A Constitutional Court cannot fix a timeframe for the speaker of the State legislative assembly to decide the issue of resignation tendered by the members of Legislative Assembly, the Himachal Pradesh High Court ruled.
Thank you for reading this post, don't forget to subscribe!
SHIMLA: The Himachal Pradesh High Court ruled that a Constitutional Court cannot impose a timeframe on the Speaker of the State Legislative Assembly to decide on the resignation of its members. This ruling came from Justice Sandeep Sharma, who addressed a legal question following a divergence of opinion between Chief Justice MS Ramachandra Rao and Justice Jyotsna Rewal Dua regarding whether the Court can set a deadline for the Speaker’s decision.
Justice Sharma clarified that when the Speaker decides on resignations, they act as an officer of the State legislator.
“In this capacity, the speaker is coequal to the constitutional court as a constitutional authority. In such like situations, constitutional courts respect the domain of other constitutional authorities as regards the roles specifically assigned to them under the constitution, which position has been already accepted by both the Hon’ble Judges while writing the separate judgment,”
-he stated.
This judgment was delivered in the case involving independent lawmakers Hoshiyar Singh, Ashish Sharma, and KL Thakur, who had petitioned the Court for an order directing the Speaker to immediately accept their resignations submitted on March 22.
The division bench, consisting of Chief Justice Rao and Justice Dua, had ruled on May 8 that a court cannot direct the Speaker to accept an MLA’s resignation. However, Chief Justice Rao had opined that a direction could be given to the Speaker to decide on the genuineness of the resignations within two months. Since Chief Justice Rao did not concur with setting a specific timeframe, the matter was then referred to Justice Sharma for resolution.
This decision underscores the balance of power and respect for the domains of various constitutional authorities, reinforcing the independence and specific roles assigned to each by the Constitution.
The resignations of the MLAs in question had already been accepted, and they subsequently joined the Bharatiya Janata Party (BJP). However, the legal question regarding the timeframe for the Speaker’s decision remained pending before the third judge, Justice Sharma. The issue was examined under the purview of Article 226 of the Constitution, which empowers the High Court to issue certain writs.
Justice Sharma held that once the Division Bench judges had agreed that it was the Speaker’s prerogative to decide the genuineness of the resignations, there was no basis for Justice Dua to fix a timeframe. He noted,
“This Court finds that when both the Hon’ble Judges were in agreement that relief, as sought for, cannot be granted, rather issue with regard to voluntariness or genuineness of the resignations can only be decided by the Speaker coupled with the fact that no prayer was ever made by the petitioners to direct the Speaker to decide their prayer for resignations in a time bound manner, there was no occasion for the Hon’ble Ms. Justice Dua, to fix timeframe, which was otherwise not permissible.”
The court emphasized that the Speaker acts as a constitutional authority equal to the court when deciding on resignations. The Speaker is authorized to conduct an inquiry if there is any doubt about the voluntariness or genuineness of a resignation.
Although the law does not specify a timeframe for the Speaker’s decision, the rules state that if a member personally submits a resignation and confirms its voluntariness and genuineness, and if the Speaker has no contrary information, the resignation “may” be accepted immediately.
In this case, the court observed that the independent MLAs were accompanied by BJP leaders when submitting their resignations. This circumstance influenced the Speaker’s decision-making process. The court noted,
“Had the independent MLAs not visited the office of Speaker with BJP MLAs, they would have been right to contend that the speaker ought to have accepted their resignation letters immediately.”
Justice Sharma highlighted that the use of the word “may” in the rules instead of “shall” grants the Speaker discretion in accepting or rejecting a resignation letter. He stated,
“Since provisions contained under Article 190(3)(b) of the Constitution of India read with Rule 287 of the Rules specifically talks about the satisfaction of the Speaker with regard to voluntariness and genuineness of the resignation, the writ court cannot go into that aspect of the matter, rather decision, if any, given by the Speaker on the voluntariness and genuineness of the resignation submitted by the member is subject to judicial review.”
The ruling underscores the independence and specific roles assigned to constitutional authorities, maintaining the balance of power between them. The court’s decision highlights the Speaker’s discretion and authority in handling resignations, reaffirming that judicial intervention in this domain is limited to reviewing the decision for compliance with constitutional provisions.
Click Here to Read Previous Reports on MLA Resignations
FOLLOW US ON YOUTUBE FOR MORE LEGAL UPDATES
