Summary
The Supreme Court upheld refusal to receive documents about Sharad Yadav’s alleged post-disqualification political activity in the pending challenge to the Chairman’s decision. Those later events were not the foundation of the disqualification petition. It clarified, however, that Article 226 imposes no absolute bar on subsequent-event evidence: such material may be relevant to the earlier state of affairs or to moulding relief, consistently with fairness.
Issues
- Whether documents concerning later political activity should be added to the pending writ record.
- Whether subsequent events are categorically irrelevant in judicial review of a disqualification order.
Provisions considered
- Tenth Schedule, paragraph 2(1)(a), Constitution of IndiaDisqualification arises on voluntarily giving up party membership, with later adjudication referring back to the relevant conduct. (¶¶ 8, 9, 10, 11, 12)
- Article 226, Constitution of IndiaPermits consideration of relevant subsequent events in appropriate circumstances; the High Court’s refusal here did not establish an absolute exclusionary rule. (¶¶ 15, 16, 17, 18)
Held
- Voluntarily giving up membership is wider than formal resignation and may be inferred from conduct. Disqualification is incurred when the disqualifying act occurs; the later decision by the Speaker or Chairman does not postpone it. (¶¶ 9, 10, 11)
- The Chairman’s decision concerned the conduct underlying the September 2017 petition. Material concerning the alleged launch of a new party in May 2018 was not its foundation; rejection of the application to place it on the writ record disclosed no error on these facts. (¶¶ 12, 13, 14)
- A subsequent event or conduct may exceptionally illuminate the state of affairs when disqualification arose and may then be considered under Article 226. Subsequent facts may also matter to the right or manner of relief, subject to fairness to both sides. The High Court’s categorical wording could not be read as an inflexible legal prohibition. (¶¶ 15, 16, 17, 18)
Result
Appeal dismissed subject to the stated clarification; High Court requested to decide the pending writ petition expeditiously. The merits of the disqualification challenge remained for that court.