Rajya Sabha MP Amar Singh has petitioned the Supreme Court once again to decide an important Constitutional question..The question is whether para 2 of the 10th Schedule to the Constitution, would apply to an elected member of a House, who has been expelled by his/her political party..A Bench of Justices Dipak Misra and AM Khanwilkar yesterday referred the case to a Constitution Bench while also issuing notice to the Central government on the interim prayer..Senior Advocate CU Singh appeared for Amar Singh..Paragraph 2 of the Tenth Schedule of the Constitution provides for disqualification of a law maker on the ground of defection. It reads as follows:.“(2) Disqualification on ground of defection.—.(1) Subject to the provisions of paragraphs 4 and 5, a member of a House belonging to any political party shall be disqualified for being a member of the House— .(a) if he has voluntarily given up his membership of such political party; or .(b) if he votes or abstains from voting in such House contrary to any direction issued by the political party to which he belongs or by any person or authority authorised by it in this behalf, without obtaining, in either case, the prior permission of such political party, person or authority and such voting or abstention has not been condoned by such political party, person or authority within fifteen days from the date of such voting or abstention.”.Singh in his petition has prayed for a declaration that para 2 of the 10th Schedule to the Constitution do not apply to an elected member of a House who has been expelled by his/her political party..The current judgment holding this field is the case of G. Viswanathan vs. Hon’ble Speaker Tamil Nadu Legislative Assembly, Madras & Anr. wherein the Supreme Court held that,.“If a person belonging to a political party that had set him up as a candidate, gets elected to the House and thereafter joins another political party for whatever reasons, either because of his expulsion from the party or otherwise, he voluntarily gives up his membership of the political party and incurs the disqualification. Being treated as `unattached’ is a matter of mere convenience outside the Tenth Schedule and does not alter the fact to be assumed under the explanation to paragraph 2(1). Such an arrangement and labelling has no legal bearing so far as the Tenth Schedule is concerned.”.During his earlier tenure as Rajya Sabha member, Singh along with Jaya Prada had moved the Supreme Court seeking the same relief. A two-judge bench had heard that matter and referred it to a three-judge Bench. The three-judge Bench had heard the case but refused to answer the question citing the fact that both the petitioners had completed their tenures..Subsequently, Amar Singh was again nominated to Rajya Sabha whereupon he has filed the current petition..The Court yesterday noted that since it did not answer the question in the previous case filed by Singh and Jaya Prada, the issues remains alive today..“As we find, in the case at hand, the term of the petitioner shall be up to 04.07.2022. Thus, the reference that was made in the case of Amar Singh (supra), the present petitioner, remains to be dealt with as the same has not been answered with the efflux of time. As the question remains alive today, we think it appropriate that the matter should be placed before the larger Bench for consideration of the questions which we have reproduced from the decision rendered in Amar Singh”..The Court also issued notice to the Central government on the prayer for interim relief..Read the order below.
Rajya Sabha MP Amar Singh has petitioned the Supreme Court once again to decide an important Constitutional question..The question is whether para 2 of the 10th Schedule to the Constitution, would apply to an elected member of a House, who has been expelled by his/her political party..A Bench of Justices Dipak Misra and AM Khanwilkar yesterday referred the case to a Constitution Bench while also issuing notice to the Central government on the interim prayer..Senior Advocate CU Singh appeared for Amar Singh..Paragraph 2 of the Tenth Schedule of the Constitution provides for disqualification of a law maker on the ground of defection. It reads as follows:.“(2) Disqualification on ground of defection.—.(1) Subject to the provisions of paragraphs 4 and 5, a member of a House belonging to any political party shall be disqualified for being a member of the House— .(a) if he has voluntarily given up his membership of such political party; or .(b) if he votes or abstains from voting in such House contrary to any direction issued by the political party to which he belongs or by any person or authority authorised by it in this behalf, without obtaining, in either case, the prior permission of such political party, person or authority and such voting or abstention has not been condoned by such political party, person or authority within fifteen days from the date of such voting or abstention.”.Singh in his petition has prayed for a declaration that para 2 of the 10th Schedule to the Constitution do not apply to an elected member of a House who has been expelled by his/her political party..The current judgment holding this field is the case of G. Viswanathan vs. Hon’ble Speaker Tamil Nadu Legislative Assembly, Madras & Anr. wherein the Supreme Court held that,.“If a person belonging to a political party that had set him up as a candidate, gets elected to the House and thereafter joins another political party for whatever reasons, either because of his expulsion from the party or otherwise, he voluntarily gives up his membership of the political party and incurs the disqualification. Being treated as `unattached’ is a matter of mere convenience outside the Tenth Schedule and does not alter the fact to be assumed under the explanation to paragraph 2(1). Such an arrangement and labelling has no legal bearing so far as the Tenth Schedule is concerned.”.During his earlier tenure as Rajya Sabha member, Singh along with Jaya Prada had moved the Supreme Court seeking the same relief. A two-judge bench had heard that matter and referred it to a three-judge Bench. The three-judge Bench had heard the case but refused to answer the question citing the fact that both the petitioners had completed their tenures..Subsequently, Amar Singh was again nominated to Rajya Sabha whereupon he has filed the current petition..The Court yesterday noted that since it did not answer the question in the previous case filed by Singh and Jaya Prada, the issues remains alive today..“As we find, in the case at hand, the term of the petitioner shall be up to 04.07.2022. Thus, the reference that was made in the case of Amar Singh (supra), the present petitioner, remains to be dealt with as the same has not been answered with the efflux of time. As the question remains alive today, we think it appropriate that the matter should be placed before the larger Bench for consideration of the questions which we have reproduced from the decision rendered in Amar Singh”..The Court also issued notice to the Central government on the prayer for interim relief..Read the order below.
