E-Paper
Why not approach high court first, Supreme Court asks 6 disqualified Himachal MLAs
The six rebel Congress lawmakers were disqualified by the speaker on February 29 for defying the Congress whip during the vote on the finance bill
NEW DELHI: The Supreme Court on Tuesday asked the six disqualified Congress legislators in Himachal Pradesh to list the ground on which they filed their petition in the top court without approaching the high court citing a violation of their fundamental rights.
“Tell us, why can’t you go to the high court,” a bench headed by justice Sanjiv Khanna asked the lawmakers represented by senior advocates Satya Pal Jain and Abhinav Mukherjee. “What is the fundamental right involved,” the bench, also comprising justices Dipankar Datta and PK Mishra, asked.
The six rebel Congress lawmakers, who were disqualified by the assembly speaker on February 29 after their dissension cost the party a Rajya Sabha seat and cast a shadow over the future of chief minister Sukhwinder Singh Sukhu, had approached the top court against the speaker’s decision under Article 32 of the Constitution which enables a citizen to approach the Supreme Court for enforcement of fundamental rights.
Jain, who had sought adjournment of the hearing since Harish Salve, who was leading them was not available, started to respond: “These are elected legislators. It is a rare case where they have been disqualified within 18 hours (from the time they received notice and judgment reserved by the speaker).”
As this was disputed by the other side appearing on caveat, the court posted the case for a hearing on March 18.
The six disqualified MLAs, Chaitanya Sharma, Davinder Kumar Bhutto, Inder Dutt Lakhanpal, Rajinder Rana, Ravi Thakur, and Sudhir Sharma, questioned the speaker Kuldeep Singh Pathania’s order, saying it was illegal and violated principles of natural justice.
The six, who had also cross-voted in the Rajya Sabha elections on February 27, were disqualified under the anti-defection law for defying the Congress whip during the vote on the finance bill.
In their petition to the top court, the disqualified MLAs said the speaker committed “jurisdictional error” since the order was passed under para 2(1)(a) of the Tenth Schedule which contemplates a situation where a legislator changes affiliation and leaves a political party. Instead, the petition said, the action of the six MLAs will fall under para 2(1)(b) where disqualification is contemplated for a legislator who dissents from the stand of the political party while remaining a member of the party.
The plea said the speaker’s order was “pre-meditated and suffers from illegality in as much as it was decided with a pre-determined mind” and the speaker failed to appreciate the facts and law on the point and the order was passed to serve the purposes of his original party Congress (I) and his political bosses.
Senior advocates Kapil Sibal, Abhishek Manu Singhvi and Mukul Rohatgi were appearing for the state government, chief whip and the Speaker. The caveat was filed in the Supreme Court by advocate Varun K Chopra on behalf of the chief whip and the state parliamentary affairs minister Harshvardhan Chauhan who moved the Speaker seeking disqualification of the six legislators. It said the Congress on February 15 issued a three-line whip directing all the 40 Congress MLAs to remain present in the assembly till February 29.
The disqualified MLAs also complained that they were not given enough time to respond as the speaker’s notice required them to appear on February 28 and that they had to file their preliminary response without being served with a copy of the disqualification petition against them. They argued that they should have been given at least a week to respond.
