Full Judgment Text
1
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
CIVIL APPEAL Nos.7557-7559 OF 2021
(Arising out of SLP (Civil) No.9024-9026 of 2021)
SHRI KSHETRIMAYUM BIREN SINGH Appellant
VERSUS
THE HON’BLE SPEAKER,
MANIPUR LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY & ORS. ETC. Respondents
O R D E R
1. Leave granted.
2. These appeals challenge the common judgment and final
order dated 02.06.2021 passed by the High Court of Manipur
at Imphal in W.P. (C) Nos.332 of 2020, 360 of 2020 and 361
of 2020.
th
3. In the elections to the 11 Manipur Legislative
Assembly held in March 2017, the appellant was elected as a
Member of the Legislative Assembly from 8-Lamlai Assembly
Constituency, Manipur as an official candidate of the Indian
National Congress (“INC” for short).
4. A petition being Disqualification Case No.2 of 2019
Signature Not Verified
under paragraph 2(1)(a) and (2) of the Tenth Schedule of the
Digitally signed by Dr.
Mukesh Nasa
Date: 2021.12.10
19:19:48 IST
Reason:
Constitution of India read with Article 191(2) of the
Constitution of India was thereafter filed by Shri
2
Khundrakpam Gopal Singh and Shri Soibam Ingotombi Singh as
electors from 8-Lamlai Assembly Constituency, seeking
disqualification of the appellant on the ground that the
appellant had voluntarily given up his membership of the
political party INC and had joined the ruling Bhartiya
Janata Party (“BJP” for short). The petition was premised
on certain reports in local newspapers to the effect that at
a reception ceremony, the appellant had joined political
party BJP led by the Chief Minister of Manipur and he was
wearing a cap and shawl of BJP and identifying himself as a
member of the political party BJP.
5. To similar effect, another Disqualification Case No.7
of 2019 was filed by an elector from 8-Lamlai Assembly
Constituency seeking disqualification of the appellant on
identical grounds.
6. These two petitions were followed by a third petition
being Disqualification Case No.9 of 2019 by one Okram Henry
Singh, a member of the legislative assembly coming from INC
seeking identical relief.
7. Thus, these three petitions seeking disqualification
were founded on newspaper reports indicating that the
appellant had aligned himself with political party BJP and
had thus given up his membership of INC.
3
8. The basic allegations made in the petition seeking
disqualification were denied by the appellant as under:
“3. That, with reference to Para 5 of the
Disqualification petitions, Respondent denies the
allegation made therein and beg to state that the
Newspaper reports can’t be relied as it is not
trustworthy and therefore, disqualification
proceedings under Para 2(1)(a) of the X Schedule
of the Constitution of India cannot be taken up
against the Respondent(s) on the basis of the
Newspaper report/clippings which has been relied
without following the established norms under the
law in this regard.
4. That, with reference to Para 6 of the
Disqualification petition, Respondent denies the
allegation made therein and Respondent beg to
state that Respondent has never joined BJP and
thus, this question of defection do not arise and
therefore, Disqualification petition filed under
para 2(1)(a) of the X Schedule of the Constitution
is liable to be rejected for the ends of justice.”
9. The matters were, thereafter, posted for hearing before
the Speaker of the Legislative Assembly of Manipur (“the
Speaker”, for short) and were directed to be taken up on
22.06.2020.
10. It appears that communications were thereafter
addressed to the appellant stating inter alia that the
matters were preponed and would be taken up on 18.06.2020
instead of 22.06.2020. Some other disqualification petitions
which were pending before the Speaker were also preponed in
similar fashion to 18.06.2020.
4
11. One Paonam Brojen Singh therefore challenged the action
of preponement by way of Writ Petition (Civil) No.298 of
2020 which came up for hearing before the High Court of
Manipur on 18.06.2020. After noticing the submissions made
by the rival parties, the High Court observed as under:
“5. Their submissions that the manner in which
the proceedings have been taken up by the Speaker
today without prior notice being given to them and
without they being heard, have some merit and
require consideration by this Court and moreover,
it is well settled that any order passed by a
Court or a Tribunal without hearing the parties or
their counsels will be rendered bad in law being
violative of the principles of Natural Justice and
provisions of the Article 14 of the Constitution.
