SHRIMANTH BALASAHEB PATIL versus HON’BLE SPEAKER, KARNATAKA LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY AND OTHERS

Citation: [2019] 16 S.C.R. 886 · Decided: 13-11-2019 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: N.V. RAMANA · Disposal: Disposed off

Cited by 4 judgment(s) · cites 14 · see the full citation network in Lexace

Judgment (excerpt)

A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
886
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[2019] 16 S.C.R.
SHRIMANTH BALASAHEB PATIL
v.
HON’BLE SPEAKER, KARNATAKA
LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY AND OTHERS
(Writ Petition (Civil) No. 992 of 2019)
NOVEMBER 13, 2019
[N. V. RAMANA, SANJIV KHANNA
AND KRISHNA MURARI, JJ.]
Constitution of India – Tenth Schedule; Arts.190(3)(b),
191(1), 191(2) – Acceptance/rejection of the resignation of the
members of the House by the Speaker – Scope of judicial review
u/Arts.32 – Writ petitioners were elected as members of the 15th
Karnataka Legislative Assembly – Though the BJP was the single
largest party, but could not form the Government – A coalition
government of INC and JD(S) was formed – Disqualification
Petition No.1 of 2019 was instituted against the petitioners in
W.P.(C) No. 997/19 alleging that their conduct was in violation of
the whip issued by INC – Said petitioners submitted resignations
to the Speaker – Other petitioners also submitted their resignations
– No call taken by the Speaker on the resignations – Most of them
filed W. P.(C) No. 872/19 wherein Supreme Court inter alia directed
the Speaker to take decision qua the resignations forthwith – No
decision taken by the Speaker on the resignations – Further,
Disqualification Petition Nos.3-5 were filed against 13 petitioners
(Three in W.P (C) No. 1005/19 and 10 in W.P (C) Nos. 998/19,
1000/19, 1001/19, 1006/19 & 1007/19) – Disqualification Petition
Nos. 7 & 8 of 2019 were also filed – Chief Minister resigned on
losing the trust vote on 23.07.2019 – On 25.07.2019 and
28.07.2019, the Speaker passed the five impugned orders in the
above Disqualification Petitions rejecting the resignation of the
members asserting that they were not voluntary or genuine;
disqualifying all the Petitioners, the disqualification being till the
end of the 15th Legislative Assembly term – Held: Speaker, while
adjudicating a disqualification petition, acts as a quasi-judicial
authority – However, ordinarily, the party challenging the
disqualification is required to first approach the High Court as the
   [2019] 16 S.C.R. 886
886
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
887
same would be appropriate, effective and expeditious – Speaker’s
scope of inquiry with respect to acceptance/rejection of a
resignation tendered by a member of the legislature is limited to
examine whether such a resignation was tendered voluntarily or
genuinely – Once it is demonstrated that a member is willing to
resign out of his free will, the speaker has no option but to accept
the resignation – In the present case, the Petitioners stated and
re-affirmed before the Speaker and this Court, in unequivocal
terms, that they voluntarily and genuinely resigned their
membership of the House – It is constitutionally impermissible for
the Speaker to take into account any extraneous factors while
considering the resignation – Satisfaction of the Speaker is subject
to judicial review – Further, in light of the existing Constitutional
mandate, the Speaker is not empowered to disqualify any member
till the end of the term – Also, no substantial question of law exists
in the present matter, which needs reference to a larger bench –
Petitioners failed to show any illegality in the orders of the Speaker
– Orders dated. 25.07.2019 and 28.07.2019 passed by the Speaker
in Disqualification Petition Nos. 1, 3-5, 7 & 8 of 2019, are upheld
to the extent of the disqualification of the Petitioners therein,
however, the part of the orders detailing the duration of
disqualification, viz., from the date of the respective order till the
expiry of the term of the 15th Legislative Assembly of Karnataka
is set aside – Rules of Procedure and Conduct of Business in
Karnataka Legislative Assembly – Chapter 22, r.202 (2) –
Constitution (Thirty- third Amendment) Act, 1974 – Constitution
(Fifty-second Amendment) Act, 1985 – Constitution (Ninety-first
Amendment) Act, 2003 – Arts. 75(1B), 164(1B) and 361B –
Karnataka Legislative Assembly (Disqualification of Members on
Ground of Defection) Rules, 1986 – r.7(3)(b) – Principles of
Natural Justice – Representation of the People Act, 1951 – s.36(2).
Constitution of India – Constitution (Thirty-third Amendment)
Act, 1974 – Proviso to Art.190(3)(b) – Respondents contended that
the acceptance/rejection of resignation is based on the subjective
satisfaction of the Speaker which is immune from judicial review
– Held: Unable to agree with this contention – It is true that 33rd
Constitutional Amendment changed the constitutional position by
conferring disc

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