SPEAKER HARYANA VIDHAN SABHA vs KULDEEP BISHNOI

Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation

2012 Supreme(SC) 679

SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
ALTAMAS KABIR & J. CHELAMESWAR, JJ.
SPEAKER HARYANA VIDHAN SABHA - Appellant
VERSUS
KULDEEP BISHNOI & ORS. - Respondents
NARENDRA SINGH & ANR. - Appellants
VERSUS
KULDEEP BISHNOI & ORS. - Respondents
DHARAM SINGH & ANR. - Appellants
VERSUS
KULDEEP BISHNOI & ORS. - Respondents
ZILE RAM SHARMA - Appellant
VERSUS
KULDEEP BISHNOI & ORS. - Respondents
Civil Appeal No.7125 of 2012 (Arising out of SLP(C) No.54 of 2012) with Civil Appeal No.7126 of 2012 (Arising out of SLP(C)No.55 of 2012) and Civil Appeal No.7127 of 2012 (Arising out of SLP(C)No.59 of 2012), and Civil Appeal No.7128 of 2012 (Arising out of SLP(C) No.72 of 2012)
Decided on : 28-09-2012

Headnote:Constitution of India,1950- Articles 226 and 227 - Code of Civil Procedure,1908- Order 41 Rule 33 - Disqualification petitions- Delay in disqualification proceedings- Interim Orders passed by High Court under Order 41 Rule 33 CPC while disposing of Letters Patent Appeals preventing five named MLAs, from effectively discharging their functions as Members of the Vidhan Sabha- Whether such jurisdiction could at all have been invoked by High Court when no final order had been passed by Speaker on the disqualification petitions-Since the decision of Speaker on a petition under paragraph 4 of Tenth Schedule concerns only a question of merger on which the Speaker is not entitled to adjudicate, High Court could not have assumed jurisdiction under its powers of review before a decision was taken by the Speaker under paragraph 6 of Tenth Schedule to the Constitution- Restraining the Speaker from taking any decision under paragraph 6 of Tenth Schedule was, beyond the jurisdiction of High Court-Supreme Court opined that High Court had no jurisdiction to pass such an order, which was in the domain of Speaker- High Court assumed the jurisdiction which it never had in making the interim order which had the effect of preventing the five MLAs in question from effectively functioning as Members of the Haryana Vidhan Sabha-Hence , direction given by High Court upheld only to the extent it directed Speaker to decide petitions for disqualification of five MLAs within a period of four months- Remaining portion of the order disqualifying five MLAs from effectively functioning as Members of Haryana Vidhan Sabha set aside (Paras 45 to 49)
       Facts of the Case :
        Issues that arose for consideration in present appeals were following;
       (a)Whether the High Court in exercise of its powers under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution, has the jurisdiction to issue directions of an interim nature to a Member of the House while a disqualification petition of such Member is pending before the Speaker of a State Legislative Assembly under Article 191 read with the Tenth Schedule to the Constitution of India?
       (b) Whether even in exercise of its powers of judicial review, the High Court, as a constitutional authority, can issue mandatory directions to the Speaker of a State Assembly, who is himself a constitutional authority, to dispose of a disqualification petition within a specified time?
       Findings of the Court :
        Restraining the Speaker from taking any decision under paragraph 6 of Tenth Schedule was, beyond the jurisdiction of High Court. High Court had no jurisdiction to pass such an order, which was in the domain of Speaker. High Court assumed the jurisdiction which it never had in making the interim order which had the effect of preventing the five MLAs in question from effectively functioning as Members of the Haryana Vidhan Sabha. Hence , Direction given by High Court upheld only to the extent it directed Speaker to decide petitions for disqualification of five MLAs within a period of four months. Remaining portion of the order disqualifying five MLAs from effectively functioning as Members of Haryana Vidhan Sabha was set aside.
       Result : Ordered accordingly

Judgement Key Points

Certainly. Based on the provided legal document, here are the key points summarized:

