Manipur High Court Upholds Manipur Legislative Assembly Speaker's Decision To Accept Resignation Of 3 BJP MLAs

The Manipur High Court on Tuesday upheld the decision of the Manipur Legislative Assembly Speaker to accept the resignation of 3 Bharatiya Janata Party MLAs without holding an enquiry and held that the resignation tendered by the petitioners were genuine and voluntary.

The Bench of Justice Lanusungkum Jamir and Justice Ananthem Bimol Singh also observed that if the resignation is genuine and voluntary (as per the decision of the Speaker), there is nothing wrong with accepting such resignation by the Speaker promptly.

Importantly, the Court observed that though an enquiry under Rule 315(3) of the "Procedure & Conduct Rules" read with Article 190 (3) (b) of the Constitution could be made by the Speaker of a State Assembly for the purpose of ascertaining or verifying whether the resignation tendered by a member of the Legislature of a State is voluntary or genuine but the nature of the enquiry to be held is left exclusively to the discretion of the Speaker.

The matter before the Court

3 BJP MLAs namely T. Thangzalam Haokip, Samuel Jendai and S. Subhaschandra Singh submitted that since they were sidelined and neglected by the BJP led Government and they could not carry out any developmental works and welfare activities in their assembly constituencies.

Further, due to such discontentment, some influential party workers and supporters of the petitioners pressurised the petitioners to resign from the BJP.

Consequent to such pressurisation made by their workers and supporters and having no alternative, the petitioners claimed that they were compelled to submit their resignation to subside the emotion/anxiety of their supporters and workers and with a mind of withdrawing the resignation letters at a later date.

Timeline

On June 17, 2020, the 3 writ petitioners tendered their resignation from being a member of the Manipur Legislative Assembly by submitting letters written by their own hand to the Speaker of the Legislative Assembly and they made an announcement in a press conference.

The Speaker accepted the resignation tendered by the writ petitioners on the same day without holding any inquiry and thus, on Jun 18, 2020, the acceptance of the resignation tendered by the petitioners were notified by issuing 3 Bulletins and the said Bulletins were published in the Official Gazette on June 18, 2020.

Significantly, the Court noted that No information was brought to the notice of the Speaker by any of the petitioners that the resignation tendered by them was not genuine and voluntary before the Speaker accepted their resignation.

Therefore, about 1 month from the date of acceptance of their resignation by the Speaker, the petitioners submitted representations to the Speaker claiming that their resignation was not voluntary.

Thereafter, they moved the Manipur High Court challenging the decision of the Speaker in accepting the resignation tendered by them without holding any enquiry.

They prayed that the action of the Speaker in accepting the said resignation be declared as ultra-vires the provisions of Rule 315(3) of the "Procedure & Conduct Rules" and that such action of the Speaker be declared illegal and be quashed and set aside.

Court's observations

The Court, at the outset, opined that the decision of the Speaker in either accepting or not accepting the resignation tendered by a member of the Legislature of a State can be interfered with by the Court only when there is adequate material to arrive satisfactorily to a conclusion that the resignation was not voluntary or genuine.

Further, referring to the instant case, the Court concluded that the resignation tendered by the petitioners are genuine and there is nothing available on record to cast doubt as to the genuineness of the resignation letters submitted by the petitioners.

Significantly, the Court noted:

"None of the petitioners made any effort to promptly informed the Speaker or bring to his notice in time that the resignation tendered by them was not voluntary. If the resignation tendered by the petitioners were not really voluntary as claimed by them, the petitioners have every means or resource to inform or bring to the knowledge of the Speaker promptly and in time that their resignation was not voluntary.

"We are of the view that any reasonable and prudent man will find it hard to believe that the petitioners, who are elected member of the Legislature and belonging to the political party running the Government, were so helpless and without any means to inform the Speaker promptly and in time that their resignation was not voluntary, if their resignation were really not voluntary," added the Court.

The Court also opined that as the acceptance of the resignation was published by issuing the impugned Bulletins and as the Bulletins was notified in the public domain by publishing in the Official Gazette, the petitioners cannot allege that no specific acceptance order was issued and communicated to them.

Accordingly, finding no merit in the allegation made by the petitioner that their resignation has been accepted by the Speaker in a hot-haste manner and that the action of the Speaker amounts to the mala-fide exercise of power, the Court dismissed the pleas filed by the 3 ex MLA.

Click Here To Download Judgment

Read Judgment