RAM CHANDRA PRASAD SINGH versus SHARAD YADAV

Citation: [2020] 4 S.C.R. 1061 · Decided: 19-03-2020 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: ASHOK BHUSHAN · Disposal: Dismissed

cites 3 · see the full citation network in Lexace

Judgment (excerpt)

A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
1061
RAM CHANDRA PRASAD SINGH
v.
SHARAD YADAV
(Civil Appeal No. 2004 of 2020)
MARCH 19, 2020
[ASHOK BHUSHAN AND M. R. SHAH, JJ.]
Constitution of India: Art.226 — Tenth schedule; Paragraph
6 – Respondent no.1 was elected as Member of Parliament (Rajya
Sabha) on JD(U) ticket – Appellant, Member of Parliament (Rajya
Sabha) and leader of JD(U) in Rajya Sabha filed a petition under
Art.102(2) read with Paragraph 6 of the Tenth Schedule of the
Constitution of India praying that respondent no.1 be disqualified
under the Tenth Schedule and his seat be declared vacant in Rajya
Sabha – Allegation was that respondent no.1 who was elected to
Rajya Sabha on the ticket of JD(U), by his repeated conduct,
public/press statements against JD(U) and its leadership and
openly aligning with rival political party (RJD), voluntarily gave
up his membership thus acquiring disqualification under the Tenth
Schedule to the Constitution – The Chairman, Rajya Sabha after
following the due procedure and after giving opportunity of hearing
passed an order disqualifying the respondent as a member of the
House in terms of paragraph 2(1)(a) of the Tenth Schedule of the
Constitution – Aggrieved respondent filed writ petition before High
Court – In the said writ petition, appellant filed application praying
for seeking permission to place additional documents to
demonstrate some purported post disqualification conduct of
respondent which was denied by the respondent – High Court by
impugned order dismissed application holding that the scope of writ
petition is limited to examining the legality of the order passed by
Chairperson disqualifying the respondent from being a member of
the Rajya Sabha and any event subsequent to passing of the said
order cannot be a consideration for High Court to test the legality
of the said order – Impugned order challenged in the instant
appeal – Held: In the instant case, the Chairman passed the order
on 04.12.2017 on the application filed on 02.09.2017 by the
appellant seeking disqualification of the respondent – The order
   [2020] 4 S.C.R. 1061
1061
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
1062
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[2020] 4 S.C.R.
passed by the Chairman was based on a petition dated 02.09.2017
as well as the material and evidence, which was brought on record
before the Chairman – On 7.7.2019, appellant filed application
for seeking permission to place additional documents – Additional
evidence sought to be brought on record of the writ petition was
not the basis for seeking disqualification of the respondent, thus,
there was no error in the order of the High Court rejecting the
application – The order of the High Court is upheld, however,
subject to observations that where subsequent event or conduct
of member is relevant with respect to state of affairs as pertaining
to the time when member has incurred disqualification, that
subsequent events can be taken into consideration by the High
Court in exercise of its jurisdiction u/Art.226 – Thus, the
observations made in paragraph 4 need not to be read as laying
down a law that in any case subsequent event cannot be considered
for testing the legality of the order impugned or for moulding the
relief in a writ petition u/Art.226.
Dismissing the appeal, the Court
HELD: 1. The facts and sequence of the events on the
basis of which the Chairman came to the conclusion that a person
has incurred disqualification under paragraph 2(1) (a) of the
Tenth Schedule are all facts, which had occurred prior to
adjudication by the Chairman. The application which was filed
by the appellant seeking disqualification  of the respondent was
filed on 02.09.2017 in which application, the foundation of
disqualification of respondent was already laid down. The order
passed by the Chairman was based on a petition dated
02.09.2017 as well as the material and evidence, which was
brought on record before the Chairman. Additional evidence
sought to be brought on record of the writ petition was not the
basis for seeking disqualification of the respondent, hence, there
is no error in the order of the High Court rejecting the
application. [Paras 12, 14] [1071-C-D; 1072-B-D]
Rajendra Singh Rana and Others v. Swami Prasad
Maurya and Others (2007) 4 SCC 270 : [2007] 2 SCR
591 ; Shrimanth Balasaheb Patil v. Hon’ble Speaker
Karnataka Legislative Assembly and Others (2019) 15
SCALE 533 – followed.
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
1063
Ravi S. Naik v. Union of India and Others (1994) 2
Suppl. SCC 641 : [1994] 1 SCR 754 – relied on.
2. Th

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