Introduction
The Himachal Pradesh High Court has ruled that courts do not have the authority to impose a deadline on the Speaker of the Legislative Assembly for deciding on the resignations of MLAs. This decision stems from the petitions filed by independent MLAs Hoshiyar Singh, Ashish Sharma, and KL Thakur, who sought judicial intervention to expedite the acceptance of their resignations.
Background of the Case
On March 22, 2024, Hoshiyar Singh, Ashish Sharma, and KL Thakur submitted their resignations from the Legislative Assembly. Dissatisfied with the delay in the Speaker's decision, they approached the High Court seeking an order to compel the Speaker to immediately accept their resignations. The matter was initially heard by a division bench comprising Chief Justice MS Ramachandra Rao and Justice Jyotsna Rewal Dua.
Division Bench Proceedings
During the proceedings, the division bench reached a consensus that the judiciary cannot direct the Speaker to accept an MLA's resignation. However, Chief Justice Rao suggested that the court could set a timeframe for the Speaker to determine the genuineness of the resignations. Justice Dua, on the other hand, opposed the idea of imposing any time limit, leading to a deadlock that required the intervention of a third judge, Justice Sandeep Sharma.
Judgment by Justice Sandeep Sharma
Justice Sandeep Sharma resolved the divergence in opinions by ruling that the judiciary should not encroach upon the Speaker's constitutional domain. He emphasized that the Speaker operates as a constitutional authority, equal to the courts, and should be allowed the discretion to perform his duties without judicial interference. Justice Sharma highlighted that the rules governing resignation do not specify any timeframe, thereby granting the Speaker the authority to decide based on his satisfaction regarding the voluntariness and genuineness of the resignations.
Examination of Constitutional and Legal Provisions
Justice Sharma delved into the constitutional provisions and the rules of procedure related to legislative resignations. He underscored that Article 190(3)(b) of the Constitution and Rule 287 of the Legislative Assembly Rules empower the Speaker to conduct an inquiry if there is any doubt about the voluntariness or genuineness of a resignation. The use of the term "may" in the rules, as opposed to "shall," grants the Speaker discretion rather than obligation in accepting resignations immediately.
Context and Implications of the Judgment
The court also considered the context in which the resignations were submitted. The petitioners were accompanied by BJP leaders when they handed over their resignation letters, raising questions about the influence and voluntariness of their decision. Justice Sharma noted that if the MLAs had submitted their resignations independently, without any political influence, the Speaker might have been expected to accept them without delay.
The ruling underscores the principle of separation of powers and the autonomy of constitutional authorities. It reinforces that judicial intervention is limited to ensuring procedural fairness and cannot extend to directing specific outcomes within the domain of another constitutional functionary.
Legal Representation
The petitioners were represented by Senior Advocate Maninder Singh and a team of lawyers including Anshul Bansal, Ajay Vaidya, Prabhas Bajaj, Shriyek Sharda, and Rangasaran Mohan. The Speaker was represented by Senior Advocates Kapil Sibal and KS Banyal, along with advocates Rohit Sharma, Udya Singh Banyal, Aprajita Jamwal, Nikhil Purohit, Jatin Lalwani, and Rishabh Parikh. The Election Commission of India was represented by Senior Advocate Ankush Dass Sood and advocate Arjun Lal.
Conclusion
The Himachal Pradesh High Court's ruling reaffirms the autonomy and discretion of the Speaker in handling MLA resignations. By upholding the principle that courts cannot set deadlines for the Speaker's decisions, the judgment maintains the balance of power among constitutional authorities. This decision sets a precedent for future cases involving the roles and responsibilities of legislative and judicial branches in India.
0 Comments
Thank you for your response. It will help us to improve in the future.