chairman, acting under
paragraph 6(1) of the Tenth Schedule is a Tribunal."
It was concluded:
"In the light of the decisions
referred to above and the nature of function that is exercised by the
Speaker/Chairman under paragraph 6, the scope of judicial review under Articles
136, and 226 and 227 of the Constitution in respect of an order passed by the
Speaker/Chairman under paragraph 6 would be confined to jurisdictional errors
only viz., infirmities based on violation of constitutional mandate, mala fides,
non-compliance with rules of natural justice and perversity."
The position was reiterated by the
Constitution Bench in Ors. [JT 2007 (2) SC 1]. We are of the view that contours
of interference have been well drawn by Kihoto Hollohan (supra) and what is
involved here is only its application.
-
Coming to the case on hand, it is
clear that the Speaker, in the original order, left the question of
disqualification undecided. Thereby he has failed to exercise the jurisdiction
conferred on him by paragraph 6 of the Tenth Schedule. Such a failure to
exercise jurisdiction cannot be held to be covered by the shield of paragraph 6
of the Schedule. He has also proceeded to accept the case of a split based
merely on a claim in that behalf. He has entered no finding whether a split in
the original political party was prima facie proved or not. This action of his,
is apparently based on his understanding of the ratio of the decision in Ravi S.
Naik's case (supra). He has misunderstood the ratio therein. Now that we have
approved the reasoning and the approach in Jagjit Singh's case and the ratio
therein is clear, it has to be held that the Speaker has committed an error that
goes to the root of the matter or an error that is so fundamental, that even
under a limited judicial review the order of the Speaker has to be interfered
with. We have, therefore, no hesitation in agreeing with the majority of the
High Court in quashing the decisions of the Speaker.
-
In view of our conclusions as
above, nothing turns on the arguments urged on what were described as
significant facts and on the alleged belatedness of the amendment to the Writ
Petition. It is undisputable that in the order that was originally subjected to
challenge in the Writ Petition, the Speaker specifically refrained from deciding
the petition seeking disqualification of the 13 M.L.As. On our reasoning as
above, clearly, there was an error which attracted the jurisdiction of the High
Court in exercise of its power of judicial review.
-
The question then is whether it
was necessary for the majority of the Division Bench of the High Court to remand
the proceeding to the Speaker or a decision could have been taken whether the 13
members stand disqualified or not and if they are found to be disqualified, the
balance 24 of the 37 would also stand disqualified, since in that case, there
will be no one third of the Legislature party forming a separate group as
claimed by them. It is contended on behalf of the Bahujan Samaj Party that there
is absolutely no material to show that there was any meeting of the party on
26.8.2003 as claimed by the 37 members and it has not been shown that there was
any convention of the original political party or any decision taken therein to
split the party or to leave the party by some of the members of that party. It
is also pointed out that no agenda of the alleged meeting or minutes of the
alleged meeting is produced. No other material is also produced. Even prior to
6.9.2003, when the claim of split before the Speaker was made and 26.8.2003,
when the split is claimed to have occurred, the 24 members of the 37, had sat
with the Bahujan Samaj Party in the Legislative Assembly and that itself would
show that there had been no split on 27.8.2003 as now claimed. It is also
pointed out that on 2.9.2003, the day of the convening of the Assembly, the 13
members of the B.S.P. who had met the Governor on 27.8.2003, had sat with
members of the Samajwadi Party in the Assembly and an objection was raised to
it. The Speaker got over the situation by saying that the only business on the
agenda that day was obituary references and the question need not be raised that
day. It is, therefore, contended that on the facts, it is crystal clear that the
13 members sought to be disqualified had defected and the defection is manifest
by their meeting the Governor on 27.8.2003 requesting him to call upon the
leader of the Samajwadi Party to form the Government.
