Back
2021 Supreme(Del) 397
IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
REKHA PALLI, J.
Chirag Paswan & Anr. – Appellant
Versus
Lok Sabha Secretary And Ors - Respondents
W.P.(C) 6352 of 2021
Decided on : 09-07-2021
Advocate Appeared:
For the Appellant : Mr. A.K. Bajpai, Mr. Udit Grover, Advs. with Mr. Nitin Bajpai and Mr. Diwaker Kumar, Advs.
For the Respondent: Mr. Tushar Mehta, Sr. Adv. SG with Mr. Chetan Sharma, ASG with Mr. Ajay Digpaul, Mr. Kamal R. Digpaul, Mr. Rajshekhar Rao, Ms. Mansi Sood, Mr. Areeb Amanullah, adv
Point of Law: Election - Appointment of a Party Leader in Parliament - Appointment of a Party Leader in Parliament, far more significantly - internal constitution of petitioner no.2 has absolutely no bearing on practice and procedure of Parliament of this country, which is governed by its own set of rules and regulations.
Headnote:
Members of Lok Sabha (Disqualification on Ground of Defection) Rules, 1985 - Rules 2(f) and 3(1) - Constitution of India, 1950 - Article 26 - Election Commission of India - Lok Janshakti Party Constitution - Leader’ in relation to a legislature party - legislature party – Seeking directing/setting aside circular particularly column no. 3 of S.No.11 showing name of respondent no.3 as leader of petitioner no.2 in Lok Sabha and respondent no, 1 be further directed to issue corrigendum by showing name of petitioner no.1 as leader of Petitioner no.2 in Lok Sabha - Petitioners claim that substitution of party leadership of petitioner no.2 party in Lok Sabha was made by respondent no.1 at sole behest of five errant MPs of petitioner no. 2 party, being respondent nos. 3 to 7, without directly conferring with petitioner no.2 at all.
Finding of the Court :
Court is bound to give effect to deeming fiction of the Tenth Schedule of the Constitution of India and, notwithstanding the conflict currently existing between members of petitioner no.2 party, petitioner no.1 and respondent nos. 3 to 7 shall continue to be regarded, for purpose of 17th Lok Sabha, as representatives of petitioner no. 2 and members of same legislature party. It is well settled that power to regulate internal affairs of House is prerogative of Hon’ble Speaker who shall exercise this power as he finds fit. In absence of any prima facie procedural irregularities in appointment of respondent no.3 as the party leader of petitioner no.2 in Lok Sabha, Court find no reason to exercise my writ jurisdiction to interfere with decision of respondent no. 1 - Respondent no. 1 did not deem it necessary to pass any further orders as regards petitioners’ representation.
Result: Petition dismissed
JUDGMENT :
REKHA PALLI, J.
CM APPL.20002-03/2021 (Exemptions)
1. Exemptions allowed, subject to all just exceptions and with the condition that the petitioner shall file the duly attested affidavit(s) within two weeks of resumption of regular functioning of the Court.
2. The applications stand disposed of.
W.P.(C) 6352/2021 & CM APPL. 20001/2021 (stay)
3. The present petition seeks the following reliefs:
“I. Issue Writ of Mandamus or any other appropriate writ/s directing/setting aside circular dt. 14/06/2021 particularly column no. 3 of S.No.11 showing the name of the respondent no.3 as leader of petitioner no.2 in Lok Sabha and respondent no, 1 be further directed to issue corrigendum by showing the name of the petitioner no.1 as leader of Petitioner no.2 in lok sabha.
II. To pass any other order or orders, relief/relief which may deem fit and proper in the facts & circumstances of the case and in the interest of justice.
III. To allow the cost of the writ petition.”
4. The petitioner no.1 is the incumbent Member of Parliament (MP) for the Lok Sabha constituency of Jamui, Bihar and is also a member of petitioner no.2, a political party named Lok Janshakti party, which was registered with the Election Commission of India on 31.01.2001 and allotted the symbol of ‘Bungalow’ in the year 2005. It is the petitioner’s case that he was unanimously appointed as the National President of petitioner no.2 for a period of 5 years w.e.f. 05.11.2019 in accordance with the constitution of the petitioner no.2 party, which fact was duly communicated to the respondent no.2/the Election Commission of India on 09.11.2019. Other than petitioner no.1, the current and 17th Lok Sabha has five other MPs from the petitioner no.2 political party – all of whom have been arrayed as respondent nos. 3 to 7 in the instant petition. The primary grievance of the petitioners is in respect of the decision contained in the Circular dated 14.06.2021 issued by the respondent no.2/Lok Sabha Secretariat which announced that the party position in the 17th Lok Sabha stood revised w.e.f. 13.06.2021 and that respondent no.3/Mr Pashupati Kumar Paras, the incumbent MP from the Lok Sabha constituency of Hajipur, Bihar was substituted as the party leader of the petitioner no.2 party in the 17th Lok Sabha, in place of petitioner no.1.
5. By way of this writ, the petitioners claim that the substitution of party leadership of petitioner no.2 party in the Lok Sabha was made by the respondent no.1 on 14.06.2021 at the sole behest of five errant MPs of the petitioner no. 2 party, being respondent nos. 3 to 7, without directly conferring with the petitioner no.2 at all. The petitioner no.1 also claims that the rebelling MPs were then removed from the petitioner no.2 party by its National Executive w.e.f. 15.06.2021, and no longer represented the party in the Lok Sabha. The petitioner no.1 is aggrieved that his substitution as the party Leader of the petitioner no.2 party in the 17th Lok Sabha was effected by the Hon’ble Speaker without even formally confirming whether such substitution had been carried out by the party.
6. Mr. Bajpai, learned counsel for the petitioner submits that even though the petitioner no.1 was the recognized National President of the petitioner no.2 party and its Party Leader in the Lok Sabha, on 14.06.2021, the respondent no. 1 proceeded to act at the behest of five errant MPs of the petitioner no. 2 party, and recognised one of them - respondent no. 3 - as the leader of the petitioner no. 2 in the Lok Sabha. He submits that the actions of all the respondents were completely in the teeth of the Constitution of the petitioner no.2 party, specifically Article 26 thereof, which empowers the Central Parliamentary Board of the petitioner party to decide the Party Leader in the Lok Sabha. For that matter, he submits that as soon as the petitioners came to know of the activities of these five errant MPs/respondent nos. 3 to 7, a meeting of the National Executive of the peti
