In a recent development, the Supreme Court (SC) has denied the appeal from the Rajasthan Assembly Speaker to halt the State’s High Court from making a decision on the validity of the anti-defection notices. This originated from the Speaker issuing notice to 19 dissenting Congress MLAs of the ruling Party, citing an alleged conspiracy to topple the government.
Rajasthan’s Background
The 19 rebel MLAs of Rajasthan’s ruling Congress party filed a petition against the disqualification notices given to them by the Assembly Speaker under the Anti Defection Law. They claimed these notices were invalid and a plot against them.
High Court’s Stance on the Issue
The High Court ruled that the speaker should postpone action on the disqualification notices, citing that the final decision was not in his jurisdiction. Further, the court directed him to extend the reply submission deadline for the disqualification notices received by the MLAs.
The Speaker’s Counter Argument
The speaker challenged the high court’s direction, deeming it unconstitutional and undermining his authority. Referring to the Kihoto Hollohan versus Zachillu and Others case in 1992, the speaker asserted that the decision rests solely with him to rule on disqualifications and that no intervening court should overstep. He added that the High Court lacks the jurisdiction to instruct him on delaying proceedings since the Tenth Schedule proceedings before him are legislative and should not be obstructed as per Article 212 in correlation with paragraph 6(2) of the Tenth Schedule.
Show Cause Notice Issued by the Speaker
In response to a complaint lodged by the Congress chief, the speaker issued show cause notices to the MLAs to provide them an opportunity to rationalize their actions. A show cause notice is an order that seeks an explanation as to why a certain course of action shouldn’t be taken against its recipient. If the recipient fails to provide a satisfactory justification or is absent, then the predetermined course of action will take place.
Supreme Court’s Viewpoint
The Supreme Court raised questions about stifling a legislator’s “voice of dissent” via the threat of disqualification in a democracy. It probed into whether expressing dissent equates to voluntarily renouncing party membership under Paragraph 2(1)(a) of the Tenth Schedule of the Constitution, which would subsequently trigger anti-defection proceedings. The Supreme Court further emphasized that the Speaker should serve as a tribunal devoid of political bias.
Disqualification under the Tenth Schedule
The Anti-Defection Law was integrated into the Indian Constitution via the 52nd amendment in 1985, introducing the Tenth Schedule. This law aimed at combating “the evil of political defections.” It provides guidelines on how a member of a House might be disqualified for being a member if they voluntarily resign from their political party or vote contrary to their party’s directive without explicit prior approval.
Exceptions to Disqualification on Defection Grounds
There are exceptions to this disqualification rule such as a party member leaving due to a merger with another party or after being elected as the presiding officer of the House, voluntarily gives up or rejoins party membership post holding that office.
Speaker’s Power Pertaining to Anti-Defection Law
In terms of the Anti-defection Law, any question regarding disqualification due to defection is to be settled by the presiding officer of the House.