Himachal Pradesh High Court: In a case wherein a question arose that whether the High Court exercising its power under Article 226 of the Constitution can direct the speaker of Legislative Assembly to decide the voluntariness/genuineness of the resignation submitted by the petitioners in time bound manner, Sandeep Sharma, J.*, observed that in the present case, it had been repeatedly claimed by the petitioners that once they stated before the Speaker, that resignation was voluntarily, there was no reason to conduct enquiry. However, they were unable to express the presence of BJP MLAs accompanying them. The Court stated that once the petitioners were elected as independent candidates, they had no relation of any kind with BJP, presence of BJP MLAs at the time of their tendering resignation might have created certain doubt in the mind of the Speaker regarding voluntariness or genuineness of the resignations.
The Court stated that since provisions contained in Rule 287(2) of the Rules of Procedure and Conduct of Business in Himachal Pradesh Legislative Assembly (‘the Rule’), reserved liberty to the Speaker to not accept the resignation immediately after receiving information that resignation was not voluntary or genuine, the Speaker was well within his right to conduct an inquiry. Thus, the Court opined that no time frame could be fixed by the Constitutional Court for the Speaker to decide the issue of resignation tendered by members of the Legislative Assembly/Vidhan Sabha, if any, brought before him.
Background
In the present case, the petitioners, who were elected as Members of Legislative Assembly, submitted their resignations on 22-03-2024 to the Speaker, Himachal Pradesh Legislative Assembly, thereby resigning from the Assembly with effect to force from 22-03-2024. However, since such request was not accepted immediately, and they were served with show cause notices, dated 27-03-2024, they approached the present Court, seeking direction to the Speaker to accept the resignations of the petitioners dated 22-03-2024.
The Division Bench of the present Court had expressed difference of opinion vide two separate judgments dated 08-05-2024. The Division Bench agreed that the relief prayed for could not be granted. However, the only difference of opinion was whether timeframe could be issued to the Speaker of Legislative Assembly, to decide the issue of voluntariness/genuineness of resignations of the petitioners. The Chief Justice M.S. Ramachandra Rao held that no direction could be issued to the Speaker to take a decision on the resignation letter with the fixed time frame, whereas Justice Jyotsna Rewal Dua had directed the Speaker to decide the resignation within a period of two weeks.
Thus, the issue which fell for consideration before the present Court was whether the High Court while exercising the powers under Article 226 of the Constitution could direct the speaker of Legislative Assembly to decide the issue of voluntariness or genuineness of the resignation submitted by the petitioners in time bound manner.
Analysis, Law, and Decision
The Court stated that though Article 190(3)(b) of the Constitution nowhere talked about specific timeframe for the Speaker to take decisions on the resignation, but Rule 287(2)(b) of the Rule provided that if a member personally handed over the resignation letter to the Speaker, and informed that his resignation was voluntary and genuine, the Speaker might accept the resignation immediately.
The Court further stated that the word ‘may’ was used in Rule 287(2) of the Rules, meaning thereby that the Speaker after considering various circumstances, might or might not accept the resignations immediately. Though, Rule 287(2) of the Rule provided that if a member personally handed over the resignation letter to the Speaker and informed him that his resignation was voluntary and genuine to the Speaker, and the Speaker had no knowledge to the contrary, then subject to his satisfaction, he might accept the resignation immediately. However, if the word “shall” was used then the petitioners could have been right in contending that in the event of their having made themselves available in person to the Speaker, coupled with the statements made to him that they tendered their resignations voluntarily, the Speaker had no option but to accept the resignation letters immediately.
The Court stated referred to Shrimath Balasaheb Patil v. Speaker, Karnataka Legislative Assembly, (2020) 2 SCC 595, and stated that after the thirty-third Constitutional Amendment, 1974, it was mandatory for the Speaker to accept the resignation. Thus, merely addressing resignation to the Speaker would not lead to the seat automatically falling vacant, rather specific decision was required to be taken by the Speaker to accept or reject the resignation. The Court stated that the constitutional requirement of acceptance inheres in it an element of discretion to be exercised by the Speaker. The acceptance or non-acceptance of the resignation of a member was based on a satisfaction to be arrived at by the Speaker, depending on whether the resignation was voluntary and genuine.
The Court observed that in the present case, it had been repeatedly claimed by the petitioners that once they themselves had stated before the Speaker, that they have tendered the resignation voluntarily, there was no reason to conduct enquiry. However, they were unable to express the presence of BJP MLAs accompanying them. The Court stated that once the petitioners were elected as independent candidates, they had no relation of any kind with BJP, presence of BJP MLAs at the time of their tendering resignation might have created certain doubt in the mind of the Speaker regarding voluntariness or genuineness of the resignations. If that was the case, the Speaker was well within his rights, in terms of provisions contained under Rule 287(2) of the Rule, for not accepting the resignations immediately and calling the petitioners by way of show cause notices to explain their position.
The Court stated that since provisions contained in Rule 287(2) of the Rule, reserved liberty to the Speaker to not accept the resignation immediately after receiving information/knowledge that resignation was not voluntary or genuine, the Speaker was well within his right to conduct an inquiry, which might not be a roving one, but certainly limited to the extent that resignation tendered was voluntary and genuine.
Thus, the Court agreed with the view taken by the Chief Justice, that no time frame could be fixed by the Constitutional Court for the Speaker to decide the issue of resignation tendered by members of the Legislative Assembly/Vidhan Sabha, if any, brought before him.
[Hoshyar Singh Chambyal v. Speaker, Himachal Pradesh Legislative Assembly, 2024 SCC OnLine HP 2497, decided on 14-06-2024]
*Judgment authored by- Justice Sandeep Sharma
Advocates who appeared in this case :
For the Petitioners: Maninder Singh Senior Advocate with Anshul Bansal, Ajay Vaidya, Prabhas Bajaj, Shriyek Sharda and Rangasaran Mohan, Advocates;
For the Respondents: Kapil Sibal, Senior Advocate (through Video Conferencing) and Mr. K.S. Banyal, Senior Advocate with Rohit Sharma, Udya Singh Banyal, Aprajita Jamwal, Nikhil Purohit, Jatin lalwani and Rishabh Parikh, Advocates; Ankush Dass Sood, Senior Advocate with Arjun Lal, Advocate.
Buy Constitution of India HERE
