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 that Rules 6 and 7 were directory, not mandatory, and the principles of natural justice were not breached. By contesting as an independent candidate, the petitioner voluntarily gave up Congress Party membership, leading to disqualification under the Tenth Schedule. The Court dismissed the writ petition, affirming the disqualification decision.

---

---

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.

---