Tag: Rajasthan assembly

Rajasthan Government To Bring Bill Against Centre’s Farm Laws on October 31

The Ashok Gehlot government is set to follow in the footsteps of another Congress-ruled state, Punjab.

Jaipur: The Rajasthan government will bring a Bill against the Centre’s farm laws in the state assembly on October 31, a senior Congress leader said on Sunday.

After Punjab, the Rajasthan government will pass a bill to negate anti-farmer provisions in the Centre’s three agricultural bills on October 31, Congress national general secretary (organisation) K.C. Venugopal tweeted on Sunday.

He said the Congress is committed to protect farmers and their rights. “Congratulations to [the] Ashok Gehlot-led Govt,” Venugopal tweeted.

Chief minister Ashok Gehlot had earlier said that his government will bring a bill against the Centre’s farm laws on the lines of Punjab.

The Punjab assembly recently unanimously passed four Bills and adopted a resolution against the farm laws.

The Rajasthan state assembly, which was adjourned on August 24, 2020, will resume its business on October 31, 2020, according to a notification issued by the Rajasthan Legislative Secretariat on Saturday.

Meanwhile, the BJP said farmers are bearing losses as the Congress government in the state is not implementing the laws enacted by the Centre.

State BJP chief spokesman Ramlal Sharma said his party will oppose the government in the assembly.

He claimed that the government has said that it will bring a bill providing three-year jail for traders if they purchase crops below the minimum support price (MSP).

The entire country knows that only 8-10 per cent purchase is done above the MSP and the rest farmers sell in the open market, he said, adding that if the government introduces such a provision then traders will not come to the state to buy farmers’ produce.

“If the government wants to decide for the benefit of farmers, then it should mention in the bill that it will bear difference value if farmers’ produce is purchased below the MSP by any trader,” Sharma said.

Rajasthan HC Refuses to Quash 6 BSP MLAs’ Merger With Congress

The bench asked the speaker to decide on the six MLAs’ disqualification within three months.

Jaipur: Amid the political crisis within the Congress’s Rajasthan unit last month, the merger of six Bahujan Samaj Party (BSP) MLAs into the Congress last year was challenged before the Jaipur bench of the Rajasthan high court by Bharatiya Janta Party (BJP) MLA Madan Dilawar, BSP national secretary Satish Mishra and BSP state president Bhagwan Singh Baba.

The six MLAs – Sandeep Yadav, Wajib Ali, Deepchand Kheria, Lakhan Meena, Jogendra Awana and Rajendra Gudha – were elected on the tickets issued by the BSP. On September 16, 2019, they moved an application before Rajasthan assembly speaker C.P. Joshi claiming that the BSP was merging with the Congress. Joshi, in an order dated September 18, 2019, accepted the merger.

On March 6 this year, Dilawar filed a petition seeking the disqualification of these six MLAs, alleging defection. However, Joshi rejected this petition on July 22.

Through two different writ petitions, one by Mishra and Baba and another by Dilawar, Joshi’s order allowing the merger was challenged before the single-judge bench of Justice Mahendra Kumar Goyal at the Rajasthan high court. In addition, Dilawar also challenged Joshi’s July order rejecting his disqualification petition against the six BSP MLAs.

On August 24, the Rajasthan high court announced its verdict in the case. It held that the merger allowed by Joshi does not fall under the category of a “decision”.

It reasoned, “The Speaker acquires jurisdiction to adjudicate upon the claim of merger only while considering the plea of disqualification and not otherwise, therefore, the order dated September 18, 2019 cannot be held to be the decision on the claim of merger by the six BSP MLAs.”

Also read: In a Bid to Keep Pilot Happy, Congress Removes Avinash Pande as Rajasthan In-Charge

It further added that “decision” implies conflict of facts or law or both where a verdict is set out through judicial process by an independent and competent final authority; however, the speaker allowing claim of merger by the six BSP MLAs cannot be called a as “decision”.

“The order does not decide any of the rival claims of the parties and cannot be treated as an adjudication on the claim of merger. It simply records the claim of the merger of BSP with the Congress presented by the six BSP MLAs. The speaker being a non-partisan person, is not expected, in our constitutional scheme, to conduct any further inquiry at the time of recording claim of merger for the administrative purposes, in absence of any plea of disqualification,” the high court stated.

