'Norms Needed For Adjournment' : Sibal Tells Supreme Court After MP Assembly Case Became Infructuous

Senior Advocate Kapil Sibal told the Supreme Court on Wednesday that he was "pained" to see the case on MP assembly MLAs disqualification becoming infructuous on account of delay caused by adjournments.

Though the writ petition seeking the disqualification of 22 legislators - who had resigned from Congress party after Jyotiradithya Scindia joined the BJP- was filed in March this year, the same has now become infructuous on account of the repeated adjournments, submitted Sibal before a bench headed by the Chief Justice of India.

He informed the bench that the bye-elections to the constituencies which became vacant on account of the resignation of MLAs were held on November 3.

Sibal pointed out that while the case concerning Rajasthan assembly was heard on a day-to-day basis, the cases relating to the disqualification of MLAs in Goa and Tamil Nadu are still "languishing".

Therefore, Sibal said that a "uniform standard for granting adjournment in such matters" was needed.

"There has to be a uniform standard for adjourning such matters", Sibal said.

"I am only expressing my pain. There has to be some norms in deciding cases having element of urgency", Sibal said.

CJI S A Bobde replied that the adjournment in the case was sought by both sides on different occasions. 

"Anyway we will bear in mind this aspect and reject such requests of adjournment", the CJI remarked before dismissing the petition as infructuous.

The writ petition was filed by Congress MLA Vinay Saxena seeking to declare the disqualification of 22 MLAs, who had resigned from the Congress party leading to the toppling down of the Kamal Nath government.

While the writ petition was pending in the Supreme Court, the Protem Speaker dismissed the disqualification applications in June stating that the MLAs had ceased to be members of the assembly on account of their resignations. Therefore, the disqualification applications filed after the resignation of those MLAs were not maintainable, ruled the Speaker.

A challenge against this decision was incorporated in the pending writ petition in the Supreme Court by amending it based on the argument that a Protem Speaker was not competent to decide on disqualification application, as he was appointed for the limited purpose of holding the trust vote.