2012 (10) TMI 29 - SC - Indian Laws

Disqualification of five MLAs from effectively functioning as members of the Haryana Vidhan Sabha - whether the High Court was competent to pass interim orders under its powers of judicial review under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution when the disqualification proceedings were pending before the Speaker ? - Held that - the High Court had no jurisdiction to pass such an order, which was in the domain of the Speaker. The High Court assumed the jurisdiction which it never had in making the interim order which had the effect of preventing the five MLAs in question from effectively functioning as Members of the Haryana Vidhan Sabha. The direction given by the learned Single Judge to the Speaker, as endorsed by the Division Bench, is, therefore, upheld to the extent that it directs the Speaker to decide the petitions for disqualification of the five MLAs within a period of four months. The said direction shall, therefore, be given effect to by Speaker. The remaining portion of the order disqualifying the five MLAs from effectively functioning as Members of the Haryana Vidhan Sabha is set aside. The said five MLAs would, therefore, be entitled to fully function as Members of the Haryana Vidhan Sabha without any restrictions, subject to the final decision that may be rendered by the Speaker in the disqualification petitions filed under paragraph 6 of the Tenth Schedule to the Constitution. 49. The Speaker shall dispose of the pending applications for disqualification of the five MLAs in question within a period of three months from the date of communication of this order.

Issues Involved:
1. Jurisdiction of High Court under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution to issue interim directions to a Member of the House while disqualification petitions are pending before the Speaker.
2. High Court's power to issue mandatory directions to the Speaker to dispose of disqualification petitions within a specified time.
3. High Court's authority to interfere with disqualification proceedings pending before the Speaker and pass interim orders disqualifying a Member.
4. Simultaneous proceedings of a disqualification petition before the Speaker and a parallel Writ Petition seeking the same relief.
5. High Court's jurisdiction to give directions under Order 41 Rule 33 of the Code of Civil Procedure in proceedings under Article 226 of the Constitution.

Detailed Analysis:

Jurisdiction of High Court under Articles 226 and 227
The High Court, under Articles 226 and 227, does not have the jurisdiction to issue interim directions to a Member of the House while disqualification petitions are pending before the Speaker. The Supreme Court emphasized that the Speaker is the constitutional authority vested with the power to decide disqualification petitions under paragraph 6 of the Tenth Schedule. Judicial review by the High Court is permissible only after the Speaker has made a final decision, as stated in Kihoto Hollohan vs. Zachillhu [(1992) Supp. (2) SCC 651].

High Court's Power to Issue Mandatory Directions to the Speaker
The High Court cannot issue mandatory directions to the Speaker to dispose of disqualification petitions within a specified time. The Supreme Court highlighted that the Speaker, as a constitutional authority, has exclusive jurisdiction to decide on disqualification matters, and the High Court's intervention prior to the Speaker's final decision is not permissible.

High Court's Authority to Interfere with Disqualification Proceedings
The High Court does not have the authority to interfere with disqualification proceedings pending before the Speaker and pass interim orders disqualifying a Member. The Supreme Court noted that such interim orders are beyond the jurisdiction of the High Court, as the Speaker is the designated authority to decide on disqualification under paragraph 6 of the Tenth Schedule.

Simultaneous Proceedings of Disqualification Petition and Writ Petition
The Supreme Court held that parallel proceedings of a disqualification petition before the Speaker and a Writ Petition seeking the same relief are not permissible. The Speaker must first decide on the disqualification petitions, and only then can the High Court's jurisdiction under Article 226 be invoked for judicial review of the Speaker's decision.

High Court's Jurisdiction under Order 41 Rule 33 CPC
The High Court's jurisdiction to give directions under Order 41 Rule 33 of the Code of Civil Procedure in proceedings under Article 226 of the Constitution is limited. The Supreme Court clarified that the principles of Order 41 Rule 33 CPC, which allow the Appellate Court to pass any decree or order, cannot be applied to matters involving constitutional provisions of the Tenth Schedule. The High Court's interim order disqualifying the five MLAs from functioning as Members of the Haryana Vidhan Sabha was beyond its jurisdiction.

Conclusion:
The Supreme Court dismissed the appeal filed by the Speaker of the Haryana Vidhan Sabha, upholding the direction to decide the disqualification petitions within four months. However, it set aside the High Court's interim order disqualifying the five MLAs from functioning as Members of the Haryana Vidhan Sabha. The five MLAs are entitled to function fully as Members without restrictions, subject to the Speaker's final decision on the disqualification petitions. The Speaker is directed to dispose of the disqualification petitions within three months from the date of communication of the Supreme Court's order. Each party is to bear its own costs.

← Previous Next →