It, therefore, said that Joshi’s order allowing the merger was an administrative order under the Rajasthan Assembly Members (Disqualification on the Grounds of Defection) Rules of 1989, that has immunity under Article 212 of the Constitution. (The Article prohibits the validity of any proceedings in legislature from being called into question in a court merely on the ground of irregularity of procedure.)

Referring to Kihoto Hollohan vs Zachillhu And Others, it said, “The Court acquires jurisdiction to put such adjudication to judicial review only on the infirmities based on violation of constitutional mandate, mala fides, non compliance with rules of natural justice and perversity. Judicial review should not cover any stage prior to the making of a decision by the Speaker or a Chairman.”

The court said that there exists no such exceptional circumstance in the present case for the court to interfere in the order allowing merger.

“Since the order dated September 18, 2019 has been held to be an administrative order and not an order under paragraph 4 of the Tenth Schedule (that deals with exemption to disqualification in case of merger), this Court refrains itself from venturing into the question of its validity qua the parameters laid down therein,” the court recorded.

It further held that the court does not have jurisdiction to declare the six BSP MLAs disqualified. This decision rests only with the speaker, under the Tenth Schedule of the Constitution.

The court dismissed the writ petition filed by BSP national secretary Satish Mishra and state president Bhagwan Singh Baba.

However, it allowed the petitioner to file a disqualification petition with the Speaker raising plea of defection of the six BSP MLAs. “If any such (disqualification) petition is filed, the Speaker is expected to decide the same in accordance with law without rejecting it under Rule 6(2) of the Rajasthan Assembly Members (Disqualification on the Grounds of Defection) Rules of 1989,” the court stated.

Also read: Ashok Gehlot vs Sachin Pilot: A Timeline of How the Rajasthan Crisis Unfolded

On the question of Joshi rejecting Dilawar’s disqualification petition against the six BSP MLAs through its July order, the court quashed and set aside the order and held, “Once, the factum of alleged defection was brought to the notice of the Speaker, he was under the constitutional obligation to adjudicate upon the same.”

It further stated that the speaker is expected to take a decision on the disqualification petition filed by Dilawar within the period of three months.

The single-judge bench of Justice Mahendra Kumar Goyal had earlier refused to stay the participation of these BSP MLAs in the assembly as Congress legislators, but issued notices to the speaker, the assembly secretary and six MLAs seeking their response in its hearing on August 11.

Not satisfied with the decision of the single-judge bench, the petitioners moved an appeal to the division bench of Rajasthan high court against the order of the single-judge bench. However, the division bench of Chief Justice Indrajit Mahanty and Justice Prakash Gupta dismissed their appeal.

On August 8, the BSP MLAs had moved the Supreme Court urging transfer of the petition seeking their disqualification pending in the Rajasthan high court to the apex court.

In their petition, they submitted that similar matters pertaining to the interpretation of paragraph 4 of the Tenth Schedule of the Constitution (dealing with exceptions to disqualification in case of merger), are already pending before the Supreme Court.

“There is an urgent need to clarify the law in respect of the scope of Paragraph 4 of the Tenth Schedule to ensure that there are no conflicting judgments,” their plea had stated.

Rajasthan: Ashok Gehlot-Led Congress Govt Wins Trust Vote in Assembly

Former deputy CM Sachin Pilot, now firmly back in Rajasthan Congress fold, said the trust vote resulted in victory despite “various attempts by the opposition.”

Jaipur: The month-long political slugfest in Rajasthan formally came to an end as the Ashok Gehlot-led Congress government on Friday won the confidence motion on the floor of the state assembly.

The Congress, through its chief whip Mahesh Joshi, had submitted a notice to the Speaker C.P. Joshi for a trust vote.

Law and Parliamentary Affairs minister Shanti Dhariwal tabled a proposal for trust vote in the state assembly.

During the debate on the trust vote, Dhariwal accused BJP of luring MLAs from the Congress. He added that the Narendra Modi government at the Centre has been destabilising governments.

Congress leader and former deputy chief minister Sachin Pilot did not sit next to Chief Minister Gehlot. He was allotted a seat next to Independent MLA Sanyam Lodha, behind health minister Raghu Sharma and transport minister Pratap Singh Khachariwas.

Also read: Ashok Gehlot vs Sachin Pilot: A Timeline of How the Rajasthan Crisis Unfolded

Speaking in the legislative assembly, Gehlot raised questions over the role of agencies like the Enforcement Directorate, the CBI and the Income Tax department, stating that they are being misused.