In fact, this Court is not concerned with the
election of the Rajya Sabha nor is it concerned
with the Political development in the State. All
that this Court is concerned, is the disposal of
the petitions in accordance with law and in
particular, the manner in which the petitions are
disposed of by the Hon’ble Speaker’s Tribunal. It
may be noted that on 15-06-2020 when the writ
petitions were listed before this Court, it was
submitted by Shri Tarunkumar, Advocate appearing
for the Speaker that no time period could be
indicated by the Speaker, as it would take some
time for disposal of the petitions for the reason
that evidence would be required to be adduced by
the parties. But all of a sudden, the fact that
the petitions were rescheduled on 18-06-2020 in
the manner as stated above and without disclosing
any reason thereof, appears to be prima facie
unfair and unreasonable.
6. In view of the above, let notice be issued to
the respondents returnable on 19-06-2020 ie.,
tomorrow and since notices have been accepted by
the learned counsels appearing for the parties, no
formal notice is called for.
5
By way of interim measure and in order to
avoid further complicacy in the disposal of the
petitions pending before the Hon’ble Speaker, it
is directed that the judgment/order which is
reserved and to be pronounced today by the Hon’ble
Speaker, shall be kept in abeyance till tomorrow.
It is made clear that the order/judgment reserved
today by the Hon’ble Speaker, shall not be
pronounced by him till tomorrow.
Copies of this order shall be sent to the
counsels appearing for the parties and also to the
Secretary, Manipur Legislative Assembly through
WhatsApp/e-mail. Mr. Kh. Tarunkumar, leaned
counsel appearing for the Speaker and the
Secretary, Manipur Legislative Assembly is
requested to inform the Secretary, Manipur
Legislative Assembly for compliance of this
order.”
12. The High Court thus noted the submissions advanced on
behalf of the Speaker that the evidence would be required to
be adduced by the concerned parties to resolve the
controversy raised before the Speaker.
13. However, by order dated 18.06.2020 passed in the
instant matter when none of the sides was represented by any
Advocate or had appeared in-person, the Speaker allowed
those Disqualification Cases No.2 of 2019, 7 of 2019 and 9
of 2019. It was observed in the order:
“14. On minute scrutiny of the pleadings of the
parties including the annexure/documents produced
by both the parties, it is clear that there is an
authenticated document i.e. the original Newspaper
Poknapham Local Daily for proving that the
Respondent in fact has voluntarily given up his
original party, INC on 15.07.2017. But the other
documents i.e. copies of newspapers, etc., are
6
required to be proved by the original documents
published by the authorities concerned to the
extent that the reports made therein are correct
reports. At the same time, the respondent failed
to deny the existence and circulation of the
Poknapham Local Newspaper. There is also no
denial of the reports made in the newspaper.
15. It is the position that the Respondent failed
to deny the existence of the Local Daily Poknapham
published on 16.07.2017 which is marked as
Annexure-A/5 to the petition in Disqualification
Case No.9 of 2019, except that Newspaper reports
cannot be relied as it is not trustworthy. This
being the situation it can safely be concluded
that the petitioners in Disqualification Case No.9
of 2019 is able to discharge their burden in
proving that the Respondent had voluntarily given
up his original Political Party i.e. the INC and
joined the BJP on 15-07-2017.”
14. It was thus concluded that the appellant had
voluntarily given up his membership of the INC and had thus
incurred disqualification in terms of paragraph 2(1)(a) of
the Tenth Schedule to the Constitution of India read with
Article 191(2) of the Constitution of India.
15. The aforestated order passed by the Speaker was put in
challenge by the appellant by filing Writ Petitions (Civil)
No.332 of 2020, 360 of 2020 and 361 of 2020. The High Court
however affirmed the order passed by the Speaker and
dismissed said writ petitions. The point in issue was
considered by the High Court as under;
“[43] The Speaker heard all the Disqualification
Cases jointly on 18.06.2020 and after taking into
consideration all the pleadings, newspaper
7
reports, the photographs and DVDs in connection
with the Disqualification Cases, passed the
impugned order disqualifying the writ petitioner
for being a member of the Manipur Legislative
Assembly under Para 2(1)(a) of the Tenth Schedule
of the Constitution of India. While passing the
said impugned order dated 18.06.2020, the Speaker
had relied on the news reports published by many
printed and electronic medias showing the writ
petitioner participating in the reception ceremony
organised by the BJP and being facilitated by the
BJP leaders. Since the writ petitioner failed to
deny the existence and authenticity of the said
news reports, the Speaker was satisfied that an
inference can be made that the writ petitioner had
voluntarily given up the membership of INC and
accordingly the Speaker disqualified the writ
petitioner for being a member of the Manipur
Legislative Assembly in terms of Para 2(1)(a) of
the Tenth Schedule of the Constitution of India
read with Article 191(2) of the Constitution of
India.
