Back
Only For Being Member Not For Contesting Fresh Election Rules
The has delivered a significant ruling clarifying that under the of the for only attaches to the House a legislator currently belongs to, and does not bar them from contesting a fresh election to another House. Justice Raj Beer Singh, presiding over a single-judge bench, dismissed an election petition filed by Lalitesh Pati Tripathi challenging the 2024 election of Dr. Vinod Kumar Bind from the 78-Bhadohi Parliamentary constituency.
The Election and the Challenge
Dr. Vinod Kumar Bind was a sitting member of the from the when he filed his nomination as a candidate of the for the 2024 election. The poll took place on , and after counting on June 4, Bind secured 4,59,982 votes against Tripathi's 4,15,910 votes and was declared elected. Bind resigned from the Assembly on , after the result.
Tripathi challenged the election on five grounds, primarily arguing that Bind had never resigned from the and his conduct showed he had voluntarily given up its membership, making him disqualified under read with . He also alleged improper acceptance of Bind's nomination in breach of , improper rejection of two other candidates' nominations, and of through an alleged understanding between the President and the BJP state unit.
The Core Legal Question: Does Extend to Contesting a Fresh Election?
The pivotal issue before the court was whether a legislator who voluntarily gives up party membership is disqualified not only from continuing as a member but also from being chosen as a member of another House. Bind's counsel, led by
, argued that paragraph 2 of the
disqualifies a person only from being a member of the House they belong to, not from being chosen. They pointed to the distinction between
, which uses
"for being chosen as, and for being,"
and
, which only uses "for being."
The petitioner's counsel, , contended that Bind's voluntary departure from the rendered him disqualified to contest any election, relying on the 's decision in which held that voluntarily giving up membership is wider than resignation and can be inferred from conduct.
Court's Legal Analysis: Precedents and Interpretation
Justice Raj Beer Singh carefully examined the constitutional framework. He noted that
lists five grounds disqualifying a person both
"for being chosen as, and for being"
a member, while
simply says a person
"shall be disqualified for being a member"
if disqualified under the
. The absence of the phrase "for being chosen" in clause (2) was crucial.
The court relied on the 's decision in , which dealt with the analogous for State Legislatures. That case held that under only applies to existing membership and does not prevent a person from contesting a subsequent election. Applying the same logic to , the court concluded:
"If a member of Legislative Assembly has voluntarily given up membership of his political party, the suffered by such person is that he stands disqualified from continuing or for being as Member of such Legislative Assembly, but that does not disqualify such person 'for being chosen' as a Member of either House of ."
The court also referenced and to emphasize that the is incurred from the date of the act, not from a later decision of the Speaker. However, the only attaches to the House of which the person was a member at the time of defection.
Other Grounds: Failure to Plead
Beyond the
issue, the court found that the election petition lacked
on the other four grounds. On the claim of improper acceptance of Bind's nomination (grounds A and D), the petition merely made
that the result was materially affected without specifying how. The court observed that
"Such
can hardly be termed as material fact to sustain the above referred ground."
Regarding the alleged improper rejection of nominations of Zia-Ul-Haq and Lalti Devi (ground C), the petition did not state the grounds on which their nominations were rejected, nor did it claim the petitioner was present at scrutiny. The court noted,
"It appears that even the petitioner is not aware that on what ground or defect their nomination paper were rejected."
On the of (ground E), the court found the allegations speculative. The petition did not disclose when or where the alleged understanding was made, that Bind was party to it, or that he received any gratification. The court emphasized that charges of are in the nature of criminal charges and must be pleaded with precision.
A Remark on Democratic Health
While dismissing the petition, the court did not condone Bind's conduct. It observed:
"No doubt the conduct of the respondent / returned candidate to contest election as candidate of BJP, without resigning from or without becoming a member of the BJP, can not be said a healthy practice for Democracy."
However, the court clarified that the only legal consequence of Bind voluntarily giving up his membership was the attaching to his Assembly seat, not a bar on contesting the election.
Final Decision
Allowing the application under , the court held that the election petition disclosed no and was liable to be dismissed . Justice Raj Beer Singh ordered that the petition be dismissed, with both parties bearing their own costs. The judgment reinforces the distinction between from continuing as a member and from being chosen, providing clarity on the scope of the in multi-House elections.