-
As against these submissions, it
is contended that it was for the Speaker to take a decision in the first
instance and this Court should not substitute its decision for that of the
Speaker. It is submitted that the High Court was therefore justified in
remitting the matter to the Speaker, in case this Court did not agree with the
37 MLAs that the decision of the Speaker did not call for interference.
-
Normally, this Court might not
proceed to take a decision for the first time when the authority concerned has
not taken a decision in the eyes of law and this Court would normally remit the
matter to the authority for taking a proper decision in accordance with law and
the decision this Court itself takes on the relevant aspects. What is urged on
behalf of the Bahujan Samaj Party is that these 37 MLAs except a few have all
been made ministers and if they are guilty of defection with reference to the
date of defection, they have been holding office without authority, in defiance
of democratic principles and in such a situation, this Court must take a
decision on the question of disqualification immediately. It is also submitted
that the term of the Assembly is coming to an end and an expeditious decision by
this Court is warranted for protection of the constitutional scheme and
constitutional values. We find considerable force in this submission.
-
Here, the alleged act of
disqualification of the 13 MLAs took place on 27.8.2003 when they met the
Governor and requested him to call the leader of the opposition to form the
Government. The petition seeking disqualification of these 13 members based on
that action of theirs has been allowed to drag on till now. It is not necessary
for us to consider or comment on who was responsible for such delay. But the
fact remains that the term of the Legislative Assembly that was constituted
after the elections in February 2002, is coming to an end on the expiry of five
years. A remand of the proceeding to the Speaker or our affirming the order of
remand passed by the High Court, would mean that the proceeding itself may
become infructuous. We may notice that the question of interpretation of the
Tenth Schedule and the question of disqualification earlier raised in regard to
members of the prior assembly of this very State, which led to the difference of
opinion between two of the learned Judges of this Court and which stood referred
to a Constitution Bench, was, disposed of on the ground that it had become
infructuous in view of the expiry of the term of the Assembly. Paragraph 3 of
the Tenth Schedule has also been deleted by the Parliament, though for the
purpose of this case, the scope of that paragraph is involved. Considering that
if the 13 members are found to be disqualified, their continuance in the
Assembly even for a day would be illegal and unconstitutional and their holding
office as ministers would also be illegal at least after the expiry of six
months from the date of their taking charge of the offices of Ministers, we
think that as a Court bound to protect the Constitution and its values and the
principles of democracy which is a basic feature of the Constitution, this Court
has to take a decision one way or the other on the question of disqualification
of the 13 MLAs based on their action on 27.8.2003 and on the materials
available.
-
The main thrust of the argument on
the side of the 13 MLAs included in the 37 MLAs, has been that it was enough if
a claim of a split in the original political party had been made and it was not
necessary to establish any such split and it was enough for them to show that 37
of them had signed the petition filed before the Speaker on 6.9.2003. We have
held on an interpretation of paragraph 3 and in approval of the ratio in Jagjit
Singh (supra) that the 37 MLAs which includes the 13 MLAs in question had to
establish a split in the original political party, here BSP, before they can get
the protection offered by paragraph 3. The question is whether they have proved
at least prima facie any such split.
-
The first act on the part of the
13 MLAs which is relevant is the giving of letters by them to the Governor, the
contents of which we have quoted earlier in paragraph 16.
