Background and Facts
The petitioner was elected as a member of the Bihar Legislative Council (BLC) as a candidate of the Indian National Congress. Subsequently, when the Lok Sabha elections were announced, the petitioner contested as an independent candidate from a different constituency. Salman Rageev, another member of the BLC, filed a petition with the Chairman of the Legislative Council, alleging that the petitioner, by contesting the parliamentary election as an independent candidate, had voluntarily given up his membership of the Congress Party. This, according to Rageev, attracted disqualification under Paragraph 2(1)(a) of the Tenth Schedule of the Constitution, read with Article 191(2). The Chairman, after considering the petitioner’s explanation, ruled that the petitioner had indeed disqualified himself, and his seat in the House was declared vacant. The petitioner challenged this decision before the Supreme Court.
Issue before the Court
The Issue before the Court was whether the disqualification of the petitioner was legal?
Arguments by the Petitioner
The petitioner raised three key arguments:
Procedural Irregularity: The Chairman assumed jurisdiction without complying with Rules 6 and 7 of the Bihar Legislative Council Members (Disqualification on Ground of Defection) Rules, 1994, rendering the proceedings illegal.
Violation of Natural Justice: The petitioner was not provided with the materials relied upon by the Chairman, nor was he given a proper opportunity for a personal hearing, violating the principles of natural justice.
No Voluntary Resignation: Merely contesting the Lok Sabha election as an independent candidate did not imply that the petitioner had voluntarily given up his membership of the Congress Party. Therefore, he argued, he had not incurred any disqualification under Paragraph 2(1)(a) of the Tenth Schedule.
Judgment of the Supreme Court
The Supreme Court upheld the decision of the Chairman of the Legislative Council. The Court noted that the petitioner had been elected to the BLC on a Congress ticket and had subsequently contested the Lok Sabha election as an independent candidate. This fact was undisputed and even accepted by the petitioner. The Court ruled that this act clearly demonstrated that the petitioner had voluntarily given up his membership of the Congress Party, thereby attracting disqualification under Paragraph 2(1)(a) of the Tenth Schedule. The Court found no merit in the petitioner’s arguments regarding procedural irregularities or violation of natural justice, concluding that the Chairman’s decision was correct.
Concluding Remark
This judgment reinforces the Supreme Court’s commitment to curbing the menace of political defections, which have long plagued Indian politics. By interpreting the anti-defection law in its widest terms, the Court has sent a strong message against unethical political practices. The Court’s acceptance of the analogy of an implied change in party affiliation highlights its concern for maintaining the integrity of political processes. For the common man, this decision underscores the judiciary’s role in ensuring that elected representatives remain accountable to the parties and voters who elected them, thereby promoting stability and trust in democratic institutions. The ruling serves as a deterrent against opportunistic defections and strengthens the framework of the anti-defection law, which is crucial for preserving the sanctity of India’s democratic system.
