1. Disqualification proceedings against a Member of the Legislative Assembly under the Tenth Schedule and Article 191(2) of the Constitution for voluntarily giving up party membership. (Para 3 , 4 , 5 , 6 , 7 )
Back
Next 
2021 Supreme(SC) 1065
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
UDAY UMESH LALIT, S. RAVINDRA BHAT, BELA M. TRIVEDI, JJ.
Shri Kshetrimayum Biren Singh - Appellant
Versus
The Hon’ble Speaker, Manipur Legislative Assembly & Ors. Etc. - Respondents
Civil Appeal Nos.7557-7559 of 2021 (Arising out of SLP (Civil) No.9024-9026 of 2021)
Decided on : 08-12-2021
Important Points
Disqualification under the Tenth Schedule for 'voluntarily giving up membership' cannot be based solely on newspaper reports. Such determinations require leading evidence and adherence to the principles of natural justice, ensuring parties have an adequate opportunity to present their viewpoints.
Subject
Constitutional Law - Disqualification of Members of Legislative Assembly
Act Referred
Headnote
Constitution of India, 1950 – Article 14 – Appeals challenge the common judgment and final order passed by the High Court of Manipur in W.P – In elections to Legislative Assembly held, appellant was elected as a Member of Legislative Assembly from 8-Lamlai Assembly Constituency, Manipur as an official candidate of Indian National Congress – Petition being Disqualification Case under paragraph 2(1)(a) and (2) of Tenth Schedule of Constitution of India read with Article 191(2) of Constitution of India was thereafter filed Singh as electors from 8-Lamlai Assembly Constituency, seeking disqualification of appellant on ground that appellant had voluntarily given up his membership of political party INC and had joined ruling Party – Petition was premised on certain reports in local newspapers to effect that at a reception ceremony, appellant had joined political party BJP led by Chief Minister of Manipur and he was wearing a cap and shawl of BJP and identifying himself as a member of the political party BJP – Held, Questions -whether mere reporting in newspapers could be taken as sufficient proof of “voluntarily giving up of membership of a political party” and, whether matters require leading of evidence, had to be gone into by Speaker – In our view, essential features of matter demanded leading of evidence as well as giving adequate opportunity to parties to present their viewpoint – In circumstances, court allow these appeals, set-aside orders passed by Speaker and he High Court and restore Disqualification Cases to file of Speaker to be decided afresh purely on merits without being influenced by any of observations in earlier orders of Speaker and High Court – Since order passed by Speaker has now been set-aside, till matter is disposed of by Speaker, appellant shall continue to represent electorate in concerned house of Legislature – Court may also observe that matters have been pending in Courts of law for a while – Court therefore request Speaker to consider disposing of pending disqualification Applications as early as possible, in accordance with law – Appeals allowed.
Legal Category Hierarchy
Advocates:
Advocate Appeared:
For the Appellant : Mr. L.K. Paonam, Ms. Tomthinnganbi Koijam, Mr. Niraj Bobby Paonam, Mr. S. K. Bhattacharya, Adv
For the Respondent: Mr. Dama Seshadri Naidu, Mr. Lenin Hijam Singh, Mr. Anish R. Shah, Mr. Abdulrahiman Tamboli, Ms. Shivali Chaudhary, Mr. Ananvay Anandvardan,
Mr. Siddharth Chapalgaonkar, Adv.
Advocate Appeared:
For the Appellant : Mr. L.K. Paonam, Ms. Tomthinnganbi Koijam, Mr. Niraj Bobby Paonam, Mr. S. K. Bhattacharya, Adv
For the Respondent: Mr. Dama Seshadri Naidu, Mr. Lenin Hijam Singh, Mr. Anish R. Shah, Mr. Abdulrahiman Tamboli, Ms. Shivali Chaudhary, Mr. Ananvay Anandvardan,
Mr. Siddharth Chapalgaonkar, Adv.
Table of Contents
2. Whether newspaper reports constitute sufficient proof of voluntarily giving up party membership and whether preponement of hearings without adequate notice violates natural justice. (Para 8 , 11 , 15 )
3. The court observed that determining voluntary resignation from a political party based on newspaper reports requires leading evidence and providing parties an adequate opportunity to be heard. (Para 18 , 19 )
4. Determining if a legislator voluntarily gave up party membership under the Tenth Schedule requires the leading of evidence and adherence to the principles of natural justice. (Para 19 )
5. Appeals allowed; orders of the Speaker and High Court set aside; disqualification cases restored for fresh decision on merits; appellant restored as representative. (Para 20 , 21 , 23 )
6. Can newspaper reports alone be sufficient proof that a legislator voluntarily gave up membership of a political party under the Tenth Schedule?
