Ravi S. Naik v. Union of India

Supreme Court of India · 9 February 1994 · 2 judges

The Court upheld the disqualification of two Goa MLAs who had voluntarily given up membership of their party, but quashed Ravi Naik's disqualification because the Speaker had ignored a High Court stay when counting his split group.

Facts

After the 1989 Goa Assembly elections, Sanjay Bandekar and Ratnakar Chopdekar, elected on the Maharashtrawadi Gomantak Party (MGP) ticket, went with Congress (I) MLAs to the Governor to support a rival claim to form the Government. On 13 December 1990 the Speaker disqualified them under paragraph 2(1)(a) of the Tenth Schedule; the High Court stayed that order the next day. Ravi Naik, also elected on the MGP ticket, became Chief Minister on 25 January 1991. Answering a disqualification petition, he claimed that a split on 24 December 1990 had created an MGP group of eight MLAs. The Speaker disqualified him on 15 February 1991, holding that the split was not proved and that, leaving out the two disqualified MLAs and one who disowned his signature, the group was less than one third of the 18 member legislature party. The High Court dismissed both writ petitions and the members appealed.

Questions before the Court

Whether a member can be held to have voluntarily given up membership of his party under paragraph 2(1)(a) of the Tenth Schedule without a formal resignation.
Whether breach of the Disqualification Rules made under paragraph 8, or the short time given to reply, vitiated the Speaker's order.
Whether the Speaker could ignore the High Court's stay of an earlier disqualification order when deciding whether a split group had one third of the legislature party.

What the Court held

The words 'voluntarily given up his membership' are wider than resignation. Even without a formal resignation, the member's conduct can show that he has voluntarily given up membership of his party.
The Disqualification Rules made under paragraph 8 are procedural and subordinate to the Constitution. Their breach is an irregularity of procedure protected by paragraph 6(2) and is not a breach of a constitutional mandate, so it does not by itself give a ground for judicial review.
Natural justice is flexible and depends on the facts. Giving two days instead of seven to reply, and the Speaker's reference to newspaper photographs of a fact the members did not deny, did not vitiate the disqualification of Bandekar and Chopdekar.
The burden of proving a split under paragraph 3 lies on the member who claims it. The failure to give the Speaker the information required by Rules 3 and 4 does not show that there was no split.
An interim order binds until set aside. The Speaker was bound by the High Court's stay and any action taken in disregard of it was a nullity; later dismissal of the writ petition did not validate it.
Counting the two members whose disqualification was stayed, Naik's group was more than one third of the MGP legislature party, so his disqualification breached paragraph 3 and was quashed.

Why it matters

The judgment applies Kihoto Hollohan to the Speaker's decisions under the Tenth Schedule. It explains that 'voluntarily given up his membership' can be inferred from conduct, holds that breach of the Speaker's procedural rules is not a breach of a constitutional mandate, places the burden of proving a split on the member who claims it, and holds that the Speaker is bound by a court's interim stay.

In the Court's words

Copied from the official judgment; each passage links to its page.

“The words "voluntarily given up his membership" are not synonymous with "resignation" and have a wider connotation. A person may voluntarily give up his membership of a political party even though he has not tendered his resignation from the membership of that party.”

S.C. Agrawal, J.Page 17 of the judgment

“Moreover, the field of judicial review in respect of the orders passed by the Speaker under sub-paragraph (1) of paragraph 6 as construed by this Court in Kihoto Hollohan's case (supra) is confined to breaches of the constitutional mandates, mala fides, non-compliance with Rules of Natural Justice and perversity.”

S.C. Agrawal, J.Page 23 of the judgment

“An order of an authority exercising judicial or quasi-judicial functions passed in violation of the principles of natural justice is procedurally ultra vires and, therefore, suffers from a jurisdictional error. That is the reason why in spite of the finality imparted to the decision of the Speakers/Chairmen by paragraph 6(1) of the Tenth Schedule such a decision is subject to judicial review on the ground of non-compliance with rules of natural justice.”

S.C. Agrawal, J.Page 24 of the judgment

“This would mean that the Speaker was bound by the stay order passed by the High Court on December 14, 1990 and any action taken by him in disregard of the said stay order was a nullity.”

S.C. Agrawal, J.Page 38 of the judgment

Provisions interpreted

Article 191(2), Constitution
Tenth Schedule, paragraphs 2, 3, 6 and 8, Constitution
Article 226, Constitution
Goa Legislative Assembly (Disqualification on Grounds of Defection) Rules, Rules 3, 4, 6 and 7

Related judgments

Follows Kihoto Hollohan v. Zachillhu (1992)“as construed by this Court in Kihoto Hollohan's case (supra) is confined to breaches of the constitutional mandates” (page 23)

Case and bench

Parties: Ravi S. Naik and Sanjay Bandekar v. Union of India
Case: Civil Appeal No. 2904 of 1993 with Civil Appeal No. 3309 of 1993
Decided: 9 February 1994
Bench: Venkatachaliah, CJ, S.C. Agrawal, J
Opinions: Unanimous. The Judgment of the Court was delivered by S.C. Agrawal, J.

Questions on this case

1 question in live Law Maker papers mentions this case. Practise them with the landmark judgments questions.