2007 (2) TMI 705 - SC - Indian Laws

Summary

Issues Involved:
1. Formation and dissolution of the coalition government.
2. The Governor's decision on the dissolution recommendation.
3. The petition for disqualification of 13 B.S.P. MLAs.
4. Recognition of a split in the B.S.P. by the Speaker.
5. The High Court proceedings and its handling of the writ petition.
6. The interpretation and application of the Tenth Schedule of the Constitution.
7. The role and jurisdiction of the Speaker under the Tenth Schedule.
8. The timing and relevance of disqualification under the Tenth Schedule.
9. Judicial review of the Speaker's decision.
10. The final decision on the disqualification of the 13 MLAs.

Detailed Analysis:

1. Formation and Dissolution of the Coalition Government:
The coalition government in Uttar Pradesh was formed in May 2002 after no party secured a majority in the February 2002 elections. The government was led by Ms. Mayawati from the Bahujan Samaj Party (B.S.P.). On 25.8.2003, the cabinet decided to recommend the dissolution of the Assembly, and Ms. Mayawati resigned the next day. However, before the resignation, the leader of the Samajwadi Party staked a claim to form the government.

2. The Governor's Decision on the Dissolution Recommendation:
The Governor did not accept the recommendation for dissolution. Instead, on 29.8.2003, he invited the leader of the Samajwadi Party, Mr. Mulayam Singh Yadav, to form the government, giving him two weeks to prove his majority.

3. Petition for Disqualification of 13 B.S.P. MLAs:
On 4.9.2003, Mr. Swami Prasad Maurya filed a petition before the Speaker under Article 191 and the Tenth Schedule, seeking the disqualification of 13 B.S.P. MLAs who had supported Mr. Mulayam Singh Yadav. The petition claimed they had voluntarily given up their membership in B.S.P.

4. Recognition of a Split in the B.S.P. by the Speaker:
On 6.9.2003, 37 MLAs, claiming to represent a split in B.S.P., requested the Speaker to recognize them as a separate group. The Speaker accepted this claim the same evening, recognizing the split and the formation of the Lok Tantrik Bahujan Dal. Later, he accepted the merger of this group with the Samajwadi Party.

5. The High Court Proceedings and Handling of the Writ Petition:
The writ petition challenging the Speaker's order was filed on 29.9.2003. The High Court's handling of the case was marked by multiple adjournments and delays. The petition was dismissed for default on 22.4.2004, restored on 20.12.2004, and finally admitted on 6.1.2005. The High Court ultimately quashed the Speaker's order, directing him to reconsider the disqualification petition.

6. Interpretation and Application of the Tenth Schedule of the Constitution:
The Tenth Schedule, added by the Constitution (Fifty-second Amendment) Act, 1985, deals with disqualification on the ground of defection. The Supreme Court in Kihoto Hollohan upheld its validity, allowing judicial review of the Speaker's decisions. The present case required examining the application of paragraphs 2, 3, and 4 of the Tenth Schedule.

7. The Role and Jurisdiction of the Speaker under the Tenth Schedule:
The Speaker's role is to decide on disqualification petitions. The Speaker must determine whether a split in the original political party occurred and whether the defecting members constitute one-third of the legislature party. The Speaker's decision-making process was scrutinized for procedural and jurisdictional correctness.

8. The Timing and Relevance of Disqualification under the Tenth Schedule:
The Supreme Court clarified that disqualification occurs at the moment a member voluntarily gives up party membership or defies a whip, not when the Speaker decides on it. The Speaker must consider the situation as it existed at the time of the alleged defection.

9. Judicial Review of the Speaker's Decision:
Judicial review of the Speaker's decision is limited to jurisdictional errors, violation of constitutional mandates, mala fides, non-compliance with natural justice, and perversity. The Supreme Court found the Speaker's decision flawed and not immune from judicial scrutiny.

10. The Final Decision on the Disqualification of the 13 MLAs:
The Supreme Court concluded that the 13 MLAs had voluntarily given up their B.S.P. membership by requesting the Governor to invite the opposition leader to form the government. The claim of a split in the B.S.P. was not substantiated with evidence. Consequently, the 13 MLAs were disqualified with effect from 27.8.2003. The appeals by the 37 MLAs were dismissed, and the appeal by the writ petitioner was allowed, resulting in the disqualification of the 13 MLAs.