IMPORTANT POINT
Speaker while ordering disqualification of MLAs acts in quasi-judicial capacity. His orders therefore are amenable to judicial review under Articles 32, 226 and 136 of the Constitution.

Headnote:(a) Karnataka Legislative Assembly (Disqualification of Members on Ground of Defection) Rules, 1986 – Rules 3 and 4 – In the notification constituting the Assembly respondents shown as independent – In Records and Registers maintained by the Speaker also they were shown as independent – This status was never changed – At no time the respondents became members of BJP. (Para 47)
       (2007) 4 SCC 270; (2004) 8 SCC 747; (2006) 11 SCC 1; (1996) 3 SCC 353; (1992) Supp.2 SCC 651; (1994) Suppl.2 SCC 641; (1998) 7 SCC 517; (2005) 11 SCC 314; (1974) 4 SCC 3 – Referred
       (b) Constitution of India – Tenth Schedule para 2(2) – Mere extension of support to a party does not mean that the Member has joined that party – Respondents were always treated differently from the Members of BJP – In fact they had not joined any political party – Disqualification – Against the mandate of para 2(2) of the Tenth Schedule of the Constitution. (Para 48)
       (c) Karnataka Legislative Assembly (Disqualification of Members on Ground of Defection) Rules, 1986 – Rules 6 and 7 – Rules are directory and not mandatory – Even then, violation of Rules 6 and 7 coupled with violation of natural justice causing prejudice to the respondents vitiates the order of the Speaker – Instantly, respondents not given 7 days time to reply – Affidavit relied upon by Speaker not served on respondents – Speaker acting in great hurry – Order liable to be set aside. (Para 50)
       (d) Administration of Justice – Mala fides – Governor setting 12.10.2008 for trial of strength – Speaker disqualifying respondents and 13 BJP MLAs for withdrawing support to the Government – Two BJP MLAs retracting their intention to withdraw support – Allowed to participate and vote – Actions of the Speaker calculated to ensure that the Chief Minister wins the vote of confidence – Impugned order of Speaker vitiated by mala fides. (Para 54, 55)
       (e) Administration of Justice – Judicial Review – Paragraph 2, Tenth Schedule, Constitution of India – Paragraph conferring finality to Speaker’s order – Speaker acting in quasi-judicial capacity – Orders amenable to judicial review under Articles 32, 226 and 136 of the Constitution. (Para 56)
       Facts of the case:
       The basic dispute in these Civil Appeals relates to the validity of the order of disqualification passed by the Speaker of the Karnataka Legislative Assembly against the Appellants.
       Five independent MLAs who had supported the then Chief Minister, withdrew their support. The Governor asked the Chief Minister to prove his strength on the floor of the Assembly.
       In order to ensure that the CM won the test, the Speaker disqualified the respondents so that they could not vote against the CM.
       The High Court upheld the order of the Speaker.
       Finding of the Court:
       Order of the Speaker is vitiated by violation of Rules 6 and 7, Natural justice and mala fides.
       Result: Appeals allowed.

JUDGMENT

Altamas Kabir, J.-The operative portion of this judgment was pronounced on 13th May, 2011. The full text of the judgment is now being pronounced.