The core issue concerns whether the High Court has the jurisdiction under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution to issue interim directions to Members of the House while disqualification petitions are pending before the Speaker of a State Legislative Assembly (!) .
The Court found that the High Court exceeded its jurisdiction when it issued interim orders that effectively prevented certain MLAs from functioning as Members of the Legislative Assembly before the Speaker had made a final decision (!) (!) .
The decision of the Speaker on disqualification petitions under the relevant provisions is final and concerns only a question of merger or split, which the Speaker is not authorized to adjudicate. Such determinations are to be made only when a question of disqualification arises under the specified procedure (!) (!) .
The Court emphasized that the proceedings under the Tenth Schedule, particularly regarding disqualification, are primarily within the domain of the Speaker and that the High Court's jurisdiction to interfere must be limited to final orders or violations of constitutional mandates, mala fides, or natural justice (!) (!) .
The Court clarified that interim orders, such as restraining the Speaker from taking decisions under the relevant paragraphs, are beyond the jurisdiction of the High Court before a final decision is made by the Speaker (!) .
The Court also highlighted that the power to decide on disqualification on the grounds of merger or split is vested solely with the Speaker and that the High Court cannot substitute its judgment at an interlocutory stage, especially when proceedings are pending before the Speaker (!) (!) .
The Court upheld that the High Court should not pass interim orders that have the effect of disqualifying Members or preventing them from functioning until the Speaker has made a final decision (!) .
The Court directed that the High Court's order to the Speaker to decide the disqualification petitions within a specified period is valid, but the portion of the order disqualifying the MLAs from functioning was set aside, allowing them to act as Members until the final decision by the Speaker (!) .
Ultimately, the Court dismissed the appeal of the Speaker against the High Court's order, reinforcing that the jurisdiction to decide disqualification matters lies with the Speaker, and the High Court's role is limited to judicial review after a final order (!) (!) .
The Court ordered that the Speaker must decide the pending disqualification petitions within three months, and until then, the MLAs are entitled to function as Members without restrictions (!) (!) .

These points encapsulate the Court's view that interim judicial orders interfering with the Speaker's exclusive authority in disqualification proceedings are beyond the High Court's jurisdiction, emphasizing the importance of finality and procedural correctness in such constitutional matters.

Kabir, J.-Leave granted.

2. The subject matter of challenge in these appeals is the final judgment and order dated 20th December, 2011, passed by the Punjab & Haryana High Court in the different Letters Patent Appeals filed by the Appellants herein.

3. The first Civil Appeal, arising out of SLP(C)No.54 of 2012, has been filed by the Speaker of the Haryana Vidhan Sabha against the judgment and order passed by the Punjab and Haryana High Court in his Letters Patent Appeal No.366 of 2011. By the said judgment, the Division Bench not only dismissed the appeal and did not choose to interfere with the directions given by the learned Single Judge to the Speaker to decide the petitions for disqualification of five MLAs within a period of four months, but in addition, directed that pending such decision, the five MLAs in question would stand disqualified from effectively functioning as members of the Haryana Vidhan Sabha. Aggrieved by the interim directions purportedly given under Order 41 Rule 33 of the Code of Civil Procedure (C.P.C.), the Speaker filed SLP(C)No.54 of 2012, challenging the same.

4. The other three SpecialLeave Petitions (now appeals) were filed by the five MLAs, who were prevented from performing their functions as Members of the Assembly by the directions contained in the impugned judgment and order dated 20th December, 2011. While SLP(C)No.55 of 2012 was filed by Narendra Singh and another, SLP(C)Nos.59 of 2012 and 72 of 2012 were filed by Dharam Singh and another and Zile Ram Sharma, being aggrieved by the impugned judgment and order for the same reasons as contained in the Special Leave Petition filed by Narendra Singh and another. The focal point of challenge in all these appeals, therefore, is the orders passed by the Division Bench of the Punjab and Haryana High Court on 20th December, 2011, while disposing of the Letters Patent Appeals preventing the five named MLAs, who are also Appellants before us, from effectively discharging their functions as Members of the Vidhan Sabha.

5. The facts narrated above give rise to the following substantial questions of law of public importance, namely :-

(a) Whether the High Court in exercise of its powers under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution, has the jurisdiction to issue directions of an interim nature to a Member of the House while a disqualification petition of such Member is pending before the Speaker of a State Legislative Assembly under Article 191 read with the Tenth Schedule to the Constitution of India?

(b) Whether even in exercise of its powers of judicial review, the High Court, as a constitutional authority, can issue mandatory directions to the Speaker of a State Assembly, who is himself a constitutional authority, to dispose of a disqualification petition within a specified time?

(c) Can the High Court, in its writ jurisdiction, interfere with the disqualification proceedings pending before the Speaker and pass an order temporarily disqualifying a Member of the State Legislative Assembly, despite the law laid down by this Court in Raja Soap Factory vs. V. Shantharaj & Ors. [(1965(2) SCR 800] and in L. Chandra Kumar vs. Union of India [(1997) 3 SCC 261], to the contrary?

(d) When a disqualification petition filed under Article 191 read with the Tenth Schedule to the Constitution of India is pending consideration before the Speaker, can a parallel Writ Petition, seeking the same relief, be proceeded with simultaneously? And

(e) Did the High Court have jurisdiction to give directions under Order 41 Rule 33 of the Code of Civil Procedure, despite the express bar contained in the Explanation to Section 141 of the Code of Civil Procedure, in proceedings under Article 226 of the Constitution?

6. In order to provide the peg on which the above questions are to be hung, it is necessary to understand the background in which such substantial questions of law have arisen.

7. The 12th Legislative Assembly Elections in Haryana were held on 13th October, 2009.

Click Here to Read the rest of this document

2012 Supreme(SC) 679

Cases Referred (7)