SC to hear BSP rebels? plea on Monday
THE SUPREME Court will hear on Monday a petition filed by several dissident BSP MLAs (now with UP CM Mulayam Singh), challenging the Allahabad High Court order sending all issues relating to the 2003 split in the BSP legislature party, the formation of a new outfit and its merger with the SP, back to the Assembly Speaker to decide afresh.india Updated: Mar 04, 2006 01:38 IST
THE SUPREME Court will hear on Monday a petition filed by several dissident BSP MLAs (now with UP CM Mulayam Singh), challenging the Allahabad High Court
order sending all issues relating to the 2003 split in the BSP legislature party, the formation of a new outfit and its merger with the SP, back to the Assembly Speaker to decide afresh.
A three-judge bench, headed by Chief Justice Y.K. Sabharwal, posted the matter for hearing on Monday when their counsel Mukul Rohtagi mentioned it before the bench. Among other things, the petition seeks a two-week interim stay on the operation of the High Court order.
The petition pointed out that the “present government had smoothly functioned for about two-and-a-half-years on the basis of the present position in the House…”
“It is noteworthy that the term of the 14th Legislative Assembly is expiring in February 2007 and therefore less than a year of the term remains...The present judgment would have a serious adverse effect on the functioning of the present government and the injury would be irreparable,” it said.
The petition stated that there was “political confusion” in the wake of the judgment of remand and “attempts to destabilize” the State government and “as usual Raj Bhawan is being used by the Congress and the BSP for this purpose”.
It also stated that the matter needed to be placed before a Constitution bench as it involved a substantial question of law of general importance and interpretation of the Constitution in the context of the Tenth Schedule (Anti-Defection Law). It also involves the inter-relationship between para 2 (disqualification) and 3 (on split which has been deleted now).
It said that several issues needed to be interpreted by the court, such as whether the claim of a split involved purely numerical determination, whether a split was an administrative decision and whether it was a one-tine phenomenon or it could happen over a couple of days.
The petition also sought to know whether the nature of judicial review would vary in case the Speaker’s decisions were of a purely administrative nature or if it were of a quasi-judicial nature.