IN THE HIGH COURT OF MANIPUR AT IMPHAL
LANUSUNGKUM JAMIR, AHANTHEM BIMOL SINGH, JJ.
Shri Kshetrimayum Biren Singh, S/O (L) Ksh. Pishak Singh – Appellant
Versus
The Hon’ble Speaker, Manipur Legislative Assembly – Respondent
WP(C) No. 332, 360, 361 of 2020
Decided on : 02-06-2021
Election – Disqualification - Constitutional act of defection - Disqualifying for being a member of the Manipur Legislative Assembly - writ petitioner along with another MLA of the Indian National Congress (INC), viz., Shri Paonam Brojen voluntarily gave up their membership of the Indian National Congress (INC) and gave his support to the ruling party i.e., Bharatiya Janata Party (BJP) for the purpose of strengthening the coalition Government led by the BJP.
Finding of the Court:
In the absence of denial by the writ petitioner of the existence and authenticity of the newspapers and as there is also no denial of the reports made in the newspapers about the factum of the writ petitioner participating in the reception ceremony organised by the BJP and being facilitated by the BJP leaders on his voluntarily giving up the membership of the Indian National Congress Party and joining the BJP, the question of admissibility of the reports contain in the newspapers as a piece of evidence has virtually lost its relevance. Accordingly, we are also of the considered view that the judgment of the Hon’ble Apex Court cited by the learned Senior counsel for the petitioner has also no application in the facts and circumstances of the present case.
Result: Petition dismissed
JUDGMENT :
A. Bimol Singh, J.
[1] Heard Mr. HS. Paonam, learned Senior Advocate assisted by Mr. S. Gunabanta Meitei, Advocate, appearing for the petitioner, Mr. Tushar Mehta, learned Solicitor General of India assisted by Mr. Lenin Hijam, learned Addl. Advocate General, Manipur for respondents No. 1 & 2, Mr. N. Ibotombi, learned Senior Advocate assisted by Mr. A. Romel, Advocate appearing for respondents and Mr. S. Biswajit, learned Advocate appearing for the private respondents.
[2] The present 3(three) writ petitions have been filed challenging the common order dated 18.06.2020 passed by the Speaker, Manipur Legislative Assembly, in Disqualification Case No. 2 of 2019, Disqualification Case No. 7 of 2019 and Disqualification Case No. 9 of 2019, disqualifying the writ petitioner for being a member of the Manipur Legislative Assembly in terms of Para 2 (1) (a) of the Tenth Schedule of the Constitution of India read with Article 191 (2) of the Constitution of India w.e.f. 18.06.2020 till the expiry of the term of the 11th Legislative Assembly of Manipur as well as the bulletin part-II No. 40 dated 18.06.2020 issued by the Secretary, Manipur Legislative Assembly, notifying the vacancy of the 8-Lamlai Assembly Constituency consequent upon the disqualification of the writ petitioner from the membership of Manipur Legislative Assembly w.e.f. 18.06.2020.
Since the facts and question of law involved in the present 3(three) writ petitions are common, we are disposing of the said 3(three) writ petitions by this common judgment and order.
[3] The brief facts leading to the filing of the present 3(three) writ petitions are that on 04.03.2017 and 08.03.2017, the Manipur Legislative Assembly Election was held in which the writ petitioner contested the said election as a candidate sponsored by the Indian National Congress (INC) on the election symbol of the Indian National Congress (INC). The result of the said election was declared on 11.03.2016 and the writ petitioner was declared as an elected member of the 11th Manipur Legislative Assembly as a Legislator of the Indian National Congress (INC). The result of the said election was notified in the Manipur Gazette Extra Ordinary on 14.03.2017 and the name of the writ petitioner appeared at Sl. No. 8-Lamlai Assembly Constituency in the list of elected member with party affiliation marked as Indian National Congress (INC). Thereafter, on 19.03.2017, the petitioner was sworn in as a member of the 11th Manipur Legislative Assembly by the Pro-Tem Speaker as an elected member from the Indian National Congress (INC).
[4] Subsequently, 3(three) disqualification cases, viz., Disqualification Case No. 2 of 2019, Disqualification Case No. 7 of 2019 and Disqualification Case No. 9 of 2019 were filed against the writ petitioner before the Speaker, Manipur Legislative Assembly, Manipur, praying for initiating disqualification proceedings against the writ petitioner and to pass an appropriate order declaring that the writ petitioner stands disqualified under Article 191 (2) of the Constitution of India and Para 2 (1) (a) of the Tenth Schedule to the Constitution of India and further to declare the seat of 8-Lamlai Assembly Constituency as vacant.
