Supreme Court Wants West Bengal Speaker To Decide Mukul Roy's Disqualification Petition Soon

The Supreme Court on Monday directed the  West Bengal Legislative Assembly Speaker Biman Banerjee to decide on the disqualification petition moved against TMC MLA Mukul Roy expeditiously and accordingly adjourned the matter for further hearing to January 17, 2022. The Court was adjudicating upon a Special Leave Petition (SLP) moved by the Speaker against the order of the Calcutta High Court wherein the High Court had directed the Speaker to decide on the petition seeking Roy's disqualification under the Tenth Schedule of the Constitution for his defection from BJP to TMC and place on record the order passed by October 7. The observation had been made in the plea moved by BJP MLA Ambika Roy challenging the appointment of TMC MLA Mukul Roy as the PAC Chairman. 

On June 17, a disqualification petition had been moved before the Speaker by BJP MLA and Leader of the Opposition Suvendu Adhikari against Mukul Roy on the grounds of defection under the Tenth Schedule of the Constitution. A Bench comprising former Acting Chief Justice Rajesh Bindal and Justice Rajarshi Bharadwaj of the Calcutta High Court vide order dated September 28 had also observed that it is a 'constitutional convention' to appoint a leader of the Opposition as the Chairman of the Public Accounts Committee (PAC) of the West Bengal Legislative Assembly. The Bench had ruled that the issue pertaining to disqualification of TMC MLA Mukul Roy as Member of the Legislative Assembly is co-related with him being the Chairman of the Committee on Public Accounts.

On October 7, the Advocate General S.N Mookerjee had informed the High Court that the Speaker of the West Bengal Legislative Assembly had moved the Supreme Court challenging the aforementioned direction to decide on the disqualification petition against Mukul Roy. 

Senior Advocate Abhishek Manu Singhvi appearing for the WB Legislative Assembly Speaker informed a Bench comprising Justices Nageswara Rao and Hima Kohli on Monday that the Speaker had fixed December 21 as the next date of hearing of the disqualification petition moved by Adhikari against Mukul Roy. Accordingly, the Bench recorded in its order, 

"We direct the Speaker, West Bengal Legislative Assembly, to decide the petition filed under the Tenth Schedule for disqualification of respondent No.2 expeditiously."

Courtroom exchange 

At the outset, the Bench enquired from senior advocate Singhvi as to whether the High Court had passed any order on October 7 which was the date previously fixed for submitting a copy of the order passed by the Speaker regarding the disqualification petition moved against Mukul Roy. Thereafter the senior counsel apprised the Bench that the High Court had adjourned the matter on October 7 on account of the SLP filed before the Supreme Court. 

Furthermore, referring to the current stage of proceedings before the WB Legislative Assembly, senior advocate Singhvi informed the Bench that the Speaker was supposed to hear the matter on November 12 but had adjourned the hearing of the matter to December 21 on account of the SLP moved before the Supreme Court. Expressing reservations to such an adjournment, Justice Hima Kohli remarked, 

"You decide that the SLP has been filed, so you won't take a call?"

Justice Kohli further referred to Para 80 of the impugned judgment wherein the High Court had observed that the issue pertaining to the disqualification of Mukul Roy as Member of the Legislative Assembly is co-related with him being the PAC Chaiman. Accordingly, she remarked further, "Should we ignore Para 80?"

Senior Advocate Singhvi responded by submitting that the two issues are not connected since the petition filed before the High Court was a quo warranto writ petition and not a petition pertaining to defection under the Tenth Schedule of the Constitution. He further stated, "Will your Lordships micromanage the Speaker's calendar? He has to hear the parties". 

To this, Justice Kohli further remarked, "If we were to micromanage by now there would be an order. We are just trying to cull out of you the status of proceedings"

Furthermore, opining on the alleged illegality of the impugned order, senior advocate Singhvi submitted that the order is 'bristling with fundamental legal errors". He further remarked that in a 69 page order, 'findings were given unknown to law'. He further expressed strong reservations to the fact that an order for deciding a disqualification petition had been given in a petition of quo warranto. 

Referring to Para 39 of the impugned order, the senior counsel pointed out to the Court that the High Court had ruled that the appointment of Mukul Roy as the PAC Chairman cannot be termed to be 'proceedings in the Assembly as it was merely a declaration made by the Speaker in the presence of all the Members. The senior counsel submitted that such as assertion is 'unheard in law.' He further pointed out to the Bench that pursuant to Article 212, Courts cannot inquire into proceedings of the Legislature on the ground of any alleged irregularity of procedure. 