Gehlot also said that he would like to tell the opposition that no matter how much they try, he will not let the government of Rajasthan fall.

Countering Congress’s accusations, deputy leader of opposition Rajendra Rathore said, “The IPS officers were sabotaging the minds of MLAs. Congress government misused agencies like Special Operations Group and Anti-Corruption Bureau and illegally tapped telephones.”

He added the director general of police also acted inappropriately.

Pilot, who had left Jaipur in protest and led a revolt against Gehlot with the support of 18 MLAs, only to return to the fold a month later, said, “The vote of confidence which was brought by the government has been passed with a very good majority today in the Rajasthan assembly. Despite various attempts by the opposition, the result is in favour of the government.”

The Bahujan Samaj Party (BSP) had issued a whip to its MLAs, directing them to vote against the Congress.

The assembly speaker also announced that the house will be adjourned till August 21.

Ashok Gehlot and Sachin Pilot Shake Hands, Smile at Congress Meeting

The Rajasthan assembly session begins on Friday..

Jaipur: A day ahead of the special assembly session in Rajasthan requested by chief minister Ashok Gehlot, the showdown between him and his former deputy, Sachin Pilot, appears to have finally settled down.

The two greeted each other with a handshake, in the presence of senior Congress leader K.C. Venugopal, during a Congress Legislature Party meeting at Gehlot’s residence on Thursday. This was the first time the two met after the month-long rebellion by Pilot and MLAs supporting him.

The suspension of Pilot camp MLAs Bhanwarlal Sharma and Vishvendra Singh was also revoked on Thursday.

They were sacked from their positions last month after three audio tapes, of them having a purported conversation with Union minister Gajendra Singh Shekhawat on toppling the Congress government, were leaked.

While Gehlot had signalled his “forget and forgive” attitude, he specified that it is needed to “save democracy”.

Also read: Ashok Gehlot vs Sachin Pilot: A Timeline of How the Rajasthan Crisis Unfolded

Gehlot camp MLAs have come back to Jaipur, but are still staying at a hotel and not interacting with others.

“The Congress’s fight is to save democracy under the leadership of Sonia Gandhi and Rahul Gandhi. In the past one month, whatever internal discord happened within the Congress party, we have to, for the state, for the country and for the people for Rajasthan, move on with the spirit of forget-and-forgive,” Gehlot tweeted.

The meeting was called to discuss the plan of action for the assembly session on Friday.

Meanwhile, the Bharatiya Janta Party has now announced that it will move a no-confidence motion against the Gehlot government in the session tomorrow.

On Tuesday, Pilot had said that he was hurt when Gehlot had called him “nikamma” and “nakara“, and accused Pilot of conspiring with the BJP to topple the state government.

Pilot met former Congress president Rahul Gandhi on Monday night, following which the party announced the constitution of a three-member committee to address the issues raised by Pilot and the other rebel MLAs, and arrive at an appropriate resolution.

As Pilot’s Conduct Earns Him Brownie Points, Gehlot Could Have to Come to a Compromise

Pilot has managed to maintain dignified silence in this tense period. Gehlot, on the other hand, has been vocal in his distrust and has called him names.

Jaipur: Rajasthan chief minister Ashok Gehlot may have been the steady ‘winner’ of the month-long political showdown between him and his former deputy Sachin Pilot, however, not all seems to be well for him right now.

Making headlines, late on Monday, Pilot met former Congress president Rahul Gandhi. The Gandhis’ underlining Pilot’s rebellion as a “grievance” is what signals trouble for Gehlot as his former deputy returns to the city he left nearly a month ago.

During the political impasse between the two, Gehlot had lost his calm and gone to the extent of calling Pilot ‘nikamma’ (‘useless’) and ‘nakara’ (‘good for nothing’). Upon his insistence, Pilot was sacked from the positions of deputy chief minister of the state and chief of Rajasthan Pradesh Congress Committee (PCC).

On the other hand, Pilot has managed to maintain dignified conduct during this tense period. From day one of the crisis, Pilot insisted that he would not leave the Congress party and claimed that his has no grudge against the party leadership. He even congratulated the newly appointed state Congress chief.

