BALCHANDRA L. JARKIHOLI & ORS. versus B.S. YEDDYURAPPA & ORS.

Citation: [2011] 10 S.C.R. 877 · Decided: 13-05-2011 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: ALTAMAS KABIR · Disposal: Appeal(s) allowed

Cited by 1 judgment(s) · see the full citation network in Lexace

Judgment (excerpt)

(2011] 10 S.C.R. 877 
BALCHANDRA L. JARKIHOLI & ORS. 
v. 
B.S. YEDDYURAPPA & ORS. 
(Civil Appeal Nos.4444-4476 of 2011) 
MAY 13, 2011 
[ALTAMAS KABIR AND CYRIAC JOSEPH, JJ.] 
Constitution of India, 1950 - Tenth Schedule, Paragraph 
2(1)(a) - Disqualification application against MLA on ground 
A 
B 
of defection - Manner of disposal by the Speaker- Challenge 
C 
to - Tests of natural justice and fair play - Respondent no. 1 
was the Legislature Party Leader of BJP in the Kamataka 
Legislative Assembly, and also the Chief Minister of the State 
of Kamataka - 13 BJP MLAs including the appellants and 
two others-'MPR' and 'NN' wrote to the Governor of the State 
D 
that they were withdrawing support to the Government led by 
Respondent no. 1 - Governor asked Respondent no. 1 to seek 
vote of confidence on the floor of the House, and also 
intimated the Speaker accordingly - Respondent no.1, as 
leader of the BJP Legislature Party in the Legislative E 
Assembly, filed Disqualification application before the 
Speaker against all the said 13 MLAs - Speaker issued· Show-
Cause notices to all the said MLAs - Meanwhile 'MPR' and 
'NN' retracted their stand, stating that they .,&ontinued to 
support the Government led by Respondent no. 1 - Also, 
F 
'KSE', State President of the BJP filed affidavit along with 
supporting documents, adverse to the interests of the 
appellants - Speaker disqualified the appellants reasoning 
that they had voluntarily given up their membership of the BJP 
by their acts and conduct, but did not disqualify 'MPR' and G 
'NN' taking note of the retraction made by them - Justification 
- Held: Except for the affidavit filed by 'KSE', State President 
of the B.J.P., and the statements of 'MPR' and 'NN', there was 
nothing on record in support of the allegations made in the 
877 
H 
878. 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
• 
'-' 
[2011) 10 S.C.R. 
A Disqualification application - No presumption could be drawn 
from the action of the appellants that they had voluntarily given 
up their membership of the BJP - All along the appellants 
emphasized their position that they not only continued to be 
members of the BJP, but were also willing to support any 
B Government formed by the BJP headed by any leader, other 
than Respondent no. 1, as the Chief Minister of the State -
The Speaker acted in hot haste in disposing of the 
Disqualification application filed by Respondent no. 1 - No 
convincing explanation was given as to why notices to sho~ 
c cause had been issued to the appellants under Rule 7 of the 
Disqualification Rules, giving the Appellants only three days' 
time to respond to the same, despite the stipulated time of 
seven days or more· - The proceedings conducted by the 
Speaker did not meet the twin tests of natural justice and fair 
0 
play - Procedure adopted by the Speaker seems to indicate 
that he was trying to ensure that the appellants stood 
disqualified prior to the date on which the Floor Test was to 
be held, so that they could not participate and, in their 
absence Respondent no. 1 was able to prove his majority in 
the House - Also, although the same allegations, as were 
E made against the Appellants by Respondent no.1, were also 
made against 'MPR' and 'NN', their retraction was accepted 
by the Speaker and they were, accordingly, permitted to 
participate i• the Confidence Vote - The Speaker proceeded 
in the matter as if he was required to meet the deadline set 
F by the Governor, irrespective of whether, in the process, he 
was ignoring the constitutional norms set out in the Tenth 
Schedule to the Constitution and the Disqualification Rules, 
and in contravention of the basic principles that go hand-in-
hand with the concept of a fair hearing - Even if the 
G Disqualification Rules were only directory in nature, sufficient 
opportunity should have been given to the Appellants to meet 
the allegations levelled against them - Affidavits, affirmeq by 
'KSE', 'MPR' and 'NN', were served on the Advocates 
appearing for the Appellants only on the date of hearing before 
H 
BALCHANDRA L. JARKIHOLI & ORS. v. B.S. 
879 
YEDDYURAPPA & ORS. 
the Speaker and that too just before the hearing was to 
A 
commence - Extraneous considerations writ large on the face 
of the order of the Speaker and therefore the same has to be 
set aside - Disqualification application filed by Respondent 
no. 1 accordingly dismissed - Karnataka Legislative Assembly 
(Disqualification of Members on Ground of Defection) Rule

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