[44] On examining the photographs/videos and
newspaper reports filed in connection with the
Disqualification Cases, the existence of which was
never denied by the writ petitioner, we are of the
considered view that there were enough materials
before the Speaker to draw an inference that the
writ petitioner had voluntarily given up his
membership of the Indian National Congress (INC).
Further, in the absence of any specific denial by
the writ petitioner to the allegations made
against him in the disqualification cases
especially the existence of the newspapers and the
authenticity of the reports made therein, we do
not find any infirmity which should vitiate the
order passed by the Speaker disqualifying the writ
petitioner and we find no ground or justification
for interfering with the impugned order passed by
the Speaker.
[45] On examination of the records of the
Disqualification cases which were placed before
us, we found that the Disqualification Cases were
filed on 07.12.2017, 17.02.2018 & 26.11.2018 and
notice was issued on 10.07.2019. Soon after
receiving notice, the present writ petitioner
8
entered appearance through his counsel. Instead of
filing written statement, the writ petitioner
filed miscellaneous applications raising
preliminary objections of the maintainability of
the said disqualification cases. Only after
dismissal of the preliminary objections raised by
the writ petitioner in his applications, the writ
petitioner filed his written statement in the
Disqualification Case on 12.06.2020.
By an order dated 06.06.2020 passed by the
Speaker all the disqualification cases were fixed
on 17.06.2020 for further proceedings, however, on
the direction of the Speaker, the date of hearing
of the Disqualification Cases was rescheduled to
22.06.2020 on account of the illness of the
Speaker. However, the hearing of the
disqualification cases were again preponed from
22.06.2020 to 18.06.2020 at 1:00 p.m. by issuing a
notice dated 17.06.2020 in view of the improvement
of the health condition of the Speaker and also in
view of the urgent need for early disposal of the
disqualification cases as directed by the Hon’ble
Supreme Court in its judgment and order dated
21.01.2020 passed in the case of
“KeishamMeghachandra Singh Vs. Hon ble Speaker ‟
Manipur Legislative Assembly” reported in AIR
Online 2020 SC 54, wherein the Speaker has been
directed to decide the disqualification petitions
pending before him within a period of 4(four)
weeks from the date on which the judgment of the
Apex Court was intimated to him.
[46] We are also in agreement with the submissions
advanced by the counsel for the respondents that
the writ petitioner and his counsel have knowledge
in time about the issuance of the said notice
dated 17.06.2020 preponing the date of hearing of
the disqualification cases for the simple reason
that the said notice dated 17.06.2020 had been
challenged before this Court by filing WP(C) No.
298 of 2020 on 18.06.2020 by the counsel of the
writ petitioner representing one of the MLAs
against whom disqualification cases was pending.
Despite having knowledge about the preponement
of the hearing of the disqualification cases, the
writ petitioner and his counsel choose not to
9
appear before the Tribunal and accordingly the
Speaker heard and disposed of the disqualification
cases in their absence.”
16. In these appeals challenging the decision of the High
Court, we have heard Mr. S.K. Bhattacharya, learned Advocate
in support of the appeals and Mr. Dama Seshadri Naidu,
learned Senior Advocate for the Speaker. The original
applicants who had preferred Disqualification Applications,
according to the report of the Registry, were duly served
but have not chosen to file any appearance in these matters.
17. With the assistance of the learned counsel, we have
gone through the pleadings exchanged between the parties and
the facts on record. It is quite clear that the petitions
were directed to be taken up for hearing on 22.06.2020 but
were preponed to 18.06.2020.
18. Without going into the question whether such
preponement was to the knowledge of the parties, the fact of
the matter is that the record does not indicate any urgency
why the matters were preponed from 22.06.2020 to 18.06.2020.
It is also a matter of record that none of the parties was
represented before the Speaker. As submitted by the learned
counsel who had appeared on behalf of the Speaker, which
submission was noted by the High Court in its order dated
18.06.2020, the matter required leading of evidence.
10
19. The questions - whether mere reporting in the
newspapers could be taken as sufficient proof of
“voluntarily giving up of the membership of a political
party” and, whether the matters require leading of
evidence, had to be gone into by the Speaker. In our view,
the essential features of the matter demanded leading of
evidence as well as giving adequate opportunity to the
parties to present their viewpoint.
20. In the circumstances, we allow these appeals, set-aside
the orders passed by the Speaker and the High Court and
restore Disqualification Cases No.2 of 2019, 7 of 2019 and 9
of 2019 to the file of the Speaker to be decided afresh
purely on merits without being influenced by any of the
observations in the earlier orders of the Speaker and the
High Court.
