MAYAWATI versus MARKANDEYA CHAND AND ORS.

Citation: [1998] SUPP. 2 S.C.R. 204 · Decided: 09-10-1998 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: M.M. PUNCHHI · Disposal: Disposed off

cites 1 · see the full citation network in Lexace

Judgment (excerpt)

A 
B 
c 
D 
MAYAWATI 
v. 
MARKANDEY A CHAND AND ORS. 
OCTOBER 9, 1998 
[M.M. PUNCHHI, CJ., K.T. THOMAS AND M. SRINIVASAN, JJ.] 
Constitution of India, 1950 : 
Tenth Scheiule-Paras l(b)(c), 2(1), 3 and 6 
Defection-Disqualification of member of House---Ground of defection--
Power of Speaker to disqualijj;--Speaker 's decision-Judicial review-Scope 
and extent of-Challenge to Speaker's order---Ground of perversity-Test to 
determine perversity-What is-Delay in completion of defection 
proceedings-Effect of 
House-Members-Disqualification on the ground of defection-
Inapplicability in case of split-Claim of split by members-Necessary 
conditions to prove claim. 
Defection-Speaker's order of disqualification of members-When set 
E aside by Supreme Court-Power of Court to remit back the matter for fresh 
decision-Power to substitute order of Speaker. 
Members of the Uttar Pradesh Legislative Assembly (Disqualification 
on grounds of Defection) Rules, 1987 : Rules 3, 6 to IO. 
F 
Defection Rules-Nature of-Non compliance with rules-Effect of-
Rules of procedure-Whether on par with constitutional mandate incorporated 
in Tenth Schedule of the Constitution. 
Words and Phrases : Expression-'Political Party'-Meaning of-In 
the context of Para 2(/)(b)-Tenth Schedule-Constitutwn of India. 
G 
The Chief Minister ofUttar Pradesh moved a Motion of Confidence in 
the Legislative Assembly of the State ofU.P. The said Motion was put to vote 
on 21.10.1997. On 20.10.1997 the appellant, who is the Leader ofBahujan 
Samaj Party (BSP), issued a whip to all the Members of her party directing 
them to be present in the Session of U.P. Legislative Assembly on 21.10.1997 
H and vote against the Motion of Confidence moved by the B.J.P. Government 
204 
[ 
MAY AW A TI v. MARKANDEY A CHAND 
205 
However, twelve MLAs from Bahujan Samaj Party, respondents herein, voted A 
in favour of the Motion of Confidence. On 24.10.1997, the appellant filed a 
petition before the Speaker under Rule 7 of the Members of Uttar Pradesh 
Legislative Assembly (Disqualification on grounds of Defection) Rules, 1987 
seeking a declaration that the respondents became disqualified under para 
2(1)(b) of the Xth Schedule of the Constitution. In their written statement, B 
respondents pleaded that a split took place between the Members ofB.S.P. 
and that they along with some other MLAs, the total of which reached 23 in 
number, have formed themselves into a new political party by name Janatantrik 
Bahujan Samaj party. On 5.12.1997 the appellant filed an application for 
amendment of the petition in which disqualification of respondents was 
sought under Para 2(1Xa) of the Xth Schedule. The respondents filed additional C 
written statement to the amended petition. As the names of all the 23 MLAs 
who allegedly formed the split were not furnished, the Speaker directed the 
respondents to file a list ofsuch names by 29.1.1998. As they failed to give 
names on that day also, the Speaker gave another date as a last chance and 
posted it to 9.2.1998. But respondents failed to furnish the names of such 
MLAs even by that extended time, and instead again they pleaded for more D 
time. On 25.2.1998 a list of26 MLAs was furnished to the Speaker claiming 
that they were the MLAs who formed a split group on 20.10.1997. 
The Speaker pronounced his Judgment on 23.3.1998 dismissing the 
petitions for disqualification holding that (i) respondents are not liable to be E 
disqualified under Paragraph 2(1Xb) of the Xth Schedule because the person 
who issued the direction on 20.10.1997 is not proved to be an authorised 
person; (ii) such direction was superseded by another oral direction which 
was subsequently issued and hence no disqualification would visit on the 
ground of non-compliance with the former direction; (iii) the whip issued on 
20.10.1997 was ineffective since it was silent as to the consequences of its F 
non-compliance; and (iv) the respondents were not liable to be disqualified 
under Paragraph 2(1Xa) of the Xth Schedule because they belong to a faction 
which came into being as sequel to a split which arose in the BSP on 
21.10.1997 consisting of not less than I/3rd of the total members of the 
Legislature Party of the BSP. 
G 
In appeal to this Court it was contended on behalf of the appellant that 
(1) Order of the Speaker suffers from jurisdictional errors based on violation 
of the constitutional mandates non-compliance with Rules of natural justice 
and perversity; (2

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