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