Back
1997 (2) JLJ 327
A.K. Mathur, CJ. and Dipak Misra, J.
Laxman Jaidev Satpathy and others v. Union of India and others
M.P. No. 2034 of 1992; Decided on 30.4.1997.
(2) Constitution of India -- Arts. 226, 227 and Sch. X -- orders passed by the Speaker under Sch. X -- are reviewable by the High Court under Arts. 226 and 227.
The Speaker shall exercise powers and discharge functions under the Tenth Schedule as a Tribunal adjudicating rights and obligations under Tenth Schedule and the decision of the Speaker is amenable to judicial review. It was also observed that the concept of statutory finality embodied in paragraph 6 (1) does not detract from or abrogate judicial review under the Articles 136, 226 and 227 of the Constitution in so far as infirmities based on violations of constitutional mandates, malafides, non-compliance with Rules of Natural Justice and perversity are concerned. Thus, the judicial Courts can review the orders passed by the Speaker under the Tenth Schedule of the Constitution and examine the validity of the same, under Arts. 226 and 227 of the Constitution ofIndia by the High Court. AIR 1993 SC 412 followed. [Para 6]
(3) Legislative Assembly Members (Disqualification on the Ground of Defection) Rules, 1986 (M.P.) -- Rr. 6 (6) and 7 (2) -- petition not verified according to Rr. 6 (6) --liable to be dismissed under R. 7 (2) -- Speaker has no jurisdiction to permit amendment.
The petition which was filed before the Speaker did not contain a proper verification as required under subd`rule (6) of rule 6 which requires that the petition shall be duly signed and verified according to the provisions of Code of Civil Procedure, 1908. It is submitted by the learned counsel that the petition which was filed initially with the Speaker did not contain any due verification as per the C.P.C. This is also apparent from the order passed by the Speaker.
The effect of non-compliance of subd`rule (6) of Rule 6 of the Rules of 1986 is that the petition would have to be rejected under subd`rule (2) of rule 7 by the Speaker. Rule 7 (2) of the Rules of 1986 leave no room for discretion to the Speaker to get the incompetent and incomplete petition corrected during the course of hearing. [Para 8]
¼1½ Hkkjr dk lafo/kku && nloha vuqlwph && v/;{k }kjk ikfjr vkns‘k && mPp U;k;ky; }kjk mudk iqufoZyksdu fd;k tk ldrk gSA ¿ iSjk 24À ¼2½ Hkkjr dk lafo/kku && vuq- 226] 227 rFkk nloha vuqlwph && nloha vuqlwph ds v/khu v/;{k }kjk ikfjr vkns‘k && vuq- 226 rFkk 227 ds v/khu mPp U;k;ky; }kjk mudk iqufoZyksdu fd;k tk ldrk gSA v/;{k nloha vuqlwph ds v/khu vf/kdkj rFkk ck/;rkvksa dk vf/kdj.k ds :i esa U;k;fu.kZ;u djrs gq, nloha vuqlwph ds v/khu ‘kfDr dk iz;ksx rFkk —R;ksa dk fuoZpu djsxk] v/;{k dk fofu‘p; U;kf;d iqufoZyksdu ds v/;/khu gSA ;g leqfDr Hkh dh xbZ Fkh fd iSjk 6¼1½ esa lféfo"V dkuwuh vafrerk dh /kkj.kk lafo/kku ds vuq- 136] 226 rFkk 227 ds v/khu U;kf;d iqufoZyksdu dk vid"kZ.k vFkok mldks fujk—r ugha djrh tgk¡ rd lkafo/kkfud vkKk dk vfrØe.k] nqHkkZo] uSlfxZd U;k; ds fu;eksa dk vuuqikyu rFkk foi;ZLrrk ij vk/kkfjr ‘kSfFkY; dk ljksdkj gSA bl izdkj] v/;{k }kjk lafo/kku dk nloha vuqlwph ds v/khu ikfjr vkns‘kksa dk U;kf;d U;k;ky;ksa }kjk iqufoZyksdu fd;k tk ldrk gS rFkk Hkkjr ds lafo/kku ds vuq- 226 rFkk 227 ds v/khu mudh fof/kekU;rk dk ijh{k.k mPp U;k;ky; }kjk fd;k tk ldrk gSA , vkb vkj 1993 ,l lh 412 vuqlfjrA ¿ iSjk 6À ¼3½ fo/kkku lHkk lnL; ¼ny&cny ds vk/kkj ij fujgZrk½ fu;e] 1986 ¼e-iz-½ && fu- 6¼6½ rFkk 7 ¼2½ && fu- 6¼6½ ds vuqlkj ;kfpdk lR;kfir ugha && fu- 7¼2½ ds v/khu [kkfjt fd, tkus ;ksX; gS && v/;{k dks la‘kks/ku vuqKkr djus dh vf/kdkfjrk ugha gSA v/;{k ds le{k Qkby dh xbZ ;kfpdk esa fu- 6 ds mifu;e ¼6½ ds v/khu ;Fkkvisf{kr leqfpr lR;kiu varfoZ"V ugha Fkk ftlds }kjk ;g visf{kr gS fd ;kfpdk flfoy izfØ;k lafgrk] 1908 ds mica/kksa ds vuqlkj lE;d~ :i ls gLrk{kfjr rFkk lR;kfir gksxhA fo}ku dkmUlsy }kjk fuosnu fd;k x;k gS fd tks ;kfpdk izkjaHk esa v/;{k dks Qkby dh xbZ Fkh mlesa flfoy izfØ;k ds vuqlkj dksbZ lE;d~ lR;kiu varfoZ"V ugha FkkA ;g v/;{k }kjk ikfjr vkns‘k ls Hkh izdV gSA 1986 ds fu;eksa ds fu;e 6 ds mifu;e ¼6½ ds vuuqikyu dk izHkko ;g gS fd v/;{k dks fu;e 7 ds mifu;e ¼2½ ds v/khu ;kfpdk ukeatwj djuk gksxhA 1986 ds fu;eksa ds fu;e 7 ¼2½ }kjk v/;{k dks foosdkf/kdkj dh dksbZ xqatkb‘k ugha nh xbZ gS fd og lquokbZ ds nkSjku v{ke rFkk viw.kZ ;kfpdk esa lq/kkj djok,A ¿ iSjk 8À
