Supreme Court to examine if sacked MP is bound by whip

New Delhi: The Supreme Court on Monday referred to a larger bench the issue whether an expelled member of Parliament or an MLA can be subjected to disqualification by the party even after his or her expulsion.

A bench of Justices Dipak Misra and A.M. Kanwilkar issued notice to the Centre on a writ petition filed by Amar Singh, MP representing Samajwadi Party, challenging the provisions of 10th Schedule of the Constitution relating to defections. He sought a declaration that the provisions of 10th Schedule to the Constitution, to the extent that it applies to an expelled member, to be violative of the basic structure of the Constitution

The apex court in August 2016 had disposed of similar petitions filed by Mr Singh and Ms Jayaprada when they were expelled by Samajwadi Party on the ground that the tenure of the petitioners had come to an end. In the present writ petition Mr Singh said the question of law has to be answered by the apex court.     

He argued that expelled members were not bound by party whip and the Supreme Court had taken an erroneous view in 1996 that even after expulsion an MP must abide by the whip to prevent disqualification. He said that by expelling a Member “you are creating a situation where he is neither here nor there.”

He pointed that it was the intention of the legislature not to include expelled members of a political party within the category of persons who could be clubbed with the category of persons who voluntarily resigned from membership of their parties. But the same was introduced following the apex court judgment. As a result the members of the House who are expelled from their parties on whose banner they had been elected to the House are left completely vulnerable to the whims and fancy of the leader of their parties.

In its order the bench said  “As we find, in the case at hand, the term of the petitioner shall be up to 04.07.2022. Thus, the reference that was made earlier remains to be dealt with as the same has not been answered with the efflux of time. As the question remains alive today, we think it appropriate that the matter should be placed before the larger bench for consideration of the questions raised in the petition.”