In disqualification proceedings under the Tenth Schedule, the standard of proof is preponderance of probabilities, not beyond reasonable doubt, contrary to the Speaker's ruling.

Judgment :

DEBANGSU BASAK, J.

1. Two writ petitions have been taken up for analogous hearing as they relate to the similar issues and the order dated June 8, 2022 passed by the Speaker, West Bengal Legislative Assembly.

2. A Member of the Legislative Assembly has filed WPA(P) 213 of 2022 (hereinafter referred to as the first writ petition for the sake of convenience) while the leader of the opposition of the State’s Legislative Assembly has filed WPA 6193 of 2023 (hereinafter referred to as the second writ petition, again for the sake of convenience). It has been acknowledged at the Bar that, both the writ petitions involve similar issues and relate to the decision taken by the Speaker of the State Legislative Assembly regarding the plea of disqualification of the respondent No. 2.

3. Learned Senior Advocate appearing for the second writ petitioner has submitted that, respondent No. 2 was elected as a Member of the State Legislative Assembly from Krishnanagar Uttar Constituency on Bharatiya Janata Party (BJP) ticket. Respondent No. 2 had defected to the All India Trinamool Congress (AITC) on June 11, 2021 by announcing the same at a press conference held on the headquarters of AITC, namely Trinamool Bhawan and that, the same was broadcast on the official handle of AITC on the social media platform.

4. Learned Senior Advocate appearing for the second writ petitioner has contended that, the first writ petitioner filed an application for disqualification of the respondent No. 2 before the respondent No. 1. Respondent No. 2 had filed the first writ petition challenging the decision of the respondent No. 1 dated July 9, 2021 nominating the respondent No. 2 as the Chairman of the Public Accounts Committee. By a judgment and order dated September 28, 2021, the Coordinate Bench had issued a direction requiring the respondent No. 1 to decide disqualification of the respondent No. 2.

5. Learned Senior Advocate appearing for the second writ petitioner has contended that, the respondent No. 1 has decided on the prayer of the disqualification of the respondent No. 2 subsequent to the judgment and order dated September 28, 2021 by the impugned order dated June 8, 2022.

6. Learned Senior Advocate appearing for the second writ petitioner has contended that, the respondent No. 1 returned erroneous finding with regard to the evidence produced before him. He has contended that, proceedings under the Tenth Schedule of the Constitution are to be tested on the touchstone of the principles of pleadings. He has drawn the attention of the Court to the pleadings filed before the respondent No. 1. He has contended that, the evidence that was produced before the respondent No. 1 with regard to the defection of the respondent No. 2 from BJP to AITC were not denied by the respondent No. 2 in his pleadings. In such circumstances, he has contended that, the respondent No. 1 erred in holding that there was no evidence to establish the disqualification. In this regard, he has relied upon 2010 Volume 11 Supreme Court Cases 296 ( Sumitomo Heavy Industries Limited vs. Oil and Natural Gas Corporation Limited ) and 2013 Volume 6 Supreme Court Cases 602 ( S.R. Tewari vs. Union of India )

7. Learned Senior Advocate appearing for the second writ petitioner has contended, without prejudice to his contentions with regard to the evidence placed on record that, the second writ