| CITATION | 2014 SCC OnLine P&H 213 |
| DATE | 9 October, 2014 |
| COURT NAME | Punjab and Haryana High Court |
| PETITIONER | Kuldeep Bishnoi |
| RESPONDENT | Speaker, Haryana Vidhan Sabha & Others |
| JUDGE | K.Kannan |
INTRODUCTION
This case is one of the landmark cases, it represented the matter of disqualification of members of legislative assembly which are being described under the tenth schedule of the constitution. In other word it can be said to be the anti-defection laws. The major questions which were raised is related to the power and limits of the authority of the speaker to disqualify the member, the other aspect was the ambit of the term merger which is being mentioned in tenth schedule only. And also the involvement of judiciary in this kind of matters. The decision is critical in ensuring democratic accountability and safeguarding constitutional morals. It emphasizes the need of procedural fairness in all legislative disqualification judgments in order to retain public faith in the parliamentary system.
FACTS OF THE CASE
The Haryana Janhit Congress (Bhajan Lal) [HJC-BL], a political party led by Kuldeep Bishnoi, won five MLA seats in the 2009 Haryana Legislative Assembly elections.There were claims that these MLAs had willingly renounced their membership in the HJC-BL after they eventually allied themselves with the Indian National Congress (INC).According to the Tenth Schedule’s Paragraph 2(1)(a), voluntarily renouncing party membership is a reason for disqualification.Kuldeep Bishnoi petitioned the Speaker of the Haryana Vidhan Sabha to disqualify him.The Speaker denied the petition, citing that there had been a merger between HJC-BL and INC. and that the MLAs’ activities were covered by Paragraph 4 (merger clause). Kuldeep Bishnoi then appealed the Speaker’s decision to the Punjab & Haryana High Court under Article 226 of the Constitution.
ISSUES OF THE CASE
1.Did the five MLAs lose their eligibility under Tenth Schedule Paragraph 2(1)(a)?
2.Was the Speaker right to rule that a legitimate merger had taken place in accordance with paragraph 4?
3.What level of judicial review is possible for the Speaker’s decision?
JUDGMENT
The Speaker’s order was overturned by the Punjab and Haryana High Court, which also ruled that the MLAs might be disqualified under the Tenth Schedule. The Court concluded that:
1.According to the Tenth Schedule, a member of a House who voluntarily resigns from their party membership will be stripped of their eligibility. It is evident from the actions of the five MLAs who were elected on HJC-BL platforms but then switched parties that they voluntarily abandoned their party loyalty.There was no proof that these acts were carried out with HJC-BL’s approval or guidance. The requirements of Paragraph 2(1)(a) are thereby satisfied.
2. The founding political party merges with another party; andSuch a merger is approved by at least two-thirds of the legislative party’s members.In this instance, there was no organizational-level merger between INC and HJC-BL. The founding political party persisted in operating on its own. A merger under paragraph 4 cannot be defined as a group of MLAs joining another party.If the political parties do not really combine, the dependence on the two-thirds strength becomes meaningless. Individual lawmakers acting alone or in concert against their party cannot claim the exemption under paragraph 4.
3. Under the Tenth Schedule, the Speaker has a quasi-judicial role. Judicial review is applicable in circumstances of mala fide, perversity, or violations of constitutional principles, as established in Kihoto Hollohan v. Zachillhu.According to this Court, the Speaker: failed to conduct a separate evaluation of the law and the facts;disregarded the requirement for an inter-party merger;issued a ruling that was obviously arbitrary and unconstitutional.
Therefore, this Court has the authority to overturn such an order under Article 226.
Given the aforementioned conclusions, this Court maintains the following:
According to the Tenth Schedule’s Paragraph 2(1)(a), the five MLAs in question are no longer eligible to serve;
Since there is no proof of a merger between HJC-BL and INC, the defense of a legitimate merger under paragraph 4 is not applicable;
The Speaker’s decision is overturned and annulled due to its arbitrary, unlawful, and unconstitutional nature;
Within four weeks of the date of this order, the Speaker is instructed to reexamine the disqualification petition in compliance with the law and in light of this ruling.
REASONING
The Court clarified that a merger between two political parties—rather than just between groups of lawmakers—is required by Paragraph 4. The HJC-BL and INC did not unite as a result of a few MLAs changing their allegiance. Furthermore, until there was a parallel party-level merger, the two-thirds support that the departing MLAs claimed within the legislative party could not validate the action.
It was determined that the Speaker’s order could not be upheld under the constitution. In order to avoid arbitrary decisions and preserve democratic principles, the ruling reiterated that the Speaker’s authority, albeit being quasi-judicial, is subject to constitutional examination.
CONCLUSION
This case marks a critical turning point in the interpretation of the Constitution’s Tenth Schedule. The anti-defection law’s goal of preventing political defection and upholding the integrity of the electoral mandate is reaffirmed. The ruling confirms that the Speaker’s actions are subject to judicial review, particularly when they violate the morality of the constitution or are founded on an incorrect interpretation of party mergers. It also makes a strong statement about the constitutional role of courts in upholding democratic integrity and political accountability.
REFERENCES
- https://indiankanoon.org/doc/122054630/
- Kuldeep Bishnoi v. Speaker, Haryana Vidhan Sabha & Ors., 2014 SCC OnLine P&H 213
- Constitution of India, Tenth Schedule
- Articles 191 and 226 of the Constitution
Written by ADITI BAFNA, an Intern under Legal Vidhiya.
Disclaimer: The materials provided herein are intended solely for informational purposes. Accessing or using the site or materials does not establish an attorney-client relationship. The information presented on this site is not to be construed as legal or professional advice, and it should not be relied upon for such purposes or used as a substitute for advice from a licensed attorney in your state. Additionally, the viewpoint presented by the author is personal.
‘Social Media Manager’ and ‘Case Analyst’ of Legal Vidhiya.