Also read: Ashok Gehlot vs Sachin Pilot: A Timeline of How the Rajasthan Crisis Unfolded

All this seems to have impressed the Gandhi family who then initiated the reconciliation with Pilot by sending senior Congress leader K.C. Venugopal to speak to the Gehlot camp MLAs in Jaisalmer, making sure to send Gehlot back to Jaipur while the talks were taking place.

The party’s subsequent announcement of constituting a three-member committee to address the issues raised by Pilot and the other rebel MLAs of Rajasthan and arrive at an appropriate resolution, is indication that Gehlot might have lost his purported ‘image’ before the Gandhis.

Just as Gandhis’ talk with Pilot was officially announced by the Congress party on Monday night, Pilot tweeted a thank you note to Sonia Gandhi, Priyanka Gandhi Vadra and Rahul Gandhi. However, Gehlot has been silent.

Political analysts in Rajasthan believe that the Gandhi family is not very happy with how Gehlot has been handling the crisis, and feel that he has been sending out an image of the party that is distinctly negative.

“Sachin Pilot has acted intelligently by not breaking the trust of the Gandhi family. It’s Gehlot who will now have to do the damage control,” said Rajendra Bora, a senior journalist and political analyst based in Jaipur.

The infighting within the Congress in Rajasthan has also highlighted the lack of capability in the senior leadership trusted with managing the state. This list of seniors includes Avinash Pandey, Randeep Surjewala and Ajay Maken, who seemingly failed in assessing the magnitude of the differences between Gehlot and Pilot.

“The Congress initially relied on Pandey, Surjewala and Maken to sort out the issues, but when they were also seen speaking in the tone of Gehlot, K.C. Venugopal was asked to intervene,” added Bora.

What now for Pilot?

While Pilot seems to have the upper hand at the moment, it remains to be seen if he will accept a position that the party would offer him in Rajasthan.

Pilot had held the ‘number two’ position in the state. With the comeback, he could well be looking for a more serious role.

There is already a new Rajasthan PCC chief in place who has replaced Pilot. The new appointee for this post, Govind Singh Dotasara, is a well known Gehlot loyalist and it is unlikely that Gehlot would let him go within few days of his appointment.

Also read: Rajasthan: Is a Compromise Between Ashok Gehlot and Sachin Pilot in the Offing?

The party could reinstate Pilot as deputy chief minister, assuring him that due importance would be given to his office, however, it seems improbable that Pilot, who gave a hard time to Gehlot while putting his own career at risk, would agree to the same old role in the party.

Another option, as speculated, could be assigning Pilot a role in the Congress at the central level. However, that would mean disappointing senior leaders who would not be willing to compromise.

Even Pilot seems reluctant to leave his base in Rajasthan. In his tweet after meeting with the Gandhis on Monday, he has mentioned that he would work for the people of Rajasthan. He returned to Jaipur today, August 11.

Still on the edge after only barely saving its government from being toppled by the Bharatiya Janata Party, the Congress is at a critical juncture and not in a position to take away the chief minister’s post from Gehlot, who enjoys the support of far more MLAs than Pilot.

During the crisis, Gehlot had been quite vocal about his differences with Pilot – some would say, too vocal. In case the Congress high command decides to make Pilot the chief minister, Gehlot would definitely not sit and watch.

The 18 Pilot-camp MLAs who stood by him during the crisis are also eyeing more advantageous positions in what could be a cabinet reshuffle.

While Congress has already committed to look out for Pilot and other rebel MLAs, accommodating their demands would upset the Gehlot loyalists who are more than 80 in number. This is, again, a big problem for Gehlot.

Analysts believe that the way Pilot is handling himself, he is unlikely to immediately accept just any position from the party.

“Pilot must have realised that there will be no point in going back to the deputy chief minister’s office with Gehlot as the chief minister. His case has grown even stronger because he has not asked for a position yet,” said Bora.

Ashok Gehlot vs Sachin Pilot: A Timeline of How the Rajasthan Crisis Unfolded

With Sachin Pilot meeting Rahul Gandhi on Monday, the rebellion in Congress seems to have been put out.

Jaipur: The crisis in the Rajasthan assembly after Sachin Pilot’s rebellion has now extended into a second month. On July 10, the Rajasthan police had filed a case against two persons who were discussing Pilot’s ‘ambition’ to become chief minister. The next, the then deputy chief minister of Rajasthan flew to Delhi and declared his rebellion against the leadership of chief minister Ashok Gehlot.

