- Home
- /
- Top Stories
- /
- Supreme Court Refuses To Stay...
Supreme Court Refuses To Stay Disqualification Of Rebel Congress MLAs From HP Assembly; Issues Notice On Challenge
Awstika Das
18 March 2024 9:23 AM GMT
The Supreme Court on Tuesday (March 12) issued notice on a plea by six rebel MLAs of the Congress party challenging their disqualification from the Himachal Pradesh state assembly. However, the court clarified that their disqualification will not be stayed. At the same time, it agreed to examine the question of whether the recently announced fresh by-polls should be suspended.These MLAs...
The Supreme Court on Tuesday (March 12) issued notice on a plea by six rebel MLAs of the Congress party challenging their disqualification from the Himachal Pradesh state assembly. However, the court clarified that their disqualification will not be stayed. At the same time, it agreed to examine the question of whether the recently announced fresh by-polls should be suspended.
These MLAs had rebelled against their own government led by Chief Minister Sukhvinder Singh Sukhu by cross-voting during the Rajya Sabha election and later 'abstaining' from the budget vote in February, setting off a constitutional crisis in the state. As a result of their endorsement of BJP candidate Harsh Mahajan, Congress leader and Senior Advocate Abhishek Manu Singhvi lost the lone Rajya Sabha seat in the state despite a Congress majority in the assembly.
A bench of Justices Sanjiv Khanna and Dipankar Datta is hearing the writ petition filed by the rebel MLAs under Article 32 of the Constitution.
On the last occasion, while agreeing to defer the hearing at the behest of the petitioners' lawyer, Justice Khanna pointedly questioned the former legislators over their decision to not approach the high court. Notably, the bench expressed its doubts over the maintainability of this petition under Article 32, asking which fundamental rights of the petitioners were violated.
During today's hearing, Senior Advocate Harish Salve, representing the rebel MLAs, highlighted the sequence of events leading to their disqualification. He alleged that a whip purportedly issued by the Congress party on February 15, ahead of the Rajya Sabha elections, was not received by the petitioners.
Over the weekend, the state election commission announced that bypolls for the six vacant constituency seats will be held on June 1. When opposing counsel, Senior Advocate Kapil Sibal, pointed to this, Salve emphatically argued, “We are entitled to challenge and ask for a stay of this. Also, there has been no notification. Only the dates have been announced.”
Next, Salve told the court that a show cause notice was issued on February 27, asking the MLAs to appear before a committee to respond to a petition seeking their disqualification. These MLAs were summarily disqualified despite an objection raised in their reply, specifically pointing out that they had not received a copy of the petition, the senior counsel claimed.
“The answer to this is that you were sent the document not only by post but also on WhatsApp,” Justice Khanna countered. The judge then clarified the court's stance, stating that while it would issue notice on the plea, there would be no stay on the disqualification -
“We can issue notice, that's fine. But there will be no stay. Second, we won't allow you to vote and be a part of the legislative assembly. We won't even allow you to participate.”
“That's alright,” Salve accepted before raising concerns about the plea being rendered infructuous if the election is held as scheduled before the court delivers its verdict. The senior counsel exclaimed, “They cannot be told, sorry, elections have now been held and someone has already come in your place…”
“We will examine that part,” Justice Khanna assured.
However, Senior Advocate Abhishek Manu Singhvi objected to the notice being issued and a potential stay on the fresh elections. He argued, “Article 329 of the Constitution has kicked in by the notification of the election. There's no question of normally staying any fresh election process. There have been four judgments of this court to that effect.”
Justice Khanna disagreed. “Insofar as the question of staying the fresh elections...This will require examination. Otherwise, this will become infructuous,” the judge reasoned.
“The writ petition was filed before the notification. Then there will be a bar,” Justice Datta added.
Senior Advocate Satya Pal Jain at this juncture pointed out that the election commission has indicated that the filing of nominations for the election would be notified on May 7.
To this, Justice Khanna said, “The election commission may delay once we issue notice. That's what normally happens…”
At the end of the hearing, the bench pronounced, “Issue notice in the main writ petition as well as the stay application. Re-list in the week commencing May 6. Counter-affidavit to be filed within four weeks, rejoinder, if any, within one week.”
Additionally, during the exchange, Jain also attempted to impute 'mala fide' motives to the speaker of the assembly, to which Justice Khanna responded with a light-hearted remark, “This argument may work the other way around also sometimes.”
Background
The disqualified Congress MLAs, including Chaitanya Sharma from the Gagret seat, Davinder Kumar Bhutto from Kutlehar, Inder Dutt Lakhanpal from Barsar, Rajinder Rana from Sujanpur, Ravi Thakur from Lahaul-Spiti, and Sudhir Sharma from Dharamshala, have approached the apex court seeking relief against their disqualification under the anti-defection law.
They have challenged the decision of the Himachal Pradesh Assembly Speaker, Kuldeep Singh Pathania, who disqualified them for defying the party whip issued during the budget session.
During this session, a whip was issued by the Congress party, directing all 40 MLAs to remain present in the House to pass the cut motion and budget. Allegations were made against the six MLAs that they had defied this party whip, prompting the disqualification proceedings.
The disqualified MLAs, however, have argued that the disqualification was unjust and against the principles of natural justice. They contend that their actions were a matter of conscience and not a violation of the whip. The rebel MLAs assert that they had genuine reasons for abstaining from voting during the session.
Case Details
Chaitanya Sharma & Ors. v. Speaker, Himachal Pradesh Legislative Assembly & Ors. | Writ Petition (Civil) No. 156 of 2024
