RAVI S. NAIK AND SANJAY BANDEKAR AND ANR. versus UNION OF INDIA AND ORS.

Citation: [1994] 1 S.C.R. 754 · Decided: 09-02-1994 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: M.N. VENKATACHALIAH, S.C. AGRAWAL · Disposal: Dismissed

Cited by 6 judgment(s) · cites 1 · see the full citation network in Lexace

Judgment (excerpt)

A 
RA VI S. NAIK AND SANJAY BANDEKAR AND ANR. 
.B 
v. 
UNION OF INDIA AND ORS. 
FEBRUARY 9, 1994 
[M.N. VENKATACHALIAH, CJ. AND S.C. AGRAWAL, J.] 
Constitution of India, 1950 : Article 191(2)-Tenth Schedul~State 
Legi.slature-Member-Defectiott-f'etition for disqualification of-Claim by 
member that disqualification of defection was not applicable in view of para 
C 
3 of Tenth Schedule because there was split in the party and a new group was 
constituted--Burden is on such member to prove requirements of para 3 of 
Tenth Schedule-Members claim supported by a declaration-Genuineness 
of signatures on declaration not disputed by members-Held constitution of 
group was established-Computation of one third members as required by 
D para 3 of Tenth Schedule-Exclusion by Speakers of members disqualified by 
him but against which interim stay was granted by High Court-Held not 
legal-Order passed by Speaker in disregard of stay order held nullity and 
quashed. 
Legislative assembly-Member-Disqualification order by Speake~ 
E 
Speaker drawing inference from newspaper reports and photographs--Allega-
tions not denied by members-Order held not vitiated-Expression "Volun-
tarily given up his membership''-Scope of-Held not synonymous with 
resignation-Even in the absence of formal resignation inference as to volun-
tarily given up the membership may be drawn from the conduct of the 
F 
member. 
Article 226-Writ jurisdiction-Power of High Court to pass interim 
order--Interim order is binding until set aside by competent court. 
Goa Legislative Assembly (Disqualification on Grounds of Defection) 
G Rules, 1956: Rules 3, 4, 6(5 & 6) and 7(2) & (3). 
Disqualification roles-Held procedural in natur~Violation of dis·· 
qualification rnle is i"egularity in procedure and does not amount to violation 
>-- ... 
of constitutional mandat~Violation of mies does not afford a ground for 
judicial review-Disqualification petition-Speaker granting two days' time 
H instead of seven days to file reply-Member filing detailed reply but not 
754 
R.S. NAIK v. U.0.1. 
755 
__.--l 
denying allegations--Held time granted was not insufficient resulting in denial A 
of adequate opportunity. 
Judicial Review : 
Disqualification order passed by Speaker of a legislative assembly under 
Tenth Schedule of Constitution is subject to judicial review. 
B 
Violation of Disqualification Rules frumed under para 8 of Tenth 
Schedule is not subject to judicial review. 
Administrative Law: Natural Justice-Principles of-Cannot be put in 
strait jacket formula-Effect of non-compliance should be considered in the 
facts of each case. 
c 
By an order dated December 13, 1990 passed by the Speaker of Goa 
Assembly appellants SB and RC were declared as disqualified from being 
members of the Goa Legislative Assembly on the ground of defection under D 
Article 191(2) read with paragraph 2(1)(a) of the Tenth Schedule to the 
Constitution. Similarly, in the connected appeal also, the appellant RS was 
disqualified by the Speaker vide his order dated February 15, 1991. Two 
petitions were filed in the Bombay High Court challenging the orders 
passed by the Speaker • one by SB and RC and the other by RS. In the 
petition filed by SB and RC, the High Court passed an interim order dated E 
December 14, 1990 staying the Disqualification order passed by the 
Speaker. During the pendency of the petitions before the High Court the 
Speaker, in exercise of his power of review set aside the disqualification 
orders dated December 13, 1990 and February 15, 1991. The orders of 
Speaker, passed in review, setting aside his earlier orders of disqualifica· 
F 
tion were challenged before the High Court which dismissed the petitions 
on the ground of laches. Agains~the judgment of the High Court, appeals 
were filed in this Court. By its judgment in Dr. Kashinath G. Jalmi & Anr. 
v. Speaker & Ors., [1993] 2 S.C.C. 703, this Court allowed the appeals 
holding that the orders passed by the Speaker in exercise of its power of 
review were nullity and directed the High Court to dispose the petitions G 
on merits. Thereafter the High Court heard the matter on merits and by 
its judgment dated May 14, 1993 upheld the orders of disqualification 
passed by the Speakers and dismissed the petitions of the appellants. 
Against the judgment of the High Court appeals were. preferred in this 
Court. The case against SB and RC was that they were elected under the H 
756 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
[1994] 1 S.C.

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