2. Civil Appeal Nos. 4510-4514 of 2011 arising out of SLP(C) Nos. 5966-5970 of 2011 are filed by five Independent Members of the Karnataka Legislative Assembly against a judgment of the Full Bench of the Karnataka High Court upholding an order passed by the Speaker of the Karnataka Legislative Assembly disqualifying them under Paragraph 2(2) of Tenth Schedule of the Constitution of India on the ground that they had joined the Bharatiya Janata Party (BJP) after their election to the Legislative Assembly as Independent candidates. The said order of disqualification was passed by the Speaker on Disqualification Application No.2 of 2010 filed by Shri D.N. Jeevaraju, Chief Whip, BJP, Karnataka Legislative Assembly and Shri C.T. Revi, Member of the Karnataka Legislative Assembly. Civil Appeal Nos. 4517-4521 of 2011 arising out of SLP(C) Nos. 5995-5999 of 2011 are filed by the very same five Independent Members of the Karnataka Legislative Assembly challenging the very same judgment of the Full Bench of the Karnataka High Court upholding the order passed by the Speaker of the Karnataka Legislative Assembly disqualifying them under Paragraph 2(2) of Tenth Schedule of the Constitution of India. The said order was passed by the Speaker on Disqualification Application Nos. 3 to 7 of 2010 filed by the voters from the constituencies represented by the five MLAs. Since the Speaker of the Karnataka Legislative Assembly had passed a Common Order dated 10th October, 2010 on Disqualification Application Nos. 2 to 7 of 2010, the impugned judgment of the Full Bench of the High Court also was a Common Order passed in Writ Petition Nos. 32674-32678/2010 and Writ Petition Nos. 33998-34002/2010. Therefore the basic dispute in these Civil Appeals relates to the validity of the order of disqualification passed by the Speaker of the Karnataka Legislative Assembly against the Appellants on Disqualification Application Nos. 2 to 7 of 2010.

3. The Appellants herein were elected to the Thirteenth Karnataka Legislative Assembly as independent candidates in the elections held in May, 2008. On 30th May, 2008, they were sworn in as Ministers in the Cabinet of the government headed by Shri B.S. Yeddyurappa, who was elected as the leader of the B.J.P. Legislature Party and was sworn in as the Chief Minister of the State of Karnataka. On 6th October, 2010, the Appellants submitted separate letters to the Governor of Karnataka stating that having become disillusioned with the functioning of the Government headed by Shri B.S. Yeddyurappa, in which there was widespread corruption and nepotism, a situation had arisen where the governance of the State could not be carried on in accordance with the provisions of the Constitution of India. The Appellants also indicated that Shri B.S. Yeddyurappa had, therefore, forfeited his right to continue as Chief Minister having lost the confidence of the people and in the interest of the State and the people of Karnataka, they were expressing their lack of confidence in the Government headed by Shri B.S. Yeddyurappa and as such they were withdrawing support to the Government headed by him as the Chief Minister. The Governor was also requested to intervene and institute the constitutional process as constitutional head of the State. On the same day, on the basis of the letters written by the Appellants and others, the Governor of Karnataka asked the Chief Minister to prove his majority on the Floor of the House by 12th October, 2010.

4. On the verynext day i.e. on 7th October, 2010, the Respondent Nos.1 and 3, namely, Shri D.N. Jeevaraju and Shri C.T. Ravi, the Chief Whip and the General Secretary of the Bharatiya Janata Party, respectively, filed Complaint No.2 of 2010 dated 6th October, 2010 with the Speaker of the Karnataka Legislative Assembly under Rule 6 of the Karnataka

Click Here to Read the rest of this document

2012 Supreme(SC) 72

2012(2) SCC 708SUPREME COURT OF INDIA ALTAMAS KABIR & CYRIAC JOSEPH, JJ.D. SUDHAKAR & ORS. - Appellants VERSUS D.N. JEEVARAJU & ORS. - Respondents Civil Appeal Nos.4510-4514 of 2011 with Civil Appeal Nos.4517-4521 of 2011Decided on 25-01-2012.

IMPORTANT POINTSpeaker while ordering disqualification of MLAs acts in quasi-judicial capacity. His orders therefore are amenable to judicial review under Articles 32, 226 and 136 of the Constitution.

Cases Referred (8)

2012(2) SCC 708
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
ALTAMAS KABIR & CYRIAC JOSEPH, JJ.
D. SUDHAKAR & ORS. - Appellants
VERSUS
D.N. JEEVARAJU & ORS. - Respondents
Civil Appeal Nos.4510-4514 of 2011 with Civil Appeal Nos.4517-4521 of 2011
Decided on 25-01-2012.

IMPORTANT POINT
Speaker while ordering disqualification of MLAs acts in quasi-judicial capacity. His orders therefore are amenable to judicial review under Articles 32, 226 and 136 of the Constitution.