The Jaipur bench of Rajasthan High Court passed its order on 24.07.2020 in D.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 7451/2020 challenged by Prithviraj Meena and 18 others against the Union of India, Hon’ble Speaker of Rajasthan Legislative Assembly, amongst the total 8 respondents. The highlights of the abovementioned petition and order passed by Hon’ble Chief Justice of Rajasthan High Court Mr. Justice Indrajit Mahanty and Hon’ble Mr. Justice Prakash Gupta are as below.
FACTS OF THE PETITION:
- On 07.12.2018, the State of Rajasthan contested its general assembly elections for 200 assembly seats resulting in the victory of Indian National Congress (INC) dethroning Bharatiya Janta Party (BJP) Chief Minister Vasundhara Raje from her ministership. The winning party named Mr. Ashok Gehlot as the Chief Minister of the state with Petitioner No.6 in the present petition, namely, Sachin Pilot as the Deputy Chief Minister.
- The Petitioners in their writ petition asserted that they had genuine grievances regarding the working of the Government which were expressed numerous times by the Petitioners to the Chief Minister of the State. In lieu of the resentment of the Petitioners, Mr. Mahesh Joshi, Chief Whip of Rajasthan Legislative Assembly issued a notice dated 13.07.2020 calling for a meeting on the succeeding date i.e. 14.07.2020 at Jaipur to discuss and draw out a political strategy to address the deliberate absence of some members from the meetings of the Congress Legislative Party. The said notice further mentioned that any intentional absence from the forthcoming meetings would invite appropriate action against the members under the relevant statute and Constitution of India.
- The Petitioners further stated that in order to threaten the Petitioners and other Members of Legislative Assembly to speak up against the party, the Chief Minister of the State ordered an enquiry by the Special Operations Group to investigate the Petitioners. The Petitioners were constantly kept under the vigilance of the local police. Following the events, on the same day i.e. 14.07.2020 Petitioner Nos. 6, 4 and 19, namely Mr. Sachin Pilot, Mr. Vishvendra Singh and Mr. Ramesh Chand Meena respectively were removed from the office of Deputy Chief Minister and the State Ministers.
- The Petitioners stated that on 14.07.2020 after removal of the abovementioned Petitioners from their respective designations, a complaint was filed by the INC through their party whip under Paragraph 2(1)(a) of the Tenth Schedule of the Constitution of India. The Tenth Schedule of the India Constitution thus states provisions as to disqualification on grounds of defection. Paragraph 2(1)(a) of the said Schedule mentions that a member of a House belonging to any political party shall be disqualified from being a member of the House if he has voluntarily given up his membership of such political party. In pursuance of the said complaint, the Respondent No.1 i.e. The Hon’ble Speaker of Rajasthan Legislative Assembly issued a notice on the same date i.e. 14.07.2020 to the Petitioners seeking their explanation in the matter. The Petitioner No.6, in the meantime, clarified his intention of remaining associated with INC.
- The Petitioners expounded that the notice dated 14.07.2020 shall be quashed because none of the members indicated their intention to leave the membership of INC; mere disagreement by any member on certain policies of the party does not amount to acting against the interests of the party; absence of some members in 2 party meetings and disaccording with the decisions of the party are internal matters and proves no aim of voluntarily surrendering ones’ association with the party.
- The Petitioners further provided that the show cause notice issued by the speaker as on 14.07.2020 seeking the response of the Petitioners by or on 17.07.2020 is in contravention to the Rajasthan Legislative Assembly Members (Disqualification on the Ground of Defection) Rules, 1989 which provides that the Hon’ble Speaker must give 7 days to the members to respond to the show-cause notice.
- The Petitioners allege in the petition that the notice dated 14.07.2020 had been issued with a malafide intention and that the Petitioners have reason to believe that they shall be deprived of obtaining justice by due course of law and will also be disqualified from the Legislative Assembly because of the undue pressure put on the Hon’ble Speaker by the Chief Minister of the State.
