Constitutional Courts Cannot Impose Timeline On Speaker To Accept Or Decline Resignations Of MLAs: Himachal Pradesh High Court

The Himachal Pradesh High Court held recently that courts cannot impose a specific timeframe on the Speaker of the Legislative Assembly to decide on the resignations submitted by Members of the Legislative Assembly (MLAs).

“…no timeframe can be fixed by the Constitutional Court for the Speaker to decide the issue of resignation tendered by members of the Legislative Assembly/Vidhan Sabha, if any, brought before him”, the court held.

Justice Sandeep Sharma underscored that the Speaker, in his capacity as a constitutional functionary, holds a status co-equal to the constitutional courts and once the Division Bench established that the matter fell within the Speaker's jurisdiction, there was no basis for judicial imposition of deadlines.

“While accepting prayer, if any, made by the member of assembly for accepting the resignation, the Speaker acts as an officer of the State Legislator. In this capacity, the Speaker is coequal to the constitutional court as a constitutional authority. In such like situations, constitutional courts respect the domain of other constitutional authorities as regards the roles specifically assigned to them under the Constitution… Once Hon'ble Ms. Justice Dua, has agreed with the finding given by the Hon'ble Chief Justice that decision, if any, with regard to voluntariness or genuineness is to be taken by the Speaker in discharge of his duty, where no timeframe has been fixed, she ought not have fixed timeframe for the Speaker to decide the issue.”

The court clarified that the Speaker's role under the Tenth Schedule of the Constitution, which deals with the disqualification of legislators, differs significantly from his role when accepting or rejecting resignations. While acting under the Tenth Schedule, the Speaker functions as a tribunal, distinct from his administrative role within the state legislature when deciding on resignations. Therefore, directions from the Supreme Court to the Speaker regarding timeframes in Tenth Schedule cases cannot be extrapolated to apply to resignation matters, where the Speaker acts as an officer of the state legislature, the court held.

The court was dealing with a writ petition filed by three independent MLAs – Hoshiyar Singh, Ashish Sharma, and KL Thakur, who had tendered their resignations and sought directions from the court to the Speaker to accept them immediately, as they had joined Bhartiya Janta Party (BJP).

Background

The petitioners, who were elected in December 2022, submitted their resignations to the Speaker of the Himachal Pradesh Legislative Assembly on March 22, 2024, and joined BJP on March 23, 2024. The Speaker did not immediately accept their resignations, prompting them to approach the Governor and later file a writ petition in the High Court, arguing that their resignations were voluntary and genuine, and thus the Speaker was obliged to accept them immediately.

Division Bench's Difference of Opinion

The case was initially heard by a Division Bench comprising Chief Justice MS Ramachandra Rao and Justice Jyotsna Rewal Dua. The two judges agreed that the court could not direct the Speaker to accept the resignation immediately. However, the bench expressed a difference of opinion, with Justice Dua seeking to direct the Speaker to decide on the resignations within two weeks while Chief Justice Rao declined to pass directions imposing a timeline.

Single Judge's Ruling

The matter was then referred to a third judge, Justice Sandeep Sharma, to resolve the difference of opinion. The core issue was whether the High Court could direct the Speaker to decide on the voluntariness and genuineness of the resignations in a time-bound manner.

In his decision, Justice Sharma aligned with Chief Justice Rao's perspective, emphasizing the constitutional separation of powers and the Speaker's autonomous role in evaluating the voluntariness and authenticity of resignations.

“Since question with regard to voluntariness or genuineness of the resignation, in terms of aforesaid provision of law, can only be gone into by the Speaker, writ Court is otherwise estopped to look into the aspect as to whether the resignation given by the petitioners is genuine or voluntary. Needless to say, writ court cannot usurp the functions of the Speaker on the validity of resignations of the petitioners.”

The court noted that while the Constitution procedural rules allow for immediate acceptance of resignations under certain conditions, the Speaker retains discretionary powers if evidence indicates involuntary resignation.

“As per aforesaid provision (Article 190(3)(b) of the Constitution), resignation, if any, submitted by a Member of the House of a State Legislature, cannot be accepted straightaway by the Speaker, rather on account of his having received information, if any, with regard to resignation being not “voluntary” or “genuine”, he can constitute an inquiry and may not accept such resignation”, the court noted.

The court said that the presence of BJP MLAs while the petitioners, who were independent MLAs, submitted their resignations to the Speaker created doubt in the mind of the Speaker.

“Had, on 22.3.2024, the petitioners not visited the office of the Speaker with BJP MLAs, petitioners would have been right in contending that the Speaker ought to have accepted their resignation letters immediately, but since very presence of BJP MLAs created doubt in the mind of the Speaker with regard to voluntariness and genuineness of the resignations, there was no requirement, if any, for the Speaker to accept the resignations immediately.”

The court noted that Rule 287(2) of the Rules of Procedure and Conduct of Business in Himachal Pradesh Legislative Assembly utilizes the term "may," indicating that the Speaker has discretion in deciding whether to accept or reject an MLA's resignation immediately upon receipt. This discretion hinges on the Speaker's satisfaction regarding the voluntary and genuine nature of the resignation, absent any coercion or duress.

The rule states that if an MLA personally delivers a resignation letter to the Speaker, asserting its voluntary nature without coercion, and if the Speaker has no conflicting information, he "may" accept the resignation immediately. The use of "may" underscores the legislative intent to grant the Speaker discretion in such matters, contrasting with a scenario where "shall" would have mandated immediate acceptance under specified conditions, the court said.

Justice Sharma concluded that the Speaker has the discretion to inquire into the voluntariness and genuineness of the resignations. The court held that it is not permissible for the High Court to issue a direction to the Speaker to decide on the resignations within a specific timeframe.

Ultimately, despite the legal deliberations, the resignations of the three MLAs were subsequently accepted by the Speaker on June 3, 2024, rendering the immediate relief sought by the petitioners moot.

Case Title: Hoshyar Singh Chambyal and Ors. v. Hon'ble Speaker and Ors.

Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (HP) 28