AMAR SINGH versus UNION OF INDIA

Citation: [2010] 13 S.C.R. 792 · Decided: 15-11-2010 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: ALTAMAS KABIR · Disposal: Matter referred to larger bench

Judgment (excerpt)

A 
B 
[2010] 13 (ADDL.) S.C.R. 792 
AMAR SINGH 
V. 
UNION OF INDIA 
(Writ Petition (c) No. 317 of 2010) 
NOVEMBER 15, 2010 
[ALTAMAS KABIR AND CYRIAC JOSEPH, JJ.) 
CONSTITUTION OF /NOIA, 1950 
c 
Tenth Schedule - Paragraph 2(1) (a) - Explanation (a) 
- Disqualification on ground of defection - Members of 
Parliament - Expelled from the party which set them up in 
election - Issues as regards status of such expelled members, 
applicability of the provisions of the Tenth Schedule to such 
0 members, view taken in G. Vishwanathan's case in this regard 
and allied issues - Held: Require re-consideration by a larger 
bench - Matter, accordingly, referred to larger bench. 
Two prominent political leaders and Members of 
Parliament - one of the Rajya Sabha. and the other of the 
E Lok Sabha - who were expelled by the political party 
which had set them up as candidates for election, filed 
the instant writ petitions apprehending imminent threat 
to their continuance as Members of Parliament in view of 
the decision of the Supreme Court in G. Viswanathan's 
F case*. 
It was contended for the petitioners that the decision 
rendered in G. Viswanathan's case had highly prejudicial 
consequences for persons expelled from the 
G membership of a political party which was not the 
intention of the legislators, as was clear from the debates 
in respect of the Bill and, therefore, the said case 
required a revisitation of the law. 
Referring the matter to the larger Bench, the Court: 
H 
792 
AMAR SINGH v. UNION OF INDIA 
793 
HELD: 
A 
1.1 In the back ground of the legislative history of the 
introduction of the Tenth Schedule in the Constitution of 
India, in which it was initially intended to include expelled 
Members within the ambit of the provisions relating to 
8 
disqualification, the same was dropped after the debate 
in Parliament in which the dangerous effects of the 
inclusion of such a sub-clause were pointed out by many 
of the Members in the House. If it was the intention of the 
legislature not to include expelled members of a political 
C 
party within the category of persons who voluntarily 
resigned from the membership of their parties, the same 
could not have been imported into the Tenth Schedule 
by virtue of the judicial pronouncement in the said case. 
In fact, what was sought to be excluded by the legislature 
has now been introduced into the Tenth Schedule by D 
virtue of the decision in G. Vishwanathan's case. [Para 
15] (801-A-D] 
G. Viswanathan vs. Hon'ble Speaker Tamil Nadu 
Legislative Assembly, Madras & Anr. ((1996) 2 SCC 353 -
E 
referred to. 
1.2 The decision in G. Viswanathan's case merits 
another look as far as the Members of the House who are 
expelled from their p_arties on whose banner they had 
been elected to the House, are concerned, as they would 
be left completely vulnerable to the whims and fancies of 
the leaders of their parties. [Para 16] (801-D-E] 
F 
1.3 Therefore, the writ petitions be placed before the 
Chief Justice of India to refer the matter to a larger Bench 
G 
on the following questions :-
"1. What is the status in either House of Parliament 
or the State Legislatures of a Member who is 
expelled from the party which set him/her up as a 
H 
794 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2010] 13 (ADDL.) S.C.R. 
A 
candidate for election? 
B 
c 
D 
E 
F 
G 
H 
2. Will the provisions of the Tenth Schedule to the 
Constitution apply to such Member? 
3. Was the view taken in G. Viswanathan's case [ 
(1996) 2 sec 353], with regard to the status of 
Members in either House of Parliament who had not 
voluntarily resigned from their party but had been 
expelled therefrom, in harmony with the provisions 
of the Tenth Schedule to the Constitution? 
4. In view of the fact that Members of the two Houses 
of Parliament who are expelled from the membership 
of the parties which had set them up as candidates 
in the election, are not referred to in the Tenth 
Schedule to the Constitution, was the decision in G. 
Viswanathan's case that they must be deemed to 
continue to belong to such party in view of 
Explanation(a) to paragraph2(1) of the Tenth 
Schedule, a correct interpretation of the said 
provisions, having regard to the parliamentary 
debates on the Bill which became the Tenth 
Schedule? 
5. Can Explanation (a) to paragraph 2(1) of the Tenth 
Schedule to the Constitution be extended t.o include 
Members of the two Houses of Parliament who are 
expelled from their parties? 
6. When a member of either 

Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.