The present plea challenges an order of the Bombay High Court at Goa that had dismissed a plea seeking disqualification of the 12 members of the Goa Legislative Assembly who had allegedly defected to the BJP. The High Court verdict essentially upheld the decision taken by the Speaker of the Assembly in this regard.
The special leave petition (SLP) before the Supreme Court stated that the speaker allowed protection to the Congress defectors by invoking the protection guaranteed to a legislature party member when the original political party of a member of the House merges with another party.
The speaker had held that the “deemed merger” of Congress with the BJP had taken place and he afforded protection to the defecting members, the plea stated.
Chodankar’s appeal argued that the speaker’s decision was upheld by the Bombay High Court, “in teeth of the settled principles of merger of a political party under Schedule X passed by the Full Bench of the very same High Court in Shah Faruq Shabir & Ors. v. Govindrao Ramu Vasave & Ors.
The appeal before the Supreme Court further contended that the High Court gave an erroneous interpretation by construing the merger of the original political party merely at the hands of two-thirds majority of any legislature party, “completely disrobing the original political party of any role with respect to its merger and resultantly leaving the original political party at the mercy of the legislature party.“
“Suffice it to say that such an interpretation would render Para 4 of Schedule X otiose and unworkable and would stands at odds with the object of enactment of the Schedule,” the plea said.
The plea thus framed the following questions of law:
1. Whether the merger of the original political party is a necessary pre-condition for the members of a legislature party to claim merger of their legislature party?
2. More importantly, whether the protection granted under Para 4(1) of Schedule X can be granted to members of the legislature party in the absence of the merger of the original political party?
The appeal stated that due to the High Court order, the following anomalous situations would arise:
(i) The more prominent original political party would be at the mercy of the whimsical musings of the majority members of a less conspicuous legislature party;
(ii) The members of a legislature party set up the original political party would hold the fountainhead of their own authority at ransom as they would wield the sword of unilateral merger at their beck and call; and
(iii) Political parties, without having contested elections, would be empowered to acquire 2/3rd members of the House of legislature parties and, therefore, become a part of the House without having the mandate of the electorate that it is representing.
Source: Barandbench
