Sharad Yadav Seeks Time To Vacate Official Bungalow On Humanitarian Grounds; Supreme Court Seeks Centre's Response

What Transpired In The Supreme Court Today?

When the matter was called for hearing, Senior Advocate Kapil Sibal submitted that the Division Bench had passed an order in a disposed off application.

"Writ Petition on which I had never asked for Single Day's adjournment, the other side came to this court got a stay of the proceedings that was not being heard. On Feb 23, the division bench disposed of the application directing the matter to be heard and the matter is to be heard on April 21. Judge passes the impugned order in the application that has been disposed of. This will render my entire writ petition infructuous. It can't be that my petition is not heard on merits, you pass an order in dispose of application," Sibal submitted.

Laying emphasis on his medical condition, he further added that Yadav's term was expiring in July and submitted that he would give an undertaking to the Court with regards to the vacation of the premises.

"The man cannot move at this point in time. His term expires anyways in July and I'll give an undertaking to this court that I'll vacate it. In any case I  will no longer be Member of Parliament(after July)," Sibal submitted.

"If your term is expiring anyways in July you'll have to vacate it in July. We are on the doorstep of April," said Justice DY Chandrachud.

"I'll vacate and I'll give an undertaking", Sibal replied.

"Why don't you vacate on the earlier date? Ultimately you will have to vacate," Justice Chandrachud said.

Senior Counsel at this juncture submitted that Yadav had to undergo dialysis everyday and he could not even move.

"See his condition. He has to undergo dialysis everyday. He was on Ventilator for several weeks and he came out of death. He got CoVID, all kinds of complications. He can't even move and cannot even go out of the house, it's very dangerous. I'll vacate and I have no issues with that," Senior Counsel further submitted.

Objecting to the submissions made by Senior Advocate Kapil Sibal, ASG Sanjay Jain appearing for the Union contended that the picture presented by Senior Counsel was "not correct".

He further contended that the after expansion of the Union Cabinet, there is huge paucity of accommodation, and the House was allotted to Mr Pashupati Nath Paswan who has been waiting for so many months now.

"After the expansion of the Union Cabinet we have huge paucity of accomodation. This house has been allotted to a Minister from Bihar who does not have any place in Delhi, Mr Pashupati Nath Paswan. He has been waiting for so many months and now Union therefore had to move in to file an application saying that we need to give it to our people. July is 2 / 3 months aways and this person always knew that he had to vacate," ASG further submitted.

"The basic allegation in the Rajya Sabha was that contrary to the whip issued by his party, he voted against and thereafter he attended the rally of another party," ASG also contended.

Requesting ASG to take instructions on the plea and consider the same on humanitarian grounds, Justice Chandrachud said, "Mr Jain suppose you had to give an undertaking to the court, purely on humanitarian grounds not looking at any of the issues of law, just on the basis of this certificate, if you could take instructions. We will make an order conditional to him making an undertaking before this court that he will vacate. We'll ask Mr Sibal by what date he will vacate."

Advocate Shivam Singh appearing for Ram Chandra Prasad Singh submitted that the Yadav wants to hold on to the house which he had secured as a member of JDU.

"Mr Singh, why are you arguing on an unnecessary issue? We are purely on humanitarian issues based on his medical condition," remarked Justice Surya Kant.

Accordingly ASG Sanjay Jain sought time to take instructions as to what would be the reasonable period within which Yadav could vacate and accordingly adjourned the matter for Thursday.

Before the bench proceeded to another matter, Senior Advocate Kapil Sibal said, "this is not a case for voting against the whip at all. I don't know why facts are being stated. The Supreme Court has decided against. That's an irrelevant factor. My writ is posted on April 21."

"Mr Sibal, we don't want to go into that issue at all. Irrespective of the outcome of the petition we are putting to Mr Jain..," said Justice Chandrachud.

Background

The High Court bench of acting Chief Justice Vipin Sanghi and Justice Navin Chawla on March 15, 2022 had directed Yadav to vacate his official bungalow within 15 days. While considering an application filed by Ministry of Housing Urban Affairs seeking vacation of the stay order dated December 15, 2017, the High Court had said,

"We are of the view that since the petitioner stands disqualified, unless and until his disqualification is recalled, the same would need be given effect to. The provisions of the perks, including the residential accommodation to the Members of Parliament, or for that matter, to any other functionary of the State, are so provided so as to enable the functionary to discharge his or her functions efficiently. These are the perks that are attached to the office and are not personally conferred upon any person that dehors the office.

6. Since the petitioner stands disqualified and is not being required to discharge any responsibility or function as a Member of Rajya Sabha, there can be no justification for him to retain the official accommodation. The disqualification took place on 01.12.2017. More than two years have elapsed since then."

Mr. Yadav was a Member of Parliament and the General Secretary of JD(U), but was disqualified from the membership of Rajya Sabha by Vice President M.Venkaiah Naidu, in his capacity as the Chairman, Rajya Sabha, under the Anti-Defection law. It was alleged that by his repeated conduct, public/press statements against the JD(U) and its leadership and openly aligning with a rival political party, namely, the Rashtriya Janata Dal, he has voluntarily given up the membership of the party. More specifically, he was disqualified under paragraph 2 (1) (a) of the 10th Schedule of the Constitution of India read with Rule 6 of the Members of Rajya Sabha (Disqualification on ground of Defection) Rules,1985. He had then challenged this decision before the Delhi High Court.

Case Title: Sharad Yadav v. Ram Chandra Prasad Singh And Ors.| SLP(C) No. 5235/2022

Click Here To Read/Download Order