[5] The common grounds taken in the aforesaid 3(three) disqualification cases are that on 15.07.2017, the writ petitioner along with another MLA of the Indian National Congress (INC), viz., Shri PaonamBrojen voluntarily gave up their membership of the Indian National Congress (INC) and gave his support to the ruling party i.e., Bharatiya Janata Party (BJP) for the purpose of strengthening the coalition Government led by the BJP. It is also alleged that the writ petitioner along with the other aforesaid MLA of INC were facilitated by performing a reception ceremony hosted on 15.07.2017 by the Hon’ble Chief Minister of Manipur, Shri N. Biren Singh and that the said reception ceremony was covered and published in many Local/National Newspapers and Electronic medias. It is
Anvar P.V. Vs. P.K. Basheer andOthers”reported in (2014) 10 SCC 473
All India Anna DravidaMuneetraKazhagam Vs. L.K. Tripathi” reported in (2009) 5 SCC 417
A.K. Kraipak and Others Vs. Union of India and Others” reported in (1969) 2 SCC 262
Bahadursinh Lakhubhai Gohil Vs. Jagdishbhai M. Kamalia and Others” reported in (2004) 2 SCC 65
Balchandra L.Jarkiholi & Others. Vs. B.S. Yeddiyurappa and Others reported in (2011) 7 SCC 1
D. Sudhakar (2) and Others. Vs. D.N. Jeevaraju and Others” reported in (2012) 2 SCC 708
Dravida Muneetra Kazhagam Vs. L.K. Tripathi” reported in (2009) 5 SCC 417
Laxmiraj Shetty Vs. State of Tamil Nadu
Jagjit Singh Vs. State of Haryana and Others” reported in (2006) 11 SCC 1
Suresh Koshy George V. The University of Kerala and Others
Quamarum Islam Vs. SK Kanta and Others” reported in 1994 Supple (3) SCC 5
S.P. Kapoor (Dr) v. State of H.P.
Taranjeet Singh Mohon Singh Sawhney and Others Vs. District Deputy Registrar
Ravi S. Naik Vs. Union of India and Others” reported in 1994 Supp. (2) SCC 641
Shrimanth Balasaheb Patil Vs. Speaker
Ravi S Nayak Vs. Union of India & Others reported in AIR 1994 SC 1558 (Para 18-20 & 24-29)
G. Vishwanathan Vs. The Speaker Tamil Nadu Legislative Assembly reported in AIR 1996 SC 1060
Manchandra Prasad Vs. Chairman Bihar Legislative Council reported in AIR 2005 SC 69
Jagjit Singh Vs. State of Haryana & Others” reported in AIR 2007 SC 590
Rejendra Singh Rana Vs. Swami Prasad Maurya & Others” reported in AIR 2007 SC 1305
K. Venkatachalam Vs. A. Swamickan& Another reported in (1999) 4 SCC 526
Speaker Orissa Vs. Utkal Parida” reported in AIR 2013 SC 1181
Konda Murlidhar Rao Vs. Dr. A Chakrapan” reported in AIR 2013 AP 65
Shailesh Manu Bh Parmar Vs. Election Commission of India” reported in AIR 2018 SC 3918 (Para 23)
Rajendra Singh Prasad and Others Vs. Swami Prasad Maurya and Others” reported in AIR 2007 SC 1305
Jagjit Singh Vs. State of Haryana and Others reported in (2006) 11 SCC 1
Point of law: Election – Disqualification - No perversity - Speaker passed the impugned disqualification order after taking into consideration all the pleadings, newspaper reports, the photographs an....
Point of law: Election – Disqualification - No perversity - Speaker passed the impugned disqualification order after taking into consideration all the pleadings, newspaper reports, the photographs an....
The Speaker has the exclusive authority to decide disqualification petitions under the Tenth Schedule, and must act within a reasonable time to uphold constitutional mandates.
Judicial review is permissible in disqualification matters, and the Speaker must decide petitions within a reasonable timeframe to uphold democratic principles.
The scope of judicial review of an order passed by the Speaker under the Tenth Schedule to the Constitution of India is limited to grounds of malafides, perversity, violation of constitutional mandat....
The Speaker of a Legislative Assembly has exclusive jurisdiction to decide questions of disqualification of members under the Tenth Schedule of the Constitution of India, and judicial review of the S....
The Speaker must decide disqualification petitions within three months to uphold constitutional objectives and prevent political defections.
Login now and unlock free premium legal research
Login to SupremeToday AI and access free legal analysis, AI highlights, and smart tools.
Login
now!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
Copyright © 2023 Vikas Info Solution Pvt Ltd. All Rights Reserved.