E-Paper
Sachin Pilot’s petition is not maintainable says Rajasthan speaker: All details here
Sachin Pilot has challenged the disqualification notices sent by the Rajasthan assembly secretariat in the high court.
Speaker of the Rajasthan assembly has told Rajasthan High Court that Congress rebel Sachin Pilot’s petition questioning the Tenth Schedule of constitution pertaining to the anti-defection law cannot be entertained since it may render all related judgments of the Supreme Court useless if allowed.
Senior advocate and Congress leader Abhishek Manu Singhvi, who is representing speaker C P Joshi, also argued that his client was within his remit while taking into account dissidents’ speeches and activities even outside the House to decide a disqualification petition. He made the arguments while asking the court to allow Joshi to join the proceedings in the case filed by Pilot and his associates.
Sachin Pilot and his team, represented by senior advocate Harish Salve, have questioned the anti-defection law and if it can be applied on incidents outside the assembly, alleging that permitting so would allow its misuse by political parties against elected members. Pilot’s legal argument also cites infringement of freedom of speech if such a wide berth is allowed for action against elected representatives.
Singhvi argued that the Speaker’s consideration of “allegations of speech and activities outside the House” is not mala fide and within the contours of the Constitution. He claimed that assembly speakers across state legislatures have done so in a manner consistent with the Tenth Schedule and in cases “identical” to the current one.
The core legal debate in the case revolves around the application of the Tenth Schedule of the constitution which has been challenged by Salve.
Singhvi, however, argued that the challenge to its constitutionality was not maintainable.
“If the challenge to constitutionality of the Tenth Schedule is allowed, all judgments of the Supreme Court [including the landmark decision in Kihoto Hollohan (1992)] would be rendered useless by the High Court. Their argument is unsupported by law and is based on implausible leaps of imagination,” he submitted to the court.
On the issue of sufficient notice period, Singhvi argued that a decision on this is the sole prerogative of the speaker of the house. He elaborated that there is no “constitutionally prescribed period” for the notice period and it is merely “directory” in nature and therefore it can’t be claimed as a matter of Constitutional right.
Singhvi also stated that it was “bizarre” for the defendants to oppose the speaker’s application for becoming a party to the case since he is the decider of the proceedings of disqualification.
“It is bizarre that the Petitioners oppose such addition. It is done with an obtuse intention of preventing the Court from questioning the maintainability of the Petition, which he would’ve done,” Singhvi argued in the court.
19 MLAs were served notices for disqualification on Tuesday and given time till Friday to reply. The notices were served on the recommendation by Congress chief whip who accused Pilot and 18 other MLAs of anti-party activities citing they had failed to attend two Congress Legislature Party (CLP) meetings, held on Monday and Tuesday and given alleged anti party statements.
The Pilot camp, however, argues that a party whip applies only when the assembly is in session.
The arguments will resume when the court reconvenes on Monday. The matter is adjourned to July 21 for further hearing.
