D. SUDHAKAR & ORS. versus D.N. JEEVARAJU & ORS.

Citation: [2012] 2 S.C.R. 330 · Decided: 25-01-2012 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: ALTAMAS KABIR · Disposal: Appeal(s) allowed

Judgment (excerpt)

A 
B 
[2012] 2 S.C.R. 330 
D. SUDHAKAR & ORS. 
v. 
D.N. JEEVARAJU & ORS. 
(Civil Appeal Nos.4510-4514 of 2011) 
JANUARY 25, 2012. 
[ALTAMAS KABIR AND CYRIAC JOSEPH, JJ.] 
KARNATAKA 
LEGISLATIVE 
ASSEMBLY 
(DISQUALIFICATION OF MEMBERS ON GROUND OF 
C DEFECTION) RULES, 1986: 
rr:6 and 7 - Extension of support by appellants-
. Independents to BJP led Government and joining 
Government as Cabinet Ministers ~ Withdrawal of support by 
0 
appellants - Speaker of Legislative Assembly disqualifying 
them on the ground that they had joined BJP after their 
elections as independent candidates - Held: Extension of 
support by Independents to or joining the government as 
Minister by independents would not by itself mean that the 
E independents have joined the political party which formed the 
government - There was no evidence to show that the 
appellants were accepted and treated as members of the BJP 
- The appellants while participating in the meetings of the 
BJP Legislature Party were treated differently from members 
of BJP and were considered to be only lending support to the 
F Government led by 'Y' without losing their independent status 
- Mere participation in the rallies or public meetings 
organised by the BJP would not mean that the appellants had 
joined the BJP - Even in the Registers maintained by the 
Speaker under rr. 3 and 4, the appellants were shown as 
G Independents - Thus, by extending support to 'Y' in the 
formation of the BJP led government, the appellants cannot 
be said to have sacrificed their independent identities - In 
view of finding that the appellants had not joined any political 
party, the order of disqualification passed by the Speaker was 
H 
330 
D. SUDHAKAR & ORS. v. D.N. JEEVARAJU & ORS. 331 
against the Constitutional mandate in paragraph 2(2) of the 
A 
Tenth Schedule of the Constitution - Constitution of India, 
1950 - Tenth Schedule. 
rr. 6 and l -
Disqualification application against 
appellants on the ground that having joined BJP led 8 
government after their elections as independent candidates 
they violated para 2(2) of the Tenth Schedule of the 
Constitution - Show-Cause Notices issued by Speaker -
Validity of - Held: Evidence on record that Show-Cause 
-Notices issued to appellants Were not in conformity with the C 
provisions of rr. 6 and 7 as the appellants were not given 7 
days' time to reply to Show-Cause Notices as contemplated 
u/r. 7(3) of Rules - The Speaker wrongly relied upon the 
affidavit filed by_ the State President of the BJP, although there 
was nothing on record to support the a/legations which were 
made therein - In fact, the said affidavit was not served on 
D 
the appellants - Thus failure of the Speaker to cause service 
of copies of the affidavit affirmed by the State President of the 
BJP amounted to denial of natural justice to the appellants, 
besides revealing a partisan attitude in the Speaker's 
approach in disposing of the Disqualification Application -
E 
Speaker's order being in violation of rr. 6 and 7 and rules of 
natural justice , such violation resulted in prejudice to 
appellants - Even if rr. 6 and 7 were only directory and not 
mandatory, violation of rr. 6 and 7 resulting in violation of rules 
of natural justice vitiated the order of the Speaker and held 
F 
liable to be set aside 
CONSTITUTION OF /NOIA, 1950: Tenth Schedule -
Paragraph 2 - Held: The expression of finality in paragraph 
2 of the Tenth Schedule to the Constitution did not bar the 
G 
jurisdiction of the superior Courts under Articles 32, 226 and 
. 136 of the Constitution to judicially review the order of the 
Speaker - Under paragraph 2 of the Tenth Schedule to the 
Constitution, the Speaker discharges quasi-judicial functions, 
which makes an order passed by him in such capacity, 
subject to judicial review. 
H 
332 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
(2012] 2 S.C.R. 
A 
The appellants were elected to the 13th Karnataka 
Legislative Assembly as independent candidates in the 
elections held in May 2008. The appellants declared their 
support to 'Y' who was elected as the leader of the 
Bharatiya Janata Party (B.J.P.) Legislature Party. On 30th 
B May, 2008, 'Y' was sworn in as Chief Minister of Karnataka 
along with the appellants as Cabinet Ministers and on 
4.6.2008, he proved his majority in the House. 
On 6th October, 2010, the appellants submitted 
separate letters to the Governor of Karnataka expressing 
C . their lack of confidence in the Government headed by 'Y' 
and 

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