21. Since the order passed by the Speaker has now been set-
aside, till the matter is disposed of by the Speaker, the
appellant shall continue to represent the electorate in the
concerned house of the Legislature.
22. We may also observe that the matters have been pending
in the Courts of law for a while. We therefore request the
Speaker to consider disposing of the pending
11
Disqualification Applications as early as possible, in
accordance with law.
23. With these observations, the appeals stand allowed to
the extent indicated above, with no order as to costs.
........................J.
(UDAY UMESH LALIT)
........................J.
(S. RAVINDRA BHAT)
........................J.
(BELA M. TRIVEDI)
New Delhi,
December 08, 2021
12
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
CIVIL APPEAL NOS.7560 OF 2021
(Arising out of SLP (Civil) No.9606 of 2021)
SHRI YENGKHOM SURCHANDRA SINGH Appellant
VERSUS
THE HON’BLE SPEAKER,
MANIPUR LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY & ORS. Respondents
WITH
CIVIL APPEAL NOS.7561-7563 OF 2021
(Arising out of SLP (Civil) Nos.10501-10503 of 2021)
SHRI SANASAM BIRA SINGH Appellant
VERSUS
THE HON’BLE SPEAKER,
MANIPUR LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY & ORS. ETC. Respondents
O R D E R
Leave granted.
Learned counsel appearing for the parties accept the fact
that the impugned orders are based on similar/identical
reasons as had weighed with the Speaker and the High Court in
the lead matter.
Consequently, these appeals are also allowed. The
original Disqualification Applications are restored to the
file of the Speaker to be decided afresh in accordance with
law.
13
The appellants shall be entitled to represent their
electorate in the House of the Legislative Assembly till such
time the Disqualification Applications are not disposed of by
the Speaker.
Since the matters have been pending in the Courts with
law for a while, we request the Speaker to consider disposing
of the pending applications as early as possible, in accor-
dance with law.
........................J.
(UDAY UMESH LALIT)
........................J.
(S. RAVINDRA BHAT)
........................J.
(BELA M. TRIVEDI)
New Delhi,
December 08, 2021
14
ITEM NO.26 COURT NO.2 SECTION XIV
S U P R E M E C O U R T O F I N D I A
RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
Petition for Special Leave to Appeal (C) Nos.9024-9026/2021
(Arising out of impugned final judgment and order dated 02-06-2021
in WP(C) No.332/2020, 02-06-2021 in WP(C) No.360/2020, 02-06-2021
in WP(C) No.361/2020 passed by the High Court Of Manipur At Imphal)
SHRI KSHETRIMAYUM BIREN SINGH Petitioner(s)
VERSUS
THE HON’BLE SPEAKER,
MANIPUR LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY & ORS. ETC. Respondent(s)
(FOR ADMISSION and I.R.; and, IA No.78600/2021 – FOR EXEMPTION FROM
FILING C/C OF THE IMPUGNED JUDGMENT)
WITH
SLP(C) No.9606/2021 (XIV)
(FOR ADMISSION and I.R.; and, IA No.79277/2021 – FOR EXEMPTION FROM
FILING C/C OF THE IMPUGNED JUDGMENT)
SLP(C) Nos.10501-10503/2021 (XIV)
(FOR ADMISSION and I.R.; and, IA No.80013/2021 – FOR EXEMPTION FROM
FILING C/C OF THE IMPUGNED JUDGMENT)
Date : 08-12-2021 These petitions were called on for hearing today.
CORAM :
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE UDAY UMESH LALIT
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S. RAVINDRA BHAT
HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE BELA M. TRIVEDI
For Petitioner(s) Mr. L.K. Paonam, Adv.
Ms. Tomthinnganbi Koijam, Adv.
Mr. Niraj Bobby Paonam, Adv.
Mr. S. K. Bhattacharya, AOR
For Respondent(s) Mr. Dama Seshadri Naidu, Sr. Adv.
Mr. Lenin Hijam Singh, AAG
Mr. Anish R. Shah, AOR
Mr. Abdulrahiman Tamboli, Adv.
Ms. Shivali Chaudhary, Adv.
Mr. Ananvay Anandvardan, Adv.
Mr. Siddharth Chapalgaonkar, Adv.
15
UPON hearing the counsel the Court made the following
O R D E R
Leave granted.
The appeals are allowed, in terms of the Signed Orders.
Pending applications, if any, also stand disposed of.
(MUKESH NASA) (VIRENDER SINGH)
COURT MASTER BRANCH OFFICER
(Two Signed Orders are placed on the File)