Therein, there is no claim that there
was a split in the Legislature Party on 26.8.2003 as was put forward in the
representation on 6.9.2003 by 37 members. It is interesting to note that in the
counter-affidavit to the writ petition filed by Rajendra Singh Rana who can be
described as the leader of the 13 (for that matter of the 37), it has been
repeatedly asserted that on 26.8.2003 a new party called Lok Tantrik Bahujan Dal
was formed. Therefore, this was a case in which the theory of snow balling
adverted to by the learned Chief Justice in the Judgment under appeal had no
relevance. The issue was, whether on 26.8.2003 there had been a split in the
original political party, the BSP and whether by that split, 37 of the MLAs of
that Legislature Party had come out of that party. As rightly pointed out by
learned counsel for BSP, no material is produced either to show that a meeting
of the members of BSP was convened on 26.8.2003 or that a meeting took place at
Darulshafa in which a split in the original political party occurred. On the
other hand, the letters given to the Governor on 27.8.2003 by the 13 members
sought to be disqualified, is totally silent on any such split in the original
political party or on a new party being formed by certain members of the
original political party. This is followed by the fact that on 2.9.2003 only the
members who had met the Governor, sat with the members of the Samajwadi Party
abandoning their seats with BSP in the Assembly and the other 24, which made up
the 37, remained in their seats along with the BSP. More over, no notice of a
proposed meeting of the party on 26.8.2003, or evidence of any announcement of
such a proposed meeting is produced. No agenda of any such meeting is also
produced. No minutes evidencing any decision to split the party taken at such a
meeting, is also produced. These relevant aspects clearly demonstrate that the
story of a split in the original political party put forward in the letter dated
6.9.2003 was only an afterthought. Even before us, no material was referred to,
to suggest or establish that there was a split on 26.8.2003 and the formation of
a Lok Tantril Dal as claimed in the counter affidavit to the writ petition. The
attempt was only to argue that we must leave the decision to the Speaker in the
first instance and that the challenge to the meeting on 26.8.2003 was only
raised belatedly in the writ petition. On a scrutiny of the pleadings in the
original writ petition, we cannot also agree with that latter submission.
-
The act of giving a letter
requesting the Governor to call upon the leader of the other side to form a
Government, itself would amount to an act of voluntarily giving up the
membership of the party on whose ticket the said members had got elected. Be it
noted that on 26.8.2003, the leader of their party had recommended to the
Governor, a dissolution of the Assembly. The first eight were accompanied by Shivpal Singh Yadav, the General Secretary of the Samajwadi Party.
In Ravi Naik (supra) this Court
observed:
"A person may voluntarily give up his
membership of an original political party even though he has not tendered his
resignation from the membership of that party. Even in the absence of a formal
resignation from the membership, an inference can be drawn from the conduct of a
member that he has voluntarily given up his membership of the political party to
which he belongs."
-
Clearly, from the conduct of
meeting the Governor accompanied by the General Secretary of the Samajwadi
Party, the party in opposition and the submission of letters requesting the
Governor to invite the leader of that opposition party to form a Government as
against the advise of the Chief Minister belonging to their original party to
dissolve the assembly, an irresistible inference arises that the 13 members have
clearly given up their membership of the BSP. No further evidence or enquiry is
needed to find that their action comes within paragraph 2(1)(a) of the Tenth
Schedule. Then the only question is whether they had shown at least prima facie
that a split had occurred in the original political party on 26.8.2003 and they
had separated from it along with at least 24 others, so as to make up one-third
of the legislature party.
-
The learned Chief Justice who
declined to interfere with the decision of the Speaker on his interpretation of
paragraphs 2 and 3 of the Tenth Schedule to the Constitution with which we have
disagreed, himself stated:
"As per the dicta in the case of Naik,
reported 1994 (Suppl.)2 SCC 641, the going of the 13 MLAs to the Governor on
27.8.2003 is a conduct which leads to the inference that they had voluntarily
given up their membership of the Bahujan Dal. They asked the governor to call
the leader of the main opposing party, to be requested to demonstrate his
strength. In paragraph 11 in Naik's case, it is said that an inference can be
drawn from the conduct of a member that he was voluntarily given up his
membership. That inference has to be drawn in regard to the conduct of
27.08.2003 most certainly."
He has also observed while considering
whether the Speaker had to consider paragraph 2 of the Tenth Schedule first or
he is to consider paragraph 3 first.
"The order of consideration will yield
diametrically opposite results. Even, in this case, if he had considered
paragraph 2 first, he might well have had to disqualify all 37, as they did not
walk away at one and the same time. But because he considered paragraph 3 first,
because he though as a matter of law that the requirements of paragraph 3 being
satisfied, it obviated the necessity of considering paragraph 2 separately for
any part of the whole group, he gave a decision for the respondents."
The learned Chief Justice has further
held:
"Even if 37 out of 109 Bahujan MLAs
have walked out, only the legislature party is split.