The stage for the crisis is now set to shift to the Rajasthan assembly, with a session set to commence of August 14. The Gehlot government is likely to see a trust vote to prove it has the majority in the assembly.

In Rajasthan’s 200 MLA-strong assembly, the Congress has a total of 107 MLAs and the additional support of 13 independents. In addition, the Rashtriya Lok Dal’s sole MLA,  Subhash Garg, is a minister in Gehlot’s cabinet. The BJP has 72 MLAs and its smaller ally, the Rashtriya Loktantrik Party of Hanuman Beniwal has 3.

If Pilot and 18 other MLAs withdraw their support to Gehlot during the trust vote, the government still has the numbers to prove its majority.

On Monday (August 10), Pilot met Rahul Gandhi and had a “frank, open and conclusive discussion”. AICC general secretary K.C. Venugopal claimed that Pilot would continue to be a part of the Congress in Rajasthan, prompting speculation that the crisis would culminate.

The party also decided to constitute a three-member committee to address the issues raised by Pilot and the rebel MLAs to arrive at an appropriate resolution.

The Wire provides a detailed account of how the series of events unfolded.

Rajasthan Speaker Files Fresh SLP Against HC Order on Rebel MLAs’ Disqualification

The court can only interfere once the speaker has made a decision on the matter, C.P. Joshi has argued.

Jaipur: Rajasthan assembly speaker C.P. Joshi on Wednesday filed a special leave petition (SLP) in the Supreme Court against the Rajasthan high court order passed on July 24. A division bench of comprising Chief Justice Indrajit Mahanty and Justice Prakash Gupta had restrained the speaker from conducting disqualification proceedings against 19 Congress rebel MLAs including former deputy chief minister Sachin Pilot.

The SLP, filed by advocate-on-record Sunil Fernandes, raised the several grounds before the apex court. First, he argued that as per the Kihoto Hollohan judgement, the court can interfere only when the speaker has given a final decision in matters dealing with disqualification, that too on limited grounds.

In the case of Rajasthan, since the speaker had not yet decided on the disqualification petition moved by the Ashok Gehlot government against the rebel MLAs, and had merely given them notice – under Rule 7(4) of the Rajasthan Assembly Disqualification Rules, 1989 – to submit their responses, the SLP stated that the prayers of these MLAs in their petition before the high court wanted to restrain an action that had not yet occurred.

The SLP further stated that the notice issued by the speaker is a proceeding of the House, protected from judicial interference under Article 212 of the constitution. “Issuing notice is a Proceeding in the House under Para 6(2) of the Tenth Schedule and is not subject to judicial review anterior to decision itself. Article 212 clearly bars any such challenge.”

The rebel MLAs, in their petition, had asked the high court to declare paragraph 2[1][a] of the tenth schedule, which deals with disqualification on the grounds that a member has voluntarily given up membership of their original political party, to be violative of the basic structure of the constitution. In its July 24 order, the high court agreed to consider this plea.

Also read: Explained: Here’s Why the Rajasthan Governor’s Actions Are Being Criticised

Raising this, the SLP added that the high court, while acting in “gross judicial indiscipline” and “judicial impropriety”, was reopening settled issues.

It submitted that the high court could not entertain a challenge to the disqualification at the stage when members of the House are served notices by the speaker to seek their response. “The person aggrieved has to face the inquiry or proceedings and it is only the final determination which is amendable to judicial review,” reads the SLP.

How did it all start?

On July 14, the Gehlot government, through chief whip Mahesh Joshi, submitted a disqualification petition against rebel Congress MLAs to speaker C.P. Joshi. The petition listed reasons such as missing Congress Legislature Party (CLP) meetings, conspiring to topple the elected government in Rajasthan, hostile conduct and remaining inaccessible.

The state assembly secretariat issued notices to all of the rebels, asking them to send their written submissions within three days (by July 17), failing which an ex-parte action will be sought against them.

The rebel MLAs who were served this notice moved to high court, primarily stating that failure to attend meetings of the CLP, listed as a reason for disqualification in the state government’s petition, is not a valid ground for disqualification.

The Rajasthan high court initially barred the speaker from seeking any action against the rebel MLAs till July 21. On July 21, the court said it would announce its verdict on July 24, requesting the speaker to defer action against the rebel MLAs till then.