Mathur, C.J. –
1. The petitioners by this petition have prayed that by appropriate writ or order, orders dated 1.5.1991 (Annexure P-12 and P-13) passed by the Speaker may be quashed and they may be allowed to continue to represent their respective constituencies as Members of the Legislative Assembly of Madhya Pradesh till the expiration of the term.
2. Brief facts giving rise to this petition are that all the six petitioners were elected as Members of Legislative Assembly (for short 'MLA.') of Madhya Pradesh in 1990 Assembly elections on the Janata Dalelection symbol. We need not go into the facts as to how Janata Dal splitted at national level and ultimately in the State of Madhya Pradesh. Suffice it to say that the Janata Dal at the national level splitted from the parent body on 27th December 1990 and a separate new party known as M.P. Janata Dal (Samajvadi) was formed in Madhya Pradesh. A resolution to this effect datd 2nd April 1991 has been placed on record as Annexure P-1. On 3rd April 1991 vide Annexure P-2, Shri Vidhya Charan Shukla, Ex-President of Janata Dal informed the Speaker, M.P. Legislative Assembly, Bhopal about the split. Thereafter on 16th April 1991 (Annexure P-6), the Speaker was informed by the six MLAs namely Shri Arun Mishra, Shri Mangal Parag, Shri Santosh Agrawal, Shri Laxman Jaideo Satpathi, Shri Ashok Rao and Shri Shiv Kumar Singh that in view of the division in Janata Dal with reference to resolution dated 3rd April 1991, they had formed a separate group known as the Progressive Party which has more than half of the original numbers of the party. On 18th April, 1991, a resolution was passed by the so called Progressive Party that all the six MLAs had unanimously resolved to merge with the Indian national Congress. Copy of the same has been placed on record as Annex-P7.
3. On 6th April 1991 vide Annexure P-4, one Neha Singh, M.L.A., Kewlari, District Seoni filed a petition before the Speaker praying that all the five M.L.A.s of Janata Dal (S) who have joined Indian National Congress party be disqualified from membership of the Legislative Assembly under the Xth Schedule of the Constitution of India. Subsequently one Shri Shailendra Pradhan also filed a petition in which he complained against all the six MLAs (petitioners). Copies of these petitions were given to the petitioners on 18th April, 1991. A preliminary objection was filed by way of joint reply to the applications/petitions of Neha Singh and Shailendra Pradhan on 16th April 1991. Copy of reply dated 16.4.1991 is on record as Annexure P-5 that the petition has not been filed in accordance with Rule 6 of the M.P. Legislative Assembly Members (Disqualification on the ground of Defection) Rules, 1986 (for short; the Rules of 1986). It was also stated that since there was a very short time, they reserved their right to file detailed reply.
4. On 23rd April 1 991 (Annex-P8), a notice was issued by the Speaker to all the six MLAs (petitioners) to appear before him on 29.4.1991 at 4.50 p.m. for personal hearing. On 29th April 1991, an application was made before the Speaker thereby seeking further time in order to give an opportunity to the petitioners for leading necessary evidence. Secondly it was contended that one of the MLAs Shri Shiv Kumar Singh had filed nomination for bye-election of Parliamentary Constituency Khandwa and therefore, it was not possible for him to appear before the Speaker and reasonahle time be given to him for arguments and necessary evidence. The case was then fixed for 30.4.] 991. On 30.4.1991, the Speaker closed the case and passed order on 1st May 199] Annex-Pl2 declaring all the six MLAs disqualified under the Rules of 1986. Hence, the present petition was filed before Hon 'ble Supreme Court challenging order dated 1st May 1991 passed by the Speaker and also challenging the validity of Xth Schedule to the Constitution.
5. Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Kihr'a Hollohon v. Zachilhu (AIR 1993 SC 412) by majority
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
