Explore the intricate legal analysis undertaken by the court in a recent case concerning disqualification proceedings. The court delved into the Speaker’s decision-making process, the admissibility of evidence, and the importance of parties being given an opportunity to present their viewpoints. Follow this case for insights into how legal determinations are made in such matters.
Facts
- The hearing of the disqualification cases was preponed from 22.06.2020 to 18.06.2020 at 1:00 p.m. due to the Speaker’s improved health condition and the urgent need for early disposal as directed by the Supreme Court.
- The notice dated 17.06.2020 about the preponement was challenged in Court, but the writ petitioner and counsel did not appear before the Tribunal.
- The disqualification cases were heard and disposed of by the Speaker in the absence of the writ petitioner and counsel.
- The Speaker disqualified the writ petitioner for being a member of the Manipur Legislative Assembly based on evidence and news reports that were not denied or challenged.
- The High Court found no grounds to interfere with the Speaker’s decision and upheld the disqualification of the writ petitioner.
- The Court examined records showing the filing of the Disqualification Cases and the subsequent proceedings leading to the disqualification of the writ petitioner.
- The original applicants did not file any appearance in the disqualification cases.
- The Speaker allowed Disqualification Cases No.2 of 2019, 7 of 2019, and 9 of 2019 in the absence of any representation from either side.
- An authenticated document, the original Newspaper ‘Poknapham Local Daily,’ proved that the respondent voluntarily left the INC party.
- Challenges were raised regarding the reliance on newspaper reports for disqualification proceedings.
- Preliminary objections on the maintainability of disqualification cases were filed by the writ petitioner.
- The appellant denied allegations of joining the BJP party leading to disqualification.
- Disqualification petitions were based on newspaper reports indicating the appellant’s alignment with BJP.
- Communications were sent to the appellant informing about the preponed hearing dates.
- The sudden rescheduling of the petitions without reason appeared unfair and unreasonable to the court.
Also Read: Electoral Malpractices in Mayor Election
Issue
- Speaker proceeded with proceedings without prior notice to the parties involved
- Parties were not given an opportunity to be heard
- This action may require consideration by the Court
- Any order passed without hearing parties or their counsels may be deemed bad in law
Also Read: Balancing Power and Transparency: Electoral Bonds Struck Down, Disclosure Mandated
Analysis
- The High Court affirmed the order passed by the Speaker and dismissed the writ petitions filed by the appellant.
- The appellant was found to have voluntarily given up his membership of the INC and joined the BJP, leading to disqualification.
- The respondent did not deny the existence of the newspaper report, which was considered as evidence in the case.
- The matter required the leading of evidence, as noted by the learned counsel representing the Speaker during the proceedings.
- None of the parties were represented before the Speaker during the hearing of the case.
- The petitions were initially scheduled for hearing on 22.06.2020 but were preponed to 18.06.2020 without any clear urgency being indicated in the record.
Also Read: Recall of Resolution Plan Approval: Legal Analysis
Decision
- The Speaker is requested to dispose of the pending 11 Disqualification Applications as early as possible in accordance with the law.
- The appeals are allowed with no order as to costs.
- Leading of evidence and providing adequate opportunity to present viewpoints were considered essential features of the matter.
- The orders passed by the Speaker and the High Court are set aside, and the Disqualification Cases are restored to the file of the Speaker for a fresh decision based purely on merits.
- Until the matter is decided by the Speaker, the appellant is allowed to continue representing the electorate in the concerned house of the Legislature.
- The matters have been pending in the Courts of law for a while.
Case Title: SHRI KSHETRIMAYUM BIREN SINGH Vs. THE HONBLE SPEAKER MANIPUR LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY (2021 INSC 848)
Case Number: C.A. No.-007557-007559 / 2021
