BSP MLAs Disqualification: Rajasthan High Court Refuses Interim Stay On Declaration Of Rajya Sabha Election Result; Polling Tomorrow

Notably, the Rajya Sabha election is scheduled to take place tomorrow.

The order passed by the Speaker was challenged by Bahujan Samaj Party and Madan Dilawar, a sitting MLA of Bharatiya Janta Party and their petitions were disposed of by the Single Judge on 24.08.2020. The petitioner informed the court that the challenge against the single Judge's order has been pending before the Apex Court and no interim order has been passed by the Apex Court.

SC Issues Notice On BSP's Challenging Rajasthan HC's Order Refusal To Stay Speaker's Approval of Merger of 6 BSP MLAs With Congress

Justice Pankaj Bhandari and Justice Uma Shankar Vyas, while dismissing the application, observed,

"In the present PIL filed by the petitioner, even notices have not been issued to the other side. It is also evident that during the pendency of the present PIL, elections to the Rajya Sabha were held and Members were elected to the Rajya Sabha. Petitioner at that time also did not press for any interim relief. Hence, we are not inclined to entertain the present application for interim relief as the election process has already been commenced and election is scheduled to take place tomorrow."

Background of Single Judge's Order

On 24.08.2020, the single bench of Rajasthan High Court had set aside the order of the Speaker which rejected the petition submitted by BJP MLA Madan Dilawar seeking the disqualification of 6 BSP MLAs who had merged with the Congress in 2019.

A single bench of Justice Mahendar Kumar Goyal found fault with the Speaker, Dr CP Joshi, for rejecting the petition on technical grounds.

The Speaker had cited Rule 6(7) of the 6 of the Rajasthan Assembly Members (Disqualification on the Grounds of Defection) Rules of 1989.

The Court, referring to the SC precedents Speaker, Orissa Legislative Assembly vs. Utkal Keshari Parida- (2013) 11 SCC 794 and Dr. Mahachandra Prasad Singh vs. Chairman, Bihar Legislative Council & Ors.- (2004) 8 SCC 747, which held that any person interested is also entitled to bring to the notice of the Speaker the factum of disqualification incurred by any Member of the House and that the Speaker is constitutionally obliged to take a decision on receiving such a complaint, observed :

"...rejecting the disqualification application on the ground of violation of Rule 6(7) of the Rules of 1989, which does not go to the root of the matter, cannot be sustained in the eye of law. Even otherwise also, once, the factum of alleged defection was brought to the notice of the Speaker, he was under the constitutional obligation to adjudicate upon the same".

The bench also held that BSP will be entitled to raise the plea of disqualification before the Speaker.

Accordingly, the Court ordered that it expects the Speaker to take a decision on the merits of the disqualification petition within a period of three months following the time-frame set by the Supreme Court in Keisham Meghachandra Singh vs. the Hon'ble Speaker, Manipur Legislative Assembly.

Hemant Nahta appeared in person during the course of the hearing.

Also Read: Rajasthan HC Sets Aside Speaker's Rejection of Disqualification Petition Against 6 BSP MLAs; Asks Speaker To Decide Merits Within 3 Months

Case Title: Hemant Nahta v. The Honble Speaker, Rajasthan Assembly & Ors.