Anti-defection law: conduct may show voluntary surrender of party membership, and an operative stay controls split-counting.

Conduct inconsistent with party allegiance can amount to "voluntarily giving up membership" under anti-defection law, and the Speaker may infer such conduct from surrounding facts rather than formal resignation. The procedural rules made by the Speaker regulate the process under the Tenth Schedule but are not themselves constitutional mandates; review is limited to constitutional infirmity, mala fides, breach of natural justice, or perversity. The text also notes that the split exception applies only where a genuine faction has at least one-third strength, and that an operative judicial stay must be respected when counting members for that threshold. On the stated facts, the two disqualifications were upheld, while the split-based challenge succeeded.

---

---

Issues: (i) Whether members disqualified under the anti-defection provisions had voluntarily given up membership of their political party and whether the Speaker's order suffered from procedural infirmity or breach of natural justice; (ii) Whether, for the purpose of the split exception, members covered by an operative stay order could be excluded from the count, and whether the claimed split satisfied the one-third requirement.

Issue (i): Whether members disqualified under the anti-defection provisions had voluntarily given up membership of their political party and whether the Speaker's order suffered from procedural infirmity or breach of natural justice.

Analysis: The expression "voluntarily given up membership" is of wider amplitude than formal resignation and may be inferred from conduct. The procedural requirements in the Speaker-made rules regulate the process under the Tenth Schedule and do not rise to the level of constitutional mandates. Judicial review remains confined to constitutional infirmity, mala fides, breach of natural justice, or perversity. On the facts, the members admitted going to the Governor with rival claimants, their replies did not effectively deny the material allegation, the short time for reply caused no prejudice, and the reference to newspaper photographs and related circumstances did not vitiate the decision. The alleged denial of opportunity to lead evidence also caused no legal prejudice.

Conclusion: The disqualification of the two members was upheld and their challenge failed.

Issue (ii): Whether, for the purpose of the split exception, members covered by an operative stay order could be excluded from the count, and whether the claimed split satisfied the one-third requirement.

Analysis: Paragraph 3 protects a genuine split only if the faction consists of not less than one-third of the legislature party. The burden to establish the split lay on the member claiming the benefit. An interim stay order passed by the High Court was binding until set aside and could not be ignored by the Speaker. Once the two members protected by the stay order were counted, the faction satisfied the numerical requirement. Exclusion of one member on the basis of unproved hostility to the declaration was unnecessary to the result.

Conclusion: The order disqualifying Ravi Naik was invalid and was set aside.

Final Conclusion: The appeal by the two disqualified members failed, while the appeal by Ravi Naik succeeded because the Speaker could not disregard the operative stay order when applying the split exception under the anti-defection provisions.

Ratio Decidendi: Conduct inconsistent with party allegiance can amount to voluntarily giving up membership, but disqualification under the anti-defection law must conform to constitutional limits, and an operative judicial stay must be obeyed while determining whether a split satisfies the one-third threshold.

---