Can Speaker Be Directed To Decide Upon MLA's Resignation Letters Within Fixed Time Frame? Himachal Pradesh High Court Delivers Split Verdict

Chief Justice MS Ramachandra Rao and Justice Jyotsna Rewak Dua pronounced their respective conflicting verdicts while hearing plea of Independent MLA's Of HP Legislative Assembly seeking direction upon the Speaker of the House to forthwith accept their resignation tendered in March this year and issue appropriate communication to that effect forthwith.

In this case before the High Court, several Independent Members of the State Legislative Assembly submitted their resignation letters to the Speaker on March 22, 2024. Following this, they joined the Bharatiya Janata Party on March 23, 2024. Concerned about the Speaker's delay in accepting their resignations, they wrote to the Governor of Himachal Pradesh, seeking intervention to ensure prompt acceptance.

The petitioners through Mr. Maninder Singh, Senior Advocate asserted that their resignations were voluntary and genuine, as they personally handed them to the Speaker. They contended that any doubts about the voluntariness of their resignations were manufactured to impede their right to resign from the Assembly.

Furthermore, they had argued that the Speaker's failure to accept their resignations promptly violates their fundamental rights and undermines democratic principles. In order to buttress their case they cited multiple judicial precedents to support their claim that courts can intervene when authorities fail to exercise their discretion properly.

Contesting the claims the Speaker represented by Senior Advocate Kapil Sibal contended that the power to accept resignations is vested exclusively in his office and is not subject to judicial review. He argued that his role as Speaker is distinct from that of an ordinary executive authority, thus exempting him from judicial interference.

Moreover, he also pointed out that there is no precedent for courts directing the Speaker to accept resignations and justified the decision of the Speaker to conduct an inquiry into the resignations based on doubts raised about their voluntariness by Congress MLAs.

Expressing his opinion against the issuance of any such directions to the Speaker of the House the Chief Justice observed,

“Considering the high respect to be given the office of the Speaker, and fact that he is the designated authority to decide on resignations of Members of Legislative Assembly under Art.190(3) (b) of the Constitution, and in the absence of any exceptional circumstances, and for the reasons mentioned above, I decline to grant the reliefs sought by petitioners as it would then amount to ourselves exercising in the first instance the adjudicatory powers conferred on the Speaker by Art.190 of the Constitution of India, which is impermissible in law”.

To fortify his stand the Chief Justice cited S.A.Sampath Kumar v Kale Yadaiah of the Andhra Pradesh High Court wherein the Divison bench of that court held that the High Court cannot in exercise of its powers under Art.226 of the Constitution of India issue a mandatory direction to the Speaker of a State Legislative Assembly to dispose off a disqualification petition within a fixed time frame.

Acknowledging that the above decision was challenged in the Supreme Court of India in SLP and the Supreme Court had directed the papers to be placed before the Chief Justice of India to constitute a Bench to decide the said issue the Chief Justice pointed that an authoritative decision however on the issue, to his knowledge, has not been given by the Supreme Court.

Disagreeing with the Chief Justice Justice Jyotsna Rewal Dua directed the Speaker of the State Legislative Assembly to take decision upon the resignations tendered by the petitioners from the Assembly within two weeks.

Brushing aside the concerns as to the genuineness and voluntariness of the resignations Jutice Rua observed,

“The best person to say that resignation was voluntary and genuine is the author of the resignation letter. When he says so, ordinarily everyone else including the Speaker, has to respect that wish. There cannot be any probing or roving inquiry to find out the reasons or motive behind such resignation. Holding of an inquiry would normally be warranted when the author of resignation letter makes a complaint that resignation submitted to the Speaker on his behalf was not actually his or submitted under some compulsion, duress, threat”.

In her judgment Justice Dua noted that the Speaker's decision under Article 190(3)(b) of the Constitution is subject to limited judicial review. However, she asserted that the Speaker's inaction regarding the resignations tendered by the Members of the Legislative Assembly is also open to review.

She pointed that the petitioners argued that they submitted voluntary and genuine resignations to the Speaker, requested their acceptance, and even reminded him of their request, as Rule 287 mandates immediate acceptance and despite this, no action was taken by the Speaker. Instead, the petitioners were issued a show cause notice for an inquiry into the voluntariness and genuineness of their resignations, placing the burden of proof on them, it underscored.

While acknowledging the Speaker's authority to conduct an inquiry, the court emphasizes that it must be limited in scope. It should solely focus on determining whether the resignations were voluntary and genuine, without engaging in an overbroad inquiry.

“Being a Constitutional Authority does not mean that the said authority is beyond or above the Constitution. Duties of Constitutional Authority are more onerous. The Constitutional Authority has to act and conduct in accordance with the Constitution, for he has sworn an oath to bear true faith and allegiance to the Constitution of India;, the bench remarked.

Highlighting the principle that prolonged indecision may itself constitute a decision the bench said that in the given facts and circumstances of the case, the writ petition is maintainable at pre-decisional stage.

Given these contrasting opinions, the matter will now be listed before the chief justice for further necessary action.

Case Title: Hoshyar Singh Chambyal and others Vs Hon'ble Speaker, H.P. Legislative Assembly and others

Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (HP) 23

Click Here To Read/Download Judgment Authored By CJ MS Ramachandra Rao

Click Here To Read/Download Judgment Authored By J. Jyotsna Rewal Dua