2004 (10) TMI 581 - SC - Indian Laws

Supreme Court Upholds Disqualification for Bihar Legislative Council Membership

The Supreme Court upheld the Chairman's decision that the petitioner was disqualified from the Bihar Legislative Council membership. The Court emphasized ... Disqualification on ground of defection - voluntarily given up membership - finality of Speaker/Chairman's decision under Paragraph 6 - exclusion of judicial review under Paragraph 7 limited to specified grounds - directory nature of procedural rules framed under Paragraph 8 - rules of natural justice in Tenth Schedule proceedingsDisqualification on ground of defection - voluntarily given up membership - The petitioner was disqualified under paragraph 2(1)(a) of the Tenth Schedule for contesting the parliamentary election as an independent candidate after having been elected on a party ticket. - HELD THAT: - On the admitted facts that the petitioner was elected to the Legislative Council on the Indian National Congress ticket and subsequently contested the Lok Sabha election as an independent candidate, the Chairman rightly concluded that the petitioner had voluntarily given up his membership of the party. The Court applied the explanation to paragraph 2(1) and the principles in Ravi S. Naik and G. Viswanathan that conduct inconsistent with continued membership-whether express or implied-can justify an inference of voluntary relinquishment. On these facts the finding of disqualification under paragraph 2(1)(a) is one which could reasonably and possibly have been arrived at. [Paras 11, 20]The Chairman's conclusion that the petitioner incurred disqualification under paragraph 2(1)(a) is sustained.Directory nature of procedural rules framed under Paragraph 8 - deeming provision and immunity for procedural irregularities - Non-compliance with the verification/affidavit requirement in Rules 6 and 7 did not oust the Chairman's jurisdiction or invalidate the proceedings. - HELD THAT: - Rules 6 and 7, framed under paragraph 8, are procedural and intended to facilitate the Chairman's discharge of the duty under paragraph 6; they cannot be given a strict interpretation that would frustrate the constitutional purpose of the Tenth Schedule. The petition in the present case was signed and verified in substance and omission to file a formal affidavit under Order VI Rule 15(4) CPC is a procedural irregularity. Following precedent, such irregularity is directory and, being procedural, is immune from being a ground for invalidating the Chairman's decision under the protection afforded by paragraph 6(2) and the limited scope of judicial review recognised in Kihoto Hollohan. [Paras 14, 16, 18]The requirements of Rules 6 and 7 are directory; their non-strict compliance did not render the proceedings invalid or deprive the Chairman of jurisdiction.Rules of natural justice in Tenth Schedule proceedings - exclusion of judicial review under Paragraph 7 limited to specified grounds - There was no violation of principles of natural justice in the Chairman's conduct of the inquiry. - HELD THAT: - The petitioner was given notice, opportunities to file replies and to be personally heard; specific dates for personal hearing were communicated though the petitioner did not avail himself of those opportunities. The material relied upon merely recorded that the petitioner, elected on a Congress ticket, contested the parliamentary election as an independent-facts admitted by the petitioner. Non-supply of a copy of a letter from the party leader did not cause prejudice in the circumstances. Given paragraph 7's restriction on judicial intervention and the limited grounds for review (constitutional mandates, mala fides, breach of natural justice and perversity), the facts do not disclose breach of natural justice or other reviewable infirmity. [Paras 19]No breach of natural justice is made out; the Chairman's proceedings do not suffer from a reviewable infirmity on that ground.Final Conclusion: The petition is dismissed. The Chairman's order dated 26th June, 2004 holding the petitioner disqualified under paragraph 2(1)(a) of the Tenth Schedule is upheld; procedural non-compliance did not vitiate the proceedings and no breach of natural justice or other reviewable defect was shown. Issues Involved:1. Compliance with Rules 6 and 7 of the Bihar Legislative Council Members (Disqualification on ground of Defection) Rules, 1994.2. Violation of principles of natural justice.3. Voluntary relinquishment of membership of a political party under paragraph 2(1)(a) of the Tenth Schedule.Issue-wise Detailed Analysis:1. Compliance with Rules 6 and 7 of the Bihar Legislative Council Members (Disqualification on ground of Defection) Rules, 1994:The petitioner argued that the Chairman's assumption of jurisdiction was illegal due to non-compliance with Rules 6 and 7. Specifically, the petition filed by Shri Salman Rageev was not signed and verified in the manner laid down in the CPC for verification of pleadings, and no affidavit was filed in support of the petition as required by sub-rule (4) of Order VI Rule 15 CPC. The court held that the provisions of Rules 6 and 7 are directory in nature. The purpose of these rules is to facilitate the Chairman's duties under the Tenth Schedule, not to obstruct the process with technicalities. The court emphasized that the Tenth Schedule does not require a formal petition for the Chairman to assume jurisdiction. Even if the petition was not strictly compliant, the Chairman's jurisdiction remains valid. The court concluded that the petition's non-compliance with technical requirements did not invalidate the proceedings.2. Violation of principles of natural justice:The petitioner contended that he was not given a proper opportunity for a personal hearing and that material relied upon by the Chairman was not disclosed to him. The court found that the petitioner was given ample opportunity for a personal hearing but he did not avail of it. The Secretary of the Bihar Legislative Council had sent multiple communications to the petitioner, informing him of the need to clarify his position and inviting him for a personal hearing. The petitioner repeatedly requested more time but ultimately did not appear for the hearing. Regarding the non-supply of the letter from the leader of the Indian National Congress in the Bihar Legislative Council, the court noted that the relevant facts stated in the letter were already admitted by the petitioner. Thus, no prejudice was caused to the petitioner, and no principles of natural justice were violated.3. Voluntary relinquishment of membership of a political party under paragraph 2(1)(a) of the Tenth Schedule:The petitioner argued that he had not voluntarily given up his membership of the Congress Party by contesting the Lok Sabha Election as an independent candidate. The court referred to previous decisions, including Ravi S. Naik v. Union of India and G. Viswanathan v. Hon'ble Speaker Tamil Nadu Legislative Assembly, which established that 'voluntarily given up membership' has a broader connotation than resignation. The conduct of a member can imply voluntary relinquishment of party membership. The court found that by contesting the parliamentary election as an independent candidate, the petitioner had voluntarily given up his membership of the Congress Party. The Chairman's decision that the petitioner was disqualified under paragraph 2(1)(a) of the Tenth Schedule was deemed correct and reasonable.Conclusion:The Supreme Court dismissed the writ petition, upholding the Chairman's decision that the petitioner was disqualified for being a member of the Bihar Legislative Council. The court affirmed that the procedural rules were directory, not mandatory, and that the principles of natural justice were not violated. The petitioner's conduct of contesting the election as an independent candidate constituted voluntary relinquishment of his party membership, leading to his disqualification.