2011 (5) TMI 1157 - SC - Indian Laws

Summary

Issues Involved:
1. Voluntary resignation from party membership.
2. Compliance with procedural rules and principles of natural justice.
3. Allegations of bias and mala fide actions by the Speaker.
4. Scope of judicial review of the Speaker's order under the Tenth Schedule of the Constitution.

Detailed Analysis:

1. Voluntary Resignation from Party Membership:
The primary issue was whether the appellants voluntarily gave up their membership of the Bharatiya Janata Party (BJP). The appellants had written to the Governor expressing their disillusionment with the functioning of the government led by the Chief Minister and withdrew their support. The Speaker concluded that this act, coupled with their conduct, indicated they had voluntarily given up their membership, thus attracting disqualification under paragraph 2(1)(a) of the Tenth Schedule. However, the appellants argued that they did not leave the party but only withdrew support from the government led by the Chief Minister, and were willing to support any other BJP-led government.

2. Compliance with Procedural Rules and Principles of Natural Justice:
The appellants contended that the Speaker violated Rules 6 and 7 of the Karnataka Legislative Assembly (Disqualification of Members on Ground of Defection) Rules, 1986, by not giving them the mandated seven days to respond to the show-cause notices. Instead, they were given only three days, which they argued was insufficient and denied them a fair opportunity to present their case. The Speaker argued that the rules were directory, not mandatory, and that the appellants had filed detailed replies, indicating no prejudice was caused. However, the court found that the Speaker's actions did not meet the twin tests of natural justice and fair play.

3. Allegations of Bias and Mala Fide Actions by the Speaker:
The appellants alleged that the Speaker acted in hot haste and with bias to disqualify them before the trust vote scheduled for 11th October 2010. The court noted that the Speaker's conduct, including not providing the appellants with the affidavits of K.S. Eswarappa, M.P. Renukacharya, and Narasimha Nayak, and preponing the deadline for submitting replies, indicated a partisan approach. The Speaker's reliance on these affidavits without giving the appellants an opportunity to respond was seen as a denial of natural justice.

4. Scope of Judicial Review of the Speaker's Order:
The court reaffirmed that the Speaker's order, while final under paragraph 6 of the Tenth Schedule, is subject to judicial review on grounds of violation of constitutional mandates, mala fides, non-compliance with natural justice, and perversity. The court found that the Speaker's order did not meet the required standards of fairness and impartiality, and thus warranted judicial intervention.

Conclusion:
The court set aside the Speaker's order disqualifying the appellants and the majority judgment of the High Court upholding the Speaker's decision. The court allowed the appeals, emphasizing the need for adherence to principles of natural justice and fair play in disqualification proceedings under the Tenth Schedule.