Summary
The Court upheld the disqualification of seventeen Karnataka legislators for defection but set aside the Speaker’s direction extending disqualification until expiry of the Assembly’s term. Resignation does not defeat disqualification for earlier defection. The Speaker must confine scrutiny of resignations to genuineness and voluntariness and cannot independently prohibit re-election for the remaining term.
Issues
- Whether resignation prevented adjudication of prior defection.
- Whether the Speaker could disqualify members until the Assembly’s term expired.
- Whether the disqualification orders violated natural justice or required a Constitution Bench reference.
Provisions considered
- Article 190(3)(b), Constitution of IndiaScrutiny of resignation was confined to whether it was voluntary and genuine; extraneous political considerations were impermissible. (¶¶ 37, 40, 41, 42, 43, 44, 45, 46, 152)
- Article 191(2); Tenth Schedule, paragraphs 2(1) and 6, Constitution of IndiaDisqualification for earlier defection survived resignation. Judicial review of the Speaker’s decision remained available on the recognised limited grounds. (¶¶ 54, 55, 56, 59, 63, 68, 70, 152)
- Article 164(1B), Constitution of IndiaThe ministerial disability ends upon the original term’s expiry or re-election, whichever occurs earlier; it does not empower the Speaker to bar re-election. (¶¶ 66, 84, 85, 86, 111, 152)
- Article 145(3), Constitution of IndiaReference required a substantial constitutional question necessary to disposal; authoritative precedents already governed the material questions. (¶¶ 118, 120, 121, 122, 123, 124, 129)
Held
- Resignation cannot extinguish pending or impending proceedings for acts of defection committed earlier: disqualification relates back to the defection. (¶¶ 47, 54, 55, 56, 152)
- A genuine and voluntary resignation must be accepted. The Speaker cannot reject it on extraneous considerations; the Court did not separately adjudicate the merits of non-acceptance in view of subsequent disqualification. (¶¶ 40, 41, 42, 43, 44, 45, 46)
- The Speaker has no constitutional power to prescribe disqualification until the Assembly’s remaining term ends. The statutory constitutional disabilities concerning ministerial and remunerative political office do not prohibit re-election. (¶¶ 84, 85, 86, 109, 110, 111, 152)
- The orders were supported by the members’ conduct and material showing voluntary abandonment of party membership. The Court found no perversity, established mala fides or denial of effective opportunity warranting interference. (¶¶ 79, 80, 81, 83, 134, 138, 143, 144, 149, 150)
- The adequacy of the shorter hearing periods turned on these exceptional facts. Speakers must afford sufficient opportunity and ordinarily observe the legislature’s prescribed time limits. (¶¶ 151, 152)
- Orders of the Speaker acting quasi-judicially are amenable to Article 32, though a challenger should ordinarily first approach the High Court. No substantial constitutional question requiring a larger Bench arose here. (¶¶ 29, 30, 31, 120, 121, 122, 124, 125, 129, 152)
Result
Writ petitions disposed of. The Speaker’s orders of 25 and 28 July 2019 were upheld insofar as they disqualified the petitioners. The portions fixing disqualification until expiry of the fifteenth Karnataka Legislative Assembly’s term were set aside. Reference to a larger Bench was declined; pending applications were disposed of.