Mr Speaker, Sir, decide soon…. : The Tribune India

Join Whatsapp Channel

Mr Speaker, Sir, decide soon….

ON December 4, 2017, M Venkaiah Naidu, Vice-President of India in his capacity as Chairman, Rajya Sabha, passed two orders disqualifying Sharad Yadav and Ali Anwar Ansari from the membership of the Rajya Sabha under Para 2(1)(A) of the 10th Schedule to the Constitution of India.

Mr Speaker, Sir, decide soon….

M Venkaiah Naidu, Vice-President and Chairman, Rajya Sabha. PTI



Satya Pal Jain

Additional Solicitor-General of India, & Member, Law Commission of India

ON December 4, 2017, M Venkaiah Naidu, Vice-President of India in his capacity as Chairman, Rajya Sabha, passed two orders disqualifying Sharad Yadav and Ali Anwar Ansari from the membership of the Rajya Sabha under Para 2(1)(A) of the 10th Schedule to the Constitution of India. Both members of the Rajya Sabha were elected from Bihar as nominees of the JD(U).

But, unfortunately, the observations made by Venkaiah Naidu in Para 26 of the order have not got the attention it deserved: "I am of the view that all such petitions should be decided by the presiding officers within a period of around three months." 

The powers of deciding the disqualification petitions were given to the speaker/chairman with a view to have early disposal of such petitions but, in fact, it has proved to be totally the opposite of that. While introducing the Constitutional 56th Amendment Bill 1985 in the Lok Sabha on January 30, 1985, the then Law Minister said, "If this Bill is to be effective, and if defection is to be outlawed effectively, then we must choose a forum which will decide the matter fearlessly and expeditiously. This is the only forum that is possible." These observations were endorsed by the then Prime Minister also. What was the intention of the lawmakers and what has been the behaviour of their own fraternity is a poor commentary on the use and misuse of the constitutional powers vested in the presiding officers.

Under the 10th Schedule, the power to disqualify a member of the House vests with the speaker/chairman of the house. Rules have been framed exercising power under Para 8 of the 10th Schedule. Rule 7(3) prescribes 7 days time to erring member for filing reply, indicating the anxiousness of the Parliament to have an early decision of such a petition.

However, many presiding officers kept such disqualification proceedings pending for months and years together. In the case of Haryana, five out of six Haryana Janhit Congress MLAs joined the Congress on November 9, 2009, giving majority to the then Chief Minister BS Hooda, who was otherwise in minority (40 out of 90). In spite of the direction by the Single Bench and Division Bench of the Punjab and Haryana High Court and the Supreme Court, the Speaker of the Haryana Vidhan Sabha decided and dismissed the disqualification petition against five MLAs after three years on January 13, 2013. Ultimately, Justice K Kanan, the then Judge of the Punjab and Haryana High Court, disqualified all these five MLAs vide his order dated October 9, 2014. Had the decision of the disqualification petitions come within three months of the defection, i.e. November 9, 2009, the political history of Haryana would have been entirely different.

Many examples can be cited where the speakers/chairpersons did not decide the disqualification petitions filed against defector MLAs for years together and allowed the chief ministers to continue in power with the support of such defectors, who as per the Constitution, had become disqualified to be the members of the House. Is it not making a mockery of the judicial system, the constitutional provisions and, to say the least, the democratic functioning of our polity?

The Anti-Defection Law was passed by the Parliament unanimously. Almost all the political parties and leaders supported this move. The intention was to curb political defections, which had become a matter of routine in most of the states. A rider was also put on the disqualified MLAs by inserting Article 361(B) in the Constitution, which prohibited a disqualified MLA or MP under the Anti Defection Law to hold any remunerative office till he is re-elected to the House. To some extent, even the fixing of the strength of the council of ministers to 15 per cent of the total strength of the legislature also came out of the wholesale defections, resulting in making large number of MLAs, in some cases even all the members of the ruling party as ministers. Unfortunately, by keeping the disqualification petitions pending for indefinite time and that too due to trivial reasons, an attempt was made to frustrate the mandate of the Parliament and ultimately allow the defectors to continue in power without getting constitutional punishment prescribed by law for them. 

No democratic society can tolerate or permit any authority to frustrate the mandate of the Constitution. Time has come when the Parliament should consider even amending the 10th Schedule to say that the disqualification petitions should be decided ordinarily within three months of the receipt of such petitions. Section 86 of the Representation of People Act, which deals with the trial of election petitions, fixes a time frame of 6 months during which the election petition should be decided. If the Parliament has fixed a six months' period to decide the election petitions which involve huge trial, then there is no reason why a period of three months be not fixed in the matter of deciding the Anti-Defection Law petitions.

Top News

Cash-strapped Congress gets fresh IT notice of Rs 1,700 crore, say party insiders

Cash-strapped Congress gets fresh I-T notice of Rs 1,700 crore, say party insiders

The Congress is already facing a funds crunch after Income T...

Arvind Kejriwal's wife releases WhatsApp number for people to send messages for jailed AAP leader

Arvind Kejriwal's wife launches WhatsApp campaign to garner support for AAP leader

In a digital media briefing, Sunita says her husband has cha...

High alert across Uttar Pradesh after gangster-turned-politician Mukhtar Ansari's death

High alert across Uttar Pradesh after gangster-turned-politician Mukhtar Ansari's death

Umar Ansari alleged that his father was subjected to slow po...

Mukhtar Ansari was subjected to slow poisoning in jail: Son

Mukhtar Ansari was subjected to slow poisoning in jail: Son

Ansari's post-mortem to be conducted in UP by panel of five ...


Cities

View All