Also read: Rajasthan: Governor Calls Assembly Session From Aug 14 After Cabinet Submits 21-Day Notice

On July 22, Joshi moved an SLP against the Rajasthan high court’s July 21 order that restrained Joshi from “calling replies and conducting disqualification proceedings” against 19 rebel Congress MLAs including Sachin Pilot till July 24.

Hearing the SLP, the Supreme Court didn’t stay the high court proceedings. On July 24, the high court ordered the speaker not to conduct disqualification proceedings against the rebel MLAs. Following this, Joshi withdrew his petition to file a fresh SLP.

Lawyer Kapil Sibal informed that because the apex court didn’t stay the high court order as prayed in the previous SLP, the high court proceeded to pass a detailed order on July 24. Due to this, the subject matter of the previous SLP “merged” with the high court’s subsequent order of July 24, and made that SLP infructuous.

On Wednesday, Joshi filed a fresh SLP against the July 24 high court order.

Rajasthan Crisis: Experts Believe BSP Cannot Issue ‘Whip’ to MLAs Who Joined Congress

Experts say only the legislative party leader can issue the whip and that precedent does not support party’s claim that legislative parties cannot merge without the national parties merging.

New Delhi: Legal and constitutional experts are divided on the merits of the arguments furnished by Bahujan Samaj Party national general secretary Satish Mishra on Sunday while issuing a “whip” on behalf of his party to the six MLAs who were elected to the Rajasthan assembly on the party ticket but ‘merged’ with the Congress. While some have questioned his locus standi to issue the whip, others have said it is only possible if the party had authorised his name at the beginning of the assembly’s tenure.

Through the “whip”, Mishra had directed all the six MLAs through paragraph 2(1)(a) of the Tenth Schedule ‒ popularly known as the anti-defection law – to “vote against the Congress party in any No Confidence Motion or any other proceedings to be held during the Assembly session in Rajasthan Assembly” and cautioned them that “if they violate the same they fill face disqualification”.

In view of these six MLAs having already joined the Congress, in the note, Mishra also reasoned, “Since BSP is a recognised national party as such there cannot be any merger under para (40) of the Xth Schedule at the state level at the instance of the 6 MLAs unless there is a merger of the entire BSP everywhere at the national level.”

He also wrote that these MLAs “cannot claim any merger under any illegal and unconstitutional order” of the speaker, which is against the Tenth Schedule as well as against several judgments of the Supreme Court, including a three-judge bench decision in Jagjit Singh v State of Haryana (2006) and the constitution bench decision in the Rajendra Singh Rana (2007) case.

Also Read: Supreme Court Allows Rajasthan Speaker to Withdraw SLP Challenging HC Order

‘Whip can only be issued by leader of legislative party’

Reacting to his contention, senior Supreme Court advocate Sanjay Hegde, said at the first instance Mishra has no authority to issue the whip. “A whip is a legislative or parliamentary device. It can only be issued by the leader of a legislative or parliamentary party as the case may be. So for it to have legal effect under the Tenth Schedule, it should be issued by the leader of the legislative party.”

In the case of Rajasthan, the BSP MLAs, he said, merged with the Congress a long time back and so now they can only be issued a whip by the leader of the Congress legislative party. Under the Tenth Schedule, he said, “No other person has a legal right to issue them a whip.”

As for Mishra’s contention that only national parties can merge with each other, Hegde denied that this was the law. He added that the power of disqualification also lies with the speaker and not with the courts.

Earlier, Sunil Fernandes, a lawyer representing the Congress, had also gone on record to state that the Tenth Schedule “permits the merger of a legislative party, and the contention that the BSP, as a national party, must merge with the Congress for the BSP legislators to merge with Congress is misconceived.” He said, “The parent party may not merge but members of a legislative party have the right to merge with some other party under the Tenth Schedule or the anti-defection Act.”

‘Mishra can only issue whip if he was authorised’

Providing a different dimension, constitutional expert and former Lok Sabha secretary general, Subhash C. Kashyap said some specific points would determine the legal sanctity of the whip. “The whip,” he said, “can be issued only in connection with the proceedings of the house. So if it pertains to a vote of confidence, it is okay. Secondly, the secretariat of the assembly has to be informed at the very beginning [of the assembly’s tenure] as to who will be the authorised person to issue the whip. There is a form that is filled in the beginning and that includes the name of the whip or other authorised person. If that person is Satish Mishra, then only he can issue it.”