Senior Advocate Singhvi further emphatically pointed out to the Court para 60 of the impugned judgment wherein the Court had observed- "In fact it is not a case of mere irregularity in the procedure adopted, rather it is the illegality committed by the Speaker in nominating a person , who had in fact defected from BJP to AITC." Strongly objecting to such an observation the senior counsel remarked, "What is left for the Speaker to decide then?"

Justice Nageswara Rao however highlighted that there is a general practice of Speakers delaying the hearing of defection petitions under the Tenth Schedule of the constitution. He orally remarked, "There are so many cases where there is a delay by the Speaker.. we are told you stay away. let the Speaker decide.'

To this, senior counsel Singhvi submitted that Courts must interfere in such cases where there are egregious delays but the instant case does not warrant such an interference. Pointing out that the Adhikari himself had sought several adjournments in the hearing of the disqualification petition before the Speaker, the senior counsel stated "Is this told to your Lordships? They are misleading the Court.' Accordingly, he apprised the Bench that on August 12, an adjournment had been sought by Adhikari and furthermore on September 26, a further adjournment had been sought on account of ill-health of the complainant. Thereafter, the impugned order had been passed on September 28. 

Referring further to the Supreme Court's order in Keisham Meghachandra Singh v. Hon'ble Speaker, Manipur wherein the Supreme Court had ruled that Speaker of the Legislative Assembly should decide on a petition seeking disqualification of a member under Tenth Schedule of the Constitution within a period of three months, the senior counsel submitted before the Court that the facts of the case are vastly different from the instant case in terms of the timeline. 

"Justice Nariman gave weeks and weeks before the final judgment..two further extensions had been to Speaker in Manipur..Manipur is an egregious case.'

On the other hand, senior advocate Shekhar Naphade appearing for BJP MLA Ambika Roy expressed strong reservations to the conduct of the Speaker. He submitted before the Bench that the instant SLP had been filed only to delay proceedings and to make sure that a period of 1 year goes by. 

Refusing to issue any notice on the plea, the Bench adjourned the hearing to January 17, 2022 and urged the Speaker to decide on the disqualification petition in the meantime. 

Background 

A Bench comprising former Acting Chief Justice Rajesh Bindal and Justice Rajarshi Bharadwaj of the Calcutta High Court  vide order dated September 28 had observed that the Supreme Court vide its earlier judgments has held that a period of three months from the date on which the petition is filed is the outer limit within which disqualification petitions filed before the Speaker must be decided. Reliance was placed on the Supreme Court judgment in Keisham Meghachandra Singh v. Hon'ble Speaker, Manipur in this regard. It was further noted that the three months period to decide on the disqualification petition by the Speaker had already expired on September 16.

"Maximum three months period has been prescribed by Hon'ble the Supreme Court for decision of any such petition, which has already expired. The objective and purpose of Tenth Schedule is to curb the evil of political defections motivated by lure of office, which endangers the foundation of our democracy. The disqualification takes places from the date when the act of defection took place. The constitutional authorities who have been conferred with various powers are in fact coupled with duties and responsibilities to maintain the constitutional values. In case they fail to discharge their duties within time, it will endanger the democratic set up", the Court had observed.

The Court had further opined that the power of the Speaker to adjudicate upon an application filed for disqualification of a member of Assembly is quasi-judicial in nature and is thus subject to judicial review. It was further held that the Speaker should have decided on the disqualification petition pending before him before he decided to appoint Mukul Roy as the PAC Chairman.

"The Speaker was required to decide the petition filed before him for disqualification of the respondent No. 2 having defected from BJP to AITC, as a result of which his membership to the Assembly itself was in doubt. In case the respondent No. 2 does not remain the Member of the Assembly, there was no question of he being even the Member of the Committee what to talk of its Chairman", the Court had noted further.

Pertinently, the Division Bench of the High Court had also remarked that the Speaker had failed to discharge his constitutional duty and had accordingly observed,

"In the case in hand as is evident from the facts on record there is failure on the part of the Speaker to discharge his constitutional duty coupled with established admitted constitutional conventions. Apparently he has worked on dictates. Finally, he was caught in the web knitted by him."

Case Title: The Secretary of Returning Officer, WB Legislative Assembly v. Ambika Roy and Ors 

Click Here To Read/Download Order