JUDGMENT :

Songkhupchung Serto, J.

1. I.A. (C) No. 102(K) of 2020 is filed by 7 (seven) MLA's who were elected to the 13th Nagaland Legislative Assembly through Naga People Front ticket (NPF, in short) whose disqualification was sought by the petitioners in the writ petition but rejected by the Hon'ble Speaker of the Nagaland Legislative Assembly vide his judgment & order dated 14.07.2020.

2. By filing this IA the applicants are seeking for dismissal of the writ petition i.e. W.P.(C) No. 95(K) filed by the applicants before Hon'ble Speaker on the ground that the grounds given in the writ petition based on which interference of this Court is sought for are not within the four grounds settled in the case of Kihoto Hollohan Vs. Zachillhu & Ors., reported in 1992 Supp. (2) SCC 651 which was followed in the case of Jagit Singh Vs. State of Haryana & Ors., reported in (2006) 11 SCC 1; and in the case of Shri Manth Balasaheb Patil Vs. Speaker, Karnataka Legislative Assembly & Ors., reported in (2020) 2 SCC 595.

3. The other I.A.(C) No. 11(K) of 2021 is filed by the petitioners in the writ petition praying for restraining the 7(seven) MLA's who are applicants in the other I.A. mentioned above (whose disqualification is under challenge) from entering the Nagaland Legislative Assembly during the forth coming Assembly Sessions which is stated to be starting from 12.02.2021.

4. Heard Mr. D.K. Mishra, learned Sr. counsel assisted by Mr. S.S. Dey, learned Sr. counsel on behalf of the applicants in the I.A. (C) No. 102(K) of 2020/the respondents No. 2 to 8 in the I.A.(C) No. 11(K) of 2021 and in the writ petition. I have also heard Mr. S. Borgohain, learned counsel appearing for the opposite party No. 1 & 2 in the I.A.(C) No. 102 (K) of 2020/the applicants in the I.A.(C) No. 11(K) of 2021 and the petitioners in the writ petition i.e. W.P.(C) No. 95(K) of 2020. Mr. N. Dutta, learned Sr. Advocate appearing for the opposite party No. 1 in the I.A.(C) No. 102(K) of 2020 and the I.A.(C) No. 11 (K) of 2021 and the respondent No. 1 in the writ petition.

5. Mr. D.K. Mishra, learned Sr. counsel by referring to 10th Schedule of the Constitution of India particularly, paragraph-2, 6 & 7 submitted that the question of disqualification has to be decided by the Speaker of the Assembly and it is within his exclusive domain. The learned Sr. counsel also submitted that the Speaker's decision is final and it excludes every institution including the Court from interfering with the decision of the Speaker. However, as it has been held in Kihoto Hollohan's case that judicial review which is basic structure of the Constitution cannot be taken away but, interference of Court would be limited only on four grounds viz.;

(a) Whether the action of the Speaker under challenge is ultra-vires the power confer on him under the 10th Schedule of the Constitution of India.

(b) If the action/order is vitiated by mala fide or is based on extraneous and irrelevant consideration and;

(c) If the action/order of the Speaker is violative of the principle of natural justice.

(d) If the decision is perverse.

In support of his submission, the learned counsel referred to paragraph-14, 17 & 109 of the judgment passed in the case of Kihoto Hollohan Vs. Zachillhu & Ors., reported in 1992 Supp (2) SCC 651. The same reads as follows;

"14. Paragraph 2(1)(b) deals with a slightly different situation i.e. a variant where dissent becomes defection. If a Member while remaining a Member of the political party which had set him up as a candidate at the election, votes or abstains from voting contrary to "any direction" issued by the political party to which he belongs or by any person or authority authorised by it in this behalf he incurs the disqualification. In other words, it deals with a Member who expresses his dissent from the stand of the political party to which he belongs by voting or abstaining from voting in the House contrary to the direction issued by the political party.

17. The challenge to