- The Petitioner thus sought reliefs from the Hon’ble Court to Issue a writ of Mandamus declaring clause2(1)(a) of the Tenth Schedule as violative of the basic structure of the Indian Constitution; Issue appropriate order to set aside the show cause notice furnished by the Speaker of Rajasthan Legislative Assembly dated 14.07.2020; Issue reasonable direction declaring the Petitioners as qualified members of the House as well as INC.
Also Read: Anti-Defection Law, Rajasthan Controversy
ARGUMENTS PUT FORTH:
- Learned Counsel of the Petitioners, Mr. Harish Salve submitted that Paragraph 2(1)(a) of the Tenth Schedule of the Indian Constitution speaks about disqualification of members from the House on voluntarily giving up their membership which is not the case in the present matter as the Petitioners were exercising their Right to Freedom of Speech and Expression under Article 19(1)(a) of the Indian Constitution and have not ‘voluntarily’ given up their membership.
- The Learned Counsel of the Petitioners further stated that the notice dated 13.07.2020 was issued to the Petitioners with a malafide intention to alienate the Petitioners from the party without providing any adequate and valid reason.
- The learned counsel threw light upon the case cited in the complaint dated 13.07.2020, Rajendra Singh Rana Vs. Swami Prasad Maurya & Ors., (2007) 4 SCC 270 wherein in order to dissolve the assembly, the members of a party went against the wish of the Chief Minister to request the Governor to invite the leader of the Opposition party to form a Government and such conduct of the members of the original party was inferred as voluntary withdrawal from the party. Though, the counsel placed reliance on the judgment of I.R. Coelho (Dead) by Lrs. Vs. State of T.N., (2007) 2 SCC 1 and submitted that in the present matter, the Petitioners were exercising their Fundamental Right as provided under Article 19(1)(a) outside the house, which was taken away.
- Mr. Salve argued that it is visible that the Hon’ble Speaker is working under undue influence and not as an independent tribunal.
- The learned Counsel further contended that mere absence of members from party meetings indicates ‘dissent’ and not ‘defection’ as provided under Paragraph 2(1)(a) of the Tenth Schedule of Indian Constitution and that disagreement with the Chief Minister and other party members cannot be deemed to be even prima facie defection.
- Mr. Mukul Rohatgi, another learned counsel for the Petitioners submitted that if dissent is interpreted as relinquishing party membership then it would tamper the Right to freedom of speech and expression. He contended that the Speaker is being unjust with the Petitioners by giving them only 3 days’ time that too during COVID-19 pandemic. In order to prove the deceitful motive of the Speaker, he threw light upon the event which took place 9 months ago, wherein one Mr. Madan Dilawar, filed a complaint seeking disqualification of certain members in response to which no action was taken by the Speaker.
- Dr. Abhishek Singhvi, appearing on behalf of the Respondents questioned the maintainability of the petition in the Hon’ble Court stating that disqualification on account of defection falls within the adjudicatory powers of the Speaker only and Courts are kept outside the purview of the same.
- The learned counsel of the Respondents further submitted that the provisions of the Tenth Schedule of the Constitution of India are applicable not only to the conduct of the members within the House but also outside the House. In addition to this, Mr. Sanghvi submitted that the Rajasthan Legislative Assembly Members (Disqualification on the Ground of Defection) Rules, 1989 nowhere mentions a mandatory provision of 7 days to file a response to show cause notice rather the decision to give time to file a response is left with the Speaker of the House.
- Mr. Devadatt Kamat, also appearing for the Respondents cited the judgment in Shrimanth Balasahib Patil Vs. Karnataka Legislative Assembly, (2020) 2 SCC 595, wherein the party members did not participate in the party meetings and the Supreme Court held it is evident that the members have voluntarily given up their membership and are therefore subject to disqualification under the Tenth Schedule of the Indian Constitution.
JUDGMENT:
The Hon’ble Judges declared the writ petition maintainable directing the Speaker of the Rajasthan Legislative Assembly to refrain from taking any further action in the show cause notice against the Petitioners. The Judgment of the Rajasthan High Court came as a temporary relief to the Petitioners facing allegations of defection under the Tenth Schedule of the Indian Constitution.
CLICK HERE TO READ THE ENTIRE ORDER
