SPEAKER, ORISSA LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY versus UTKAL KESHARI PARIDA

Citation: [2013] 1 S.C.R. 348 · Decided: 17-01-2013 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: ALTAMAS KABIR · Disposal: Dismissed

Judgment (excerpt)

A 
B 
[2013] 1 S.C.R. 348 
SPEAKER, ORISSA LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY 
v. 
UTKAL KESHARI PARIDA 
(Civil Appeal No. 469 of 2013) 
JANUARY 17, 2013 
[ALTAMAS KABIR, CJI, J. CHELAMESWAR AND 
VIKRAMAJIT SEN, JJ.] 
Orissa Legislative Assembly (Disqualification on Ground 
C of Defection) Rules, 1987: 
rr. 6(1) and (2) - Petition for disqualification of Members 
of Legislative Assembly on ground of defection, filed by a 
person, who was President of State Unit of political party but 
0 
was not a Member of Legislative Assembly - Held: Is 
maintainable - Although, sub-r. (2) of r. 6 provides that a 
petition in relation to a Member for the purposes of sub-r. (1) 
may be made in writing to the Speaker by any other Member, 
such a provision is neither contemplated nor provided for in 
the Tenth Schedule itself - In a case where all the four 
E Members elected to the Assembly from the political party 
concerned, changed their allegiance from the said party to the 
ruling party, there would be no one to bring such fact to the 
notice of the Speaker and ask for disqualification of the said 
Members - Therefore, provisions of sub-rr. (1) and (2) of r. 6 . 
F have to be read down to make it clear that not only a Member 
of the House, but any person interested, would also be entitled 
to bring to the notice of the Speaker the fact that a Member 
of the House had incurred disqualification under the Tenth 
Schedule -Constitution of India, 1950 - Tenth Schedule -
G Para 2(1)(a), 6 and 8 - Interpretation of Statutes - Reading. 
down a provision - Locus standi. 
Constitution of India, 1950: 
H 
348 
SPEAKER, ORISSA LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY v. 
349 
UTKAL KESHARI PARIDA 
Tenth Schedule - Provisions as to disqualification on A 
ground of defection - 52nd Amendment - Intent and objects 
of - Explained. 
Administrative Law: 
Delegated legislation - Orissa Legislative As'\Sembly 8 
(Disqualification on Ground of Defection) Rules, 1987 - Held: 
Being subordinate legislation, the Rules could not rriake any 
provision which could have the effect of curtailing the content 
and scope of the substantive provision, namely, the Tenth 
Schedule to the Constitution of India, as otherwise, the vety C 
object of the introduction of the Tenth Schedule to the 
Constitution would be rendered meaningless - Constitution . 
of India, 1950 - Tenth Schedule - Para 2(1)(a), 6 and 8 -
Orissa Legislative Assembly (Disqualification on Ground of 
Defection) Rules, 1987 - rr. 6(1) and (2) - Doctrine of reading D 
down. 
Consequent upon all the four elected members of the 
National Congress Party (NCP) in the Orissa Legislative 
Assembly joining the Biju Janata Dal (BJD), i.e., the ruling E 
party in the State, the respondent-President of the State 
Unit of NCP filed four petitions before the appellant-
Speaker of the House seeking disqualification of the said 
elected members of NCP on ground of defection. 
According to the respondent, since the matter was being 
F 
delayed, he filed a writ petition before the High Court for 
a direction to the Speaker to dispose of the 
disqualification petitions expeditiously. On the strength 
of sub-r. (2) of r. 6 of the Orissa Legislative Assembiy 
(Disqualification on Ground of Defection) Rules, 1987, an 
objection was taken regarding the maintainability of the G 
writ petition at the instance of the respondent, who 
though being the President of the State Unit of the NCP, 
was not a Member of the Legislative Assembly. The High 
Court overruled the objection. 
H 
350 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
[2013] 1 S.C.R. 
A 
Dismissing the appeals, the Court 
HELD: 1.1. Although, sub-r. (2) of r. 6 of the Orissa 
Legislative Assembly (Disqualification on Ground of 
Defection) Rules, 1987 provides that a petition in relation 
8 
to a Member for the purposes of sub-r. (1) may be made 
in writing to the Speaker by any other Member, such a 
provision is neither contemplated nor provided for in the 
Tenth Schedule to the Constitution of India. In a case 
such as this, where all the four Members elected to the 
r 
Assembly from the National Congress Party had changed 
C their allegiance from the National Congress Party to the 
Biju Janata Dal, there would be no one to bring such fact 
to the notice of the Speaker and ask for disqualification 
of the said Members. This was not the intent of or the 
object sought to be achieved by the 52nd Amendment by 
D which the Tenth Schedule was introduced in the 
Constitution. The Statement of Objects and Reasons of 
the B

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