No, the court held that determining whether a member voluntarily gave up membership based on newspaper reports requires the leading of evidence and providing the parties an adequate opportunity to present their viewpoints. (Para 19 )
7. Is the leading of evidence and the opportunity to be heard essential in disqualification proceedings under the Tenth Schedule?
Yes, the court found that the essential features of the matter demand the leading of evidence as well as giving adequate opportunity to the parties to present their viewpoint. (Para 19 )
8. What is the status of a legislator while a disqualification petition is pending after the initial disqualification order is set aside?
The legislator shall continue to represent the electorate in the concerned house of the Legislature until the matter is disposed of by the Speaker. (Para 21 )
ORDER :
1. Leave granted.
2. These appeals challenge the common judgment and final order dated 02.06.2021 passed by the High Court of Manipur at Imphal in W.P. (C) Nos.332 of 2020, 360 of 2020 and 361 of 2020.
3. In the elections to the 11th Manipur Legislative Assembly held in March 2017, the appellant was elected as a Member of the Legislative Assembly from 8-Lamlai Assembly Constituency, Manipur as an official candidate of the Indian National Congress (“INC” for short).
4. A petition being Disqualification Case No.2 of 2019 under paragraph 2(1)(a) and (2) of the Tenth Schedule of the Constitution of India read with Article 191(2) of the Constitution of India was thereafter filed by Shri Khundrakpam Gopal Singh and Shri Soibam Ingotombi Singh as electors from 8-Lamlai Assembly Constituency, seeking disqualification of the appellant on the ground that the appellant had voluntarily given up his membership of the political party INC and had joined the ruling Bhartiya Janata Party (“BJP” for short). The petition was premised on certain reports in local newspapers to the effect that at a reception ceremony, the appellant had joined political party BJP led by the Chief Minister of Manipur and he was wearing a cap and shawl of BJP and identifying himself as a member of the political party BJP.
5. To similar effect, another Disqualification Case No.7 of 2019 was filed by an elector from 8-Lamlai Assembly Constituency seeking disqualification of the appellant on identical grounds.
6. These two petitions were followed by a third petition being Disqualification Case No.9 of 2019 by one Okram Henry Singh, a member of the legislative assembly coming from INC seeking identical relief.
7. Thus, these three petitions seeking disqualification were founded on newspaper reports indicating that the appellant had aligned himself with political party BJP and had thus given up his membership of INC.
8. The basic allegations made in the petition seeking disqualification were denied by the appellant as under:
“3. That, with reference to Para 5 of the Disqualification petitions, Respondent denies the allegation made therein and beg to state that the Newspaper reports can’t be relied as it is not trustworthy and therefore, disqualification proceedings under Para 2(1)(a) of the X Schedule of the Constitution of India cannot be taken up against the Respondent(s) on the basis of the Newspaper report/clippings which has been relied without following the established norms under the law in this regard.
4. That, with reference to Para 6 of the Disqualification petition, Respondent denies the allegation made therein and Respondent beg to state that Respondent has never joined BJP and thus, this question of defection do not arise and therefore, Disqualification petition filed under para 2(1)(a) of the X Schedule of the Constitution is liable to be rejected for the ends of justice.”
9. The matters were, thereafter, posted for hearing before the Speaker of the Legislative Assembly of Manipur (“the Speaker”, for short) and were directed to be taken up on 22.06.2020.
10. It appears that communications were thereafter addressed to the appellant stating inter alia that the matters were preponed and would be taken up on 18.06.2020 instead of 22.06.2020. Some other disqualification petitions which were pending before the Speaker were also preponed in similar fashion to 18.06.2020.
11. One Paonam Brojen Singh therefore challenged the action of preponement by way of Writ Petition (Civil) No.298 of 2020 which came up for hearing before the High Court of Manipur on 18.06.2020. After noticing the submissions made by the rival parties, the High Court observed as under:
“5. Their submissions that the manner in which the proceedings have been taken up by the Speaker today without prior notice being given to them and without they being heard, have some merit and require consideration by this Court and moreover, it is well settled that any order passed by a Court or a Tribunal without heari
