FACTS IN BRIEF :- The petitioner was elected as a member of the Bihar Legislative Council (BLC) as a candidate of Indian National Congress. Thereafter the notification for holding elections the Lok Sabha was issued. The petitioner contested the said election from another constituency as an independent candidate. One Salman Rageev, a member of BLC, sent a petition to the Chairman of the Legislative Council stating that the petitioner, who was a member of the Congress Party, had contested the parliamentary election as an independent candidate and consequently in view of the provisions of the Tenth Schedule to the Constitution had become disqualified for being a member of the House. Thereupon the petitioner was asked to submit his explanation. After considering the explanation tendered by him, the Chairman of the Legislative Council passed an order holding that the petitioner that by contesting election as an independent candidate while he was already a member from Congress, he had voluntarily given up his membership of the Congress party and therefore he was disqualified from being a member of the House in view of paragraph 2(1)(a) of the Tenth Schedule read with Article 191 (2) of the Constitution and the seat held by him in the House has become vacant. This was contested before the Supreme Court.
ARGUMENTS:- The petitioner argued that, (a) in the absence of compliance of Rules 6 and 7 of the Bihar Legislative Council Members (Disqualification on ground of Defection) Rules, 1994, the assumption of jurisdiction by the Chairman in initiating the proceedings whereunder the petitioner was held to be disqualified for being a member of the House, was illegal, (b) there was a violation of the principles of natural justice as the material relied upon by the Chairman was not disclosed to the petitioner nor a proper opportunity of personal hearing was afforded to him, (c) it could not be assumed that the petitioner had voluntarily given up membership of a political party by contesting the Lok Sabha Election as an independent candidate and, therefore, he had not incurred any disqualification within the meaning of paragraph 2(1)(a) of the Tenth Schedule.
JUDGMENT:- The Apex Court held that the Chairman of the Legislative Council has held that since the fact that the petitioner had been elected to the Legislative Council on the ticket of the Indian National Congress and he had contested the parliamentary election as an independent candidate was established and in fact was also accepted by the Petitioner, there could be no escape from the conclusion that the petitioner has incurred the disqualification under paragraph 2(1)(a) of the Schedule and therefore the decision of the Chairman was correct.
FOR COMMON MAN:- Giving full support towards reducing this menacing element of political clout in the Indian political arena, the Supreme Court declared in this case in categorical terms that prohibitive restrictions such as the anti-defection law shall be interpreted in widest terms. The analogy accepted by the Court of implied change in party affiliated shows the concern of the Court towards curbing such unhealthy practices on the part of the politicians.
0 Comments