As for the question of BSP MLAs joining the Congress without the two parties merging at the national level, he said, there are precedents to it.

Senior journalist Gurdeep Singh Sappal, meanwhile, tweeted that as far as Mishra’s citing the Rajendra Singh Rana case goes, the BJP had itself rendered the provision ineffective when it got two Telugu Desam Party members to join it in the Rajya Sabha – without the two parties merging at the national level. Also, it has been pointed out that in Goa earlier, the BJP had similarly got the Congress MLAs to merge with their legislative party.


With the BSP saying that the whip was issued as per a decision taken by Mayawati, and with Mishra citing apex court rulings, it seems the party is eager to take the battle to the courts. The BJP too wants the issue should to be settled in court. Its Rajasthan state in-charge Satish Poonia said: “A constitutional and legal situation has risen. Either the high court should decide or the governor should intervene in the matter.”

Meanwhile, the Rajasthan high court on Monday dismissed Bharatiya Janata party (BJP) MLA Madan Dilawar’s petition against merger of BSP MLAs with the ruling Congress party.

Rajasthan Governor Returns Gehlot’s Revised Proposal on Convening Assembly Session

This is the second time that Kalraj Mishra has returned the cabinet’s file to seek additional information.

Jaipur: Rajasthan governor Kalraj Mishra on Monday returned the Ashok Gehlot government’s cabinet note seeking an assembly session, asking for ‘additional information’.

This is the second time that the governor has returned the proposal and sought clarifications from the state government. “The governor has returned the file to the state government with some queries. The matter is being examined,” government sources said.

On Saturday, the cabinet had sent a revised proposal to the governor for calling an assembly session from July 31. On Friday, Mishra had returned the government’s first proposal.

Also Read: Rajasthan: Why the Governor Can’t Use His Discretion on When to Call Assembly Session

Returning the first proposal, the governor had sought clarifications on six points, after Congress MLAs held a five-hour dharna on the lawns of the Raj Bhawan pressing for a vidhan sabha session.

The Congress government, which is facing a political crisis after a rebellion by the now sacked deputy chief minister Sachin Pilot and 18 other dissident MLAs, says it wants to hold the session so that it can prove its majority.

Gehlot has alleged that the governor is facing pressure “from above” to stall the assembly from meeting, hinting at the alleged involvement of the BJP government at the Centre in the tussle for power in the state.

Mishra has denied the charge.

Including the 19 dissidents, the Congress has 107 MLAs in the 200-member assembly and the BJP 72.

Pilot Vs Gehlot: Law Allows Speaker to Decide Where Free Speech Ends and Defection Begins

Congress dissidents are wasting the high court’s time by questioning the constitutionality of the notice the assembly speaker has issued them. The court’s role begins when the speaker takes a decision, and is at best limited.

The political developments in Rajasthan have thrown up some interesting legal and constitutional issues.

The legal battle started with the Congress party filing a petition before the speaker of the assembly seeking the disqualification of the rebel Congress MLAs led by Sachin Pilot. The term ‘whip’ used in the petition before the speaker has created a good deal of confusion in the legal circles. A whip is usually issued by a political party to its members in the legislature asking them to vote in a particular way in the house. In the face of a whip, if those members do not vote or abstain from voting, they are liable to be disqualified. But how can a party issue a whip to its members asking them to attend the party meeting and how can those members who do not attend that meeting be disqualified? This doubt naturally arose in the minds of laymen as well as lawyers. The arguments in the Rajasthan high court by the lawyer representing the rebel Congressmen indicate this was one of their key points.

The 10th schedule of the constitution (para 2 (1)(a) and (b)) specifies two grounds on which a member of the legislature can be disqualified. These are: (i) He has voluntarily given up his membership of the party, and (ii) He has voted or abstained from voting contrary to any direction issued by his party.

‘Whip’ – Much ado about nothing

In the Rajasthan case, the second ground is inapplicable because there was no occasion for a vote in the assembly. The Congress’s petition to the speaker, therefore, cites the first ground, namely, the rebel MLAs’ voluntary surrender of party membership. In this context, the confusion surrounding the term ‘whip’ needs to be removed. It is obvious that this term has been used rather loosely in the petition before the speaker.