This is defined in paragraph 1(b),
which has been set out earlier; but in this case of ours, where is the proof
before the Speaker of the split in the original party? Were any minutes tendered
before the Speaker showing that so many lacs or millions of the original Bahujan
Dal decided to split? A claim that on 26.08.2003, there were some party members
along with the MLAs at the Darulshafa in Lucknow is not enough; it is too
inadequate.
The Bahujan Dal is too big; its party
membership is too numerous for it to suffer a split in such a comparatively
minor meeting, even if it took place on 26.8.2003. There was no intimation that
one group was going to split; even the name Loktantrik Bahujan Dal found its
place for the first time on paper on 6.9.2003; there were no Newspaper reports;
there were no statements of
dissatisfied party members; the core of the Bahujan Dal was not asked to
"rectify" its behaviour or else. The threat of a split was not even made
imminent;
nothing like this happened; only one
evening, it is claimed, the Bahujan Dal had split and a faction had arisen. This
is so cursory as not to class as a split in the original party at all.
Look at the split in Congress-O, which
resulted in Congress-I coming into being; Looking at the split in Congress-I in
West Bengal and the resulting Trinamul Congress coming into being, was there
anything like that here? The answer is a big no."
-
One of the learned Judges who
constitutes the majority has held:
". but the court cannot certainly
close its eyes to the fact that had the application for disqualification dated
4.9.2003 been treated with the same promptitude and constitutionally required
urgency, the 13 MLAs whose Membership in question was hanging in the balance
could not have been counted along with 24 others, who joined hands to conjure up
the minimum required member."
-
As we have indicated, nothing is
produced to show that there was a split in the original political party on
26.8.2003 as belatedly put forward or put forward at a later point of time. But
still, the plea was of a split on 26.8.2003.
On the materials, the only possible
inference in the circumstances of the case, is that it has not been proved, even
prima facie, by the MLAs sought to be disqualified that there was any split in
the original political party on 26.8.2003 as claimed by them. The necessary
consequence would be that the 24 members, who later joined the 13, could not
also establish a split in the original political party as having taken place on
26.8.2003. In fact even a split involving 37 MLAs on 26.8.2003 is not
established. That was also the inference rightly drawn by the learned Chief
Justice in the judgment appealed against.
-
In view of our conclusion that it
is necessary not only to show that 37 MLAs had separated but it is also
necessary to show that there was a split in the original political party, the
above finding necessarily leads to the conclusion that the 13 MLAs sought to be
disqualified had not established a defence or answer to the charge of defection
under paragraph 2 on the basis of paragraph 3 of the Tenth Schedule. The 13 MLAs,
therefore, stand disqualified with effect from 27.8.2003. The very giving of a
letter to the Governor requesting him to call the leader of the opposition party
to form a Government by them itself would amount to their voluntarily giving up
the membership of their original political party within the meaning of paragraph
2 of the Tenth Schedule. If so, the conclusion is irresistible that the 13
members of BSP who met the Governor on 27.8.2003 who are respondent
Nos.2,3,4,5,6,9,10,14,16,19,20,21 and 37, in the writ petition filed by Maurya,
stand disqualified in terms of Article 191(2) of the Constitution read with
paragraph 2 of the Tenth Schedule thereof, with effect from 27.8.2003. If so,
the appeal filed by the writ petitioner has to be allowed even while dismissing
the appeals filed by the 37 MLAs, by modifying the decision of the majority of
the Division Bench. Hence the writ petition filed in the High Court, will stand
allowed with a declaration that the 13 members who met the Governor on
27.8.2003, being respondent numbers 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 9, 10, 14, 16, 19, 20, 21 and
37 in the writ petition, stand disqualified from the Uttar Pradesh Legislative
Assembly with effect from 27.8.2003.
-
The appeals filed by the 37 MLAs
are dismissed and the appeal filed by the writ petitioner is allowed in the
above manner. The disqualified members will pay the costs of the writ
petitioner, here and in the High Court.
Back
Pages: 1 2