SRI RAJENDRA SINGH RANA AND ORS. versus SWAMI PRASAD MAURYA AND ORS.

Citation: [2007] 2 S.C.R. 591 · Decided: 14-02-2007 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: K.G. BALAKRISHNAN · Disposal: Disposed off
Cited by 5 judgment(s) · cites 1 · see the full citation network in Lexace
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this case
Judgment (excerpt)

SRI RAJENDRA SINGH RANA AND ORS. 
v. 
SWAMI PRASAD MAURY A AND ORS. 
FEBRUARY 14, 2007 
[K.G. BALAKRISHNAN, CJ., H.K. SEMA, DR. AR. LAKSHMANAN, 
P.K. BALASUBRAMANY AN AND D.K. JAIN, JJ.] 
Constitution of India, 1950: 
A 
B 
Article 191 read with para 2 of Tenth Schedule-Defection- C 
Disqualification of MLAs-13 MLAs elected on tickets of the political party 
whose Chief Minister had submitted resignation of her Cabinet, giving letters 
of request to Governor to invite leader of opposition party to form 
Government-Petition before Speaker to disqualify the said 13 MLAs-Later, 
a request made to Speaker by 37 MLAs, elected on tickets of the same party D 
to recognize a split in the party-Speaker accepting split without deciding 
application seeking disqualification-Writ Petition before High Court-Later, 
Speaker rejecting application/or disqualification-This order also challenged 
in writ petition-High Court after keeping petition pending for long quashed 
order of Speaker and remitted matter to him to decide application for 
disqualification-Held, Speaker has necessarily to decide question of E 
disqualification as a Tribunal-The MLAs sought to be disqualified have a 
right to take plea of split or merger of their party with another party and 
the claim under paragraph 3 or paragraph 4 of Tenth Schedule are answers 
to prayer for disqualification-Under Tenth Schedule Speaker does not have 
an independent power divorced from motion seeking disqualification of F 
members concerned, to decide the split or merger as contemplated in 
paragraph 3, or paragraph 4 of Tenth Schedule-To that extent original 
order of Speaker cannot be considered to be in terms of Tenth Schedule-
ln the letters given by 13 MLAs, there was no claim regarding split-The act 
of giving letters requesting Governor to call upon leader of other side to form 
Government would, within meaning of paragraph 2 of Tenth Schedule, amount G 
to voluntarily giving up membership of the party on whose tickets said 
members had got elected-It has not been proved that there was any split 
in the party on relevant date as claimed by them-Therefore, thz 13 MLAs 
stand disqualified from the State Legislative Assembly in terms of Article 
591 
H 
592 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
(2007] 2 S.C.R. 
A 191(2) read with paragraph 2 of Tenth Schedule with effect from the date 
they gave letters to the Governor-Interpretation of Constitution-Purposive 
'"1-
interprelat ion. 
Article 191 read with para 2 and para 6 of Tenth Schedule-
Disqualification of MLAs on ground of defection-Time when it occurs-
B Held, disqualification occurs on a member voluntarily giving up his 
membership of the political party or at the point of defiance of whip issued 
to him. 
Articles 226 and 136, Para 6 of Tenth Schedule-Judicial review of 
) 
C order of Speaker of State Legislative Assembly-Petition before Speaker 
seeking disqualification of certain members of a political party in terms of 
paragraph 2 of Tenth Schedule-Later application before Speaker by some 
more members of the said party to recognize split in the party in terms of 
paragraph 3 of Tenth Schedule-Speaker keeping application for 
disqualification pending and recognizing the split-Held, Speaker totally 
D misdirected himself in holding that there was split in the party while leaving 
open the question of disqualification and thus committed a jurisdictional 
illegality warra~ting exercise of power of judicial review-By leaving the 
question of disqualification undecided in original order, Speaker failed to 
exercise jurisdiction conferred on him in para 6 of Tenth Schedule-Speaker 
has committed an error that goes to root of matter or an error that is so 
E fundamental that even under a limited judicial review, order of Speaker has 
to be interfered with-High Court was right in quashing order of Speaker. 
AdministratiOn of Justice: 
High Court-Dealing with matter of some consequence and 
F constitutional propriety in a tardy manner-Held, more promptitude was 
expected of the High Court and it should have ensured that the unfortunate 
happenings were avoided 
The Coalitio~ Government of the State of Uttar Pradesh headed by the 
G leader of Bahuja Samaj Party took a unanimous decision on 25.8.2003 for 
recommending dissolution of the Assembly. On 26.8.2003 the Chief Minister 
submitted resignation of her Cabinet. On 27.8.2003, 13 members of the 
Legislative Assembly elected on tickets of BSP requested the Governor to 
.-" 
invite the l
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.