Read Time: 03 minutes
The Court took note of the decision in Shrimath Balasaheb Patil's case, where it was opined that, " It is clear that nothing can be added to the grounds of disqualification based on convenience, equity, logic or perceived political intentions".
A Bench of CJI U.U. Lalit, Justice Ravindra Bhatt and Justice J.B. Pardiwala, of the Supreme Court, without deciding on the disqualification and its legality, sets aside the directions other than those pertaining to disqualification per se.
The matter pertained to disqualification order issued by the then Speaker of 15th Bihar Legislative Assembly against 4 of its members. The term of the Assembly was from 20.11.2010 till 20.11.2015. The members were not only disqualified but were also denied pensions on the basis of the said disqualification.
Senior Advocate Devdutt Kamat referred to Shrimanth Balasaheb Patil v. Speaker, Karnataka Legislative Assembly & Others, (2020) 2 SCC 595, to draw Court's attention to certain paragraphs that underlines on the same issue. The Court denied to accept the contention that stated, the power of the Speaker to bar a disqualified Member from contesting re-election is inherent to his role.
The Court did not go into details of challenges and developments of the disqualification order, considering the stay and that the benefits of the interim order was availed throughout.
Thus the Court opined, "It is thus clear that in exercise of his powers under the 10th Schedule, the Speaker does not have the power either to indicate the period for which a person would stand disqualified nor to bar someone from contesting elections". And further held that the speaker went far beyond his scope of power.
Case Title: Gyanendra Kumar Singh and Ors. vs. Bihar Legislative Assembly Patna and Anr.
Please Login or Register
