LexJAGJLT SINGH versus STATE OF HARYANA AND ORS.
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this caseJudgment (excerpt)
JAGllTSINGH v. STATE OF HARYANA AND ORS. DECEMBER 11, 2006 [Y.K. SABHARWAL, CJ., C.K. THAKKER AND P.K. BALASUBRAMANY AN, JJ.] Constitution of India, 1950-Tenth Schedule Paras 2 (/) (a) and (2) A B 3 and 8-Members of Legislative Assembly-Four were elected as independent C members and two were sole members of their respective political parties- Complaint of defection to another political party-Speaker of the assembly relying on the statements of the members in electronic media, disqualified them from membership of the Assembly-Members declined to watch the recording in order to point out doctoring therein-Members sought permission to cross-examine and lead evidence-Denial thereof-Orders of D disqualification challenged on the ground of violation of principles of Natural Justice and malafide-Held: Jn the facts and circumstances of the case mere denial to cross examine and adduce evidence may not automatically lead to violation of principles of Natural Justice-On the facts plea of malafide not acceptable-A member cannot be permitted to get away with defection on the E ground of mere technicalities-Order of the speaker not illegal and unreasonable-The independent members have incurred disqualification under Para 2 (2)-To determine whether an independent member has joined a political party the test is not whether he has fulfilled the formalities for joining a politicalparty but that he has given up his independent status- Protection of Para 3 is not applicable to a single member party-Burden to F prove the requirement of Para 3 is on the member who seeks protection thereunder-Members of political parties having failed to prove the split in their respective parties, not entitled to protection under Para 3-Evidence- Burden to prove-Haryana Legislative Assembly (Disqualification of Member on ground of Defection) Rules, I 986. Election Law-Defection Law-Object of-Discussed. Evidence-Admission-Evidentiary value of-Held: Admission is best evidence-Though conclusive it is decisive of the matter unless successfully 521 G H 522 SUPREME COURT REPORTS (2006] SUPP. 10 S.C.R .. A withdrawn or proved erroneous. Judicial Review-Scope of-In cases of disqualification of members of Legislative Assembly-Held: Speaker, while exercising power to disqualify members acts as a Tribunal-Validity of such orders can be challenged on the ground of ultra vires or malafide or having been made in colourable B exercise of power based on extraneous and irrelevant consideration-But the scope of judicial review in respect of such proceedings is limited-Order would be a nullity if rules of natural justice are violated-Principles of Natural Justice. C Principle of Natural Justice-Right to hearing-Opportunity to cross examine and adduce evidence denied-Denial of reasonable opportunity of hearing alleged-Held: Principles of Natural Justice are flexible and have to be examined in each case-They cannot be f1Xed in rigid mould-In the present case in view of the conduct of the alleging parties, mere denial of opportunity to cross examine or adduce evidence may not automatically lead D to violation o principles of Natural Justice. E Interpretation of Statutes-It is ordinarily not the function of the court to read word, in a statute-Court must proceed on the assumption that legislature did not make a mistake and it intended to say what it said- Constitution of India, I950-Tenth Schedule para 3 and 2 (/) (a). Doctrines-Doctrine of necessity-Applicability of Petitioners were elected to the State Assembly. Four petitioners ~ere independent members and two were lone members representing their respective political parties in the Assembly. Speaker of the Assembly F disqualified them from the membership of the Assembly in exercise of its power under the Tenth Schedule to the Constitution of India. All the petitioners challenged the orders of disqualification on the ground of violation of principles of natural justice; that impugned orders were result of malafide of the Speaker as the disqualifications were made in utter haste with a view to deprive them G of their right to vote in elections to Rajya Sabha in view of the fact that the Speaker, on telephone had told that if they abstained from voting, their disqualification could be avoided; that the speaker had no basis for coming to the conclusion regarding their defection; and that the petitioners belonging to the political parties were entitled to prot
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.