However, it must be noted that the term ‘whip’ does not even figure in the 10th schedule, which uses the term “directions”. Of course, ‘whip’ is a commonly used and understood term in the legislatures which only means a direction issued by a political party to its members to vote or not to vote in the house. The term ‘whip’ used in the Congress petition before the speaker simply means a direction which was issued to the members to attend the legislature party meeting and it has nothing to do with voting in the house. The ground on which disqualification is sought makes this point absolutely clear.

Also Read: India’s Politicians Have Turned the Anti-Defection Law on Its Head

This being so, it is very surprising that one of the top lawyers who appeared for the rebel Congressmen raised the ‘whip’ point and suggested that the Congress cannot issue one in the context of a party meeting and, therefore, the petition before the speaker should be quashed. Since the 10th schedule itself does not use the term “whip”, this argument has no merit.

Giving up membership of a party

The expression ‘voluntarily given up the membership of the party’ has not been defined in the schedule. But it has been interpreted by the Supreme Court in a number of cases in the past. These judgments make one thing clear – there is no universally recognised standard to ascertain whether a member has voluntarily given up his membership of the party. Each case has to be decided on its own facts are circumstances. However, a political party is not required to wait for rebels to do a series of acts before it can move the speaker seeking the disqualification on this ground. Just one action on the part of a member is enough to invite disqualification if it seriously affects the interest of the party.

In Rajendra Singh Rana Vs Swamy Prasad Maurya (2007), the Supreme Court says that one visit by the MLAs of the ruling party along with the members of the opposition to the governor seeking dismissal of their own government is sufficient to prove that they have voluntarily given up the membership of their party.

In this context, the court says, “no further evidence or enquiry is needed to find that their action comes within paragraph 2 (1)(a) of the 10th schedule”. This sums up the approach of the court to the issue of disqualification on the ground that a member has voluntarily given up the membership of his party.

In the Rajasthan case, things are fairly clear. The crucial meeting of the Congress legislature party was convened to ensure the support of its members to the government in the context of an alleged attempt to topple the government. So far as the ruling party is concerned, it was thus a very crucial meeting which had a bearing on the survival of the government. It was quite natural for that party to conclude that those who stayed away from the meeting had decided not to support the government, which could ultimately cause its fall. So, the ruling party moved the speaker to disqualify them on the ground that they have voluntarily given up the membership of their party. There is nothing unconstitutional about it.

When a speaker’s decision can be challenged

The rebel Congressmen deployed two heavyweight lawyers to defend their petition before the high court. It must be stated here that a petition at this stage is absolutely premature. The high court has the power to review the decision of a speaker. But the speaker needs to take a decision on merit first. Issuing a notice to the respondents by the speaker is not a decision on merit. Notice is issued as per the rules framed under the 10th schedule. Through the notices, the speaker asks the respondents to submit their replies to the petition so that he could go ahead and decide the question of disqualification. The courts have made it clear in a number of cases that it can step in only after the speaker has taken a decision on merit, not otherwise.

Also Read: To Avoid Future Karnatakas, the Supreme Court Must Lay Down Clear Principles

Even a review of the speaker’s decision on disqualification has a limited scope. The Supreme Court, in Dr Mahachandra Prasad Singh Vs Chairman, Bihar Legislative Council (2004), while explaining the scope of review, said as follows, “the decision of the chairman or the speaker of the house can be challenged on very limited grounds, namely, violation of constitutional mandate, mala fides, non-compliance with rules of natural justice and perversity”.

The courts have always approached the speakers’ decisions with caution and case. They have taken the view that if a speaker’s conclusion is reasonable, it will stand even if another equally reasonable view is possible.

Constitutionality of 10th schedule a settled matter

It is a bit surprising that the constitutionality of the 10th schedule has also been challenged in the petition before the Rajasthan high court.

This issue of constitutionality of the 10th schedule was settled long back by the landmark judgment of the Supreme Court in Kihoto Hollohan Vs Zachillu (1992). The five-judge bench summed up the point in the following words, “this is pre- eminently an area where judges should defer to the legislative perception of and reaction to the pervasive dangers of unprincipled defections to protect the community”. It is difficult to imagine how a high court can now reopen the question of the constitutionality of the 10th schedule.

A petition challenging the constitutionality of the notice issued by the speaker is a sheer waste of the court’s time. The speaker has acted in accordance with the rules. How can a notice become unconstitutional when it has been issued in accordance with the rules? The high court has got an opportunity to reaffirm the various decisions of the Supreme Court on this issue.

P.D.T. Achary is former Secretary General Lok Sabha