Supreme Court won’t stay 9 MLAs’ disqualification

Ahead of the floor test, ousted Uttarakhand chief minister Harish Rawat on Monday got a shot in the arm with the Supreme Court refusing to stay the Uttarakhand high court verdict dismissing the petitions of nine Congress MLAs challenging their disqualification by the Speaker.

Since a bench of Justices Dipak Misra and Shiva Kirti Singh refused to stay the verdict delivered earlier on Monday, the nine MLAs cannot take part in the voting in the Assembly on May 10. The bench also rejected their pleas that their votes need not be counted but kept in a separate sealed cover.

The Uttarakhand high court, in its verdict delivered Monday morning, said, “By their (nine MLAs) conduct, it has been established that they have ‘voluntarily given up membership of their political party’, even if they have not become members of any other political party. In a petition of this nature, a quasi-judicial authority, like the Speaker, should make an endeavour to decide the petition at an early date, although not in ‘undue haste’. This court does not find, from the documents on record, that the Speaker passed the impugned order in ‘undue haste’. Any judicial or quasi-judicial authority will be criticised in any way if he decides the lis before him early or if he sits over the matter for long. Striking a balance between the two is a golden rule.”

The high court also said that it is apparent on the basis of documents on record, in the instant case, that the opportunity to the liking of the petitioners was not granted by the Speaker, but that opportunity cannot be termed as “insufficient opportunity”.

“The petitioners are clearly the victims of their own actions, probably not knowing fully well that it will take them so far. The court is sympathetic to them. Such types of things happen when people assemble together. But, one should not forget that they are responsible lawmakers. They make the law, which is implemented by the Executive and is adjudicated by the Judiciary. This court does not find, from the documents on record that the Speaker passed the impugned order in ‘undue haste’.

It said that this judgment shall come in the way of Speaker-party respondent No. 1 to review his own order, in accordance with law, if the petitioners are so advised to move for the same, on any of the grounds available to them in law.

Assailing this judgment, the nine MLAs rushed to the apex court and the matter was heard in the afternoon. Senior counsel Aryama Sundaram, appearing for the MLAs, contended that dissent within the party cannot be construed as giving up membership of the party. They were aggrieved over the decision of the Speaker not to have a division during the voting on the Appropriation Bill and chief minister Rawat for his actions.

Since the Speaker had declared the motion passed, the question of their voting against the party’s decision did not arise, he argued, and pleaded for a stay of the impugned order to enable them to vote in Tuesday’s floor test.

Senior counsel Kapil Sibal and Abhishek Singhvi opposed the stay and said the Speaker’s order on disqualification is final and cannot be questioned in a court of law. Since they had already been removed from the Assembly, they cannot be permitted to vote on Tuesday.

The bench agreed with Mr Sibal and refused to stay the judgment. The bench posted the matter for further hearing on July 12, when the plea for interim stay will be considered.