LexSPEAKER HARYANA VIDHAN SABHA versus KULDEEP BISHNOI & ORS.
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this caseJudgment (excerpt)
A B [2012] 10 S.C.R. 672 SPEAKER HARYANA VIDHAN SABHA v. KULDEEP BISHNOI & ORS. (Civil Appeal No.7125 of 2012) SEPTEMBER 28, 2012 [ALTAMAS KABIR AND J. CHELAMESWAR, JJ.] Constitution of India, 1950 - Articles 226 & 227 and Article 191 r/w Tenth Schedule - Haryana Vidhan Sabha - C Five MLAs of one political party wrote letters to the Speaker expressing their intention to merge their party with another political party - Speaker accepted the merger and recognized the said MLAs as Members of the other political party - Petitions filed before the Speaker under paragraph 6 of the D Tenth Schedule to the Constitution for disqualif1eation of the said MLAs - On ground that they had voluntarily given up the membership of their original political party and had joined another party in violation of the provisions of paragraph 4(1) of the Tenth Schedule - Writ Petition also filed - Single Judge E of the High Court directed the Speaker to finally decide the disqualification petitions pending before him within four months - Division Bench affirmed the directions given by the Single Judge, and further directed that pending decision by the Speaker, the five MLAs in question would stand F disqualified from effectively functioning as members of the Haryana Vidhan Sabha - On appeal, held: Under the scheme of the Tenth Schedule to the Constitution, the Speaker does not have an independent power to decide that there has been split or merger as contemplated by paragraphs 3 and 4 respectively of the Tenth Schedule and such a decision can G be taken only when the question of disqualification arises in a proceeding under paragraph 6 of the Tenth Schedule - Restraining the Speaker from taking any decision under paragraph 6 of the Tenth Schedule was beyond the jurisdiction H 672 SPEAKER HARYANA VIDHAN SABHA v. KULDEEP 673 BISHNOI & ORS. of the High Court, since the Constitution itself has vested the A Speaker with the power to take a decision under paragraph 6 and care has also been taken to indicate that such decision of the Speaker would be final - Direction given by the Single Judge, as endorsed by the Division Bench, upheld to the extent it directs the Speaker to decide the petitions for B disqualification of the five MLAs within a period of four months - Remaining portion of the order disqualifying the five MLAs from effectively functioning as Members of the Haryana Vidhan Sabha set aside - Said five MLAs entitled to fully function as Members of the Haryana Vidhan Sabha without c restrictions, subject to final decision by the Speaker in the disqualification petitions - Haryana Legislative Assembly (Disqualification of Members on Ground of Defection) Rules, 1986. Pursuant to the 12th Legislative Assembly Elections D in the State of Haryana, the Indian National Congress Party, ['the INC'] emerged as the single largest party and formed the Government. Subsequently, five MLAs of the Haryana Janhit Congress (BL) Party ['the HJC (BL)'] wrote to the Speaker expressing their intention to merge E the HJC (BL) with the INC. The Speaker accepted the merger and recognized the five concerned MLAs as Members of the INC in the Haryana Vidhan Sabha. Challenging the orders passed by the Speaker, Respondent no.1 filed petitions before the Speaker under F Article 191 read with the Tenth Schedule to the Constitution of India and the Haryana Legislative Assembly (Disqualification of Members on Ground of Defection) Rules, 1986, on the ground that they had voluntarily given up the membership of their original G political party and had joined the INC in violation of the provisions of paragraph 4(1) of the Tenth Schedule. Respondent no.1 also filed a Writ Petition. A Single Judge of the High Court allowed the Writ Petition and directed the Speaker to finally decide the disqualification petitions H 674 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2012] 10 S.C.R. A pending before him within a period of four months. Letters Patent Appeal was filed by the Speaker. The Division Bench not only declined to interfere with the directions given by the Single Judge, but in addition directed that pending decision by the Speaker, the five 8 MLAs in question would stand disqualified from effectively functioning as members of the Haryana Vidhan Sabha. The aforesaid directions were challenged in the instant appeals by the Speaker and the five concerned MLAs. c In the aforesaid context, the following substantial
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.