Supreme Court Allows SDF Functionaries To Withdraw Pleas Challenging Reduction In Sikkim CM's Disqualification Period

Considering applications for withdrawal filed on behalf of the petitioners, the Supreme Court today dismissed two petitions challenging the appointment of Prem Singh Tamang as Chief Minister of Sikkim and the Election Commission's reduction of his disqualification period (upon conviction) from 6 years to 1 year.

A bench of Justices Surya Kant and Ujjal Bhuyan passed the order, taking into account the petitioners' claims that they never authorized anyone to file the subject petitions. Although it was suggested that the petitioners - Sikkim Democratic Front Party functionaries - were acting under pressure to withdraw the petitions, the Court said that it cannot force anyone to continue pursuing a matter.

Notably, three connected petitions were listed before the Court - one, filed by Bimal Dawari Sharma, General Secretary, SDF, (ii) Lok Prahari (a registered society), and (iii) JB Darnal, Vice President, SDF. While petitions filed by Sharma and Darnal were disposed of, the one filed by Lok Prahari survives and will continue to be heard in due course. In the said petition, petitioner has been asked to share its written submissions with the Union.

The order (in Bimal Dawari Sharma's petition) was dictated thus:

"Petitioner (Bimal Dawari Sharma) filed the instant petition, claiming himself to be General Secretary of Sikkim Democratic Front Party...[he] has sent an application, alongwith an affidavit inter-alia stating that he has not authorized the learned AoR to pursue the instant writ petition and that no vakalatnama was signed by him. Before we pass the order of withdrawal, in terms of the prayer made by the petitioner, it is suggested that one JB Darnal, VP, SDF has now been authorized to pursue the instant petition. Since the petition was filed by Bimal Dawari Sharma, and not the political party, we are of the view that the proposed applicant cannot be permitted to pursue a writ petition where the writ petitioner has himself come forward with an affidavit seeking withdrawal thereof. Accordingly, the petition is dismissed...however, such an order shall not cause any prejudice to any political party, or its office-bearer or any other public-spirited person to approach the appropriate forum in accordance with law."

A separate, but similar order was passed in JB Darnal's petition.

Senior Advocate Dr GV Rao appeared for Sikkim Democratic Front Party and argued that the petitions were filed by SDF party functionaries (Sharma and Darnal) on behalf of the party. However, without there being any instructions to the effect, they were seeking withdrawal.

The senior counsel also mentioned that after Bimal Dawari Sharma filed a petition (being General Secretary), JB Darnal sought substitution as he was the Vice President.

Hearing him, Justice Kant probed as to whether there was any party resolution which authorized a particular individual to pursue the matter. The judge further questioned as to how Darnal could substitute Sharma, when the petition was filed by the latter in his personal capacity.

Rao replied that in case of Bimal Dawari Sharma, the party passed a resolution. The bench then highlighted that there was nothing on record to indicate that JB Darnal was authorized by the party to pursue the case. It was also commented that if a resolution had been passed, Sharma ought not to have been allowed to file petition in personal capacity.

"There must be some authorization given. Either the (party) constitution itself says that so and so office-bearer is authorized, or a resolution will be passed", said Justice Kant. 

Initially, the bench was inclined to list the matter in January, to give time to Rao to verify facts. However, when Solicitor General Tushar Mehta submitted that the matter has become infructuous and suggested that atleast the two petitions wherein withdrawal was sought maybe disposed of, leaving it open for any other party worker or office bearer to approach if they want, the bench found the suggestion reasonable.

When Rao insisted that the matter be deferred till January, Justice Kant opined that the withdrawal would not affect/prejudice anyone, as another petition raising similar issues would remain pending. Emphasizing that SDF party had not filed the petition and that an individual cannot be forced to keep pursuing a matter, the judge added that if the party approaches, the court will entertain it.

Case Title: BIMAL DAWARI SHARMA, GENERAL SECRETARY, SIKKIM DEMOCRATIC FRONT PARTY Versus UNION OF INDIA AND ORS., W.P.(C) No. 792/2019