Rajasthan High Court Reserves Verdict in the Rajasthan Political Crisis

Must Read

Supreme Court Directs Government To Provide Free Education To Minor Children of Rape Victims

The Deputy Commissioner of Ranchi was directed by the Supreme Court on Wednesday to make sure that minor children of rape victims are ensured free education till they attain the age of 14 years. The Court made the observation while hearing a plea filed by a woman who claimed that she belonged to the SC/ST group from Jharkhand. She was forced by a man after which her father lodged a complaint.

Aadhar Review Plea Rejected in a 4:1 Verdict by Supreme Court

The petition seeking the re-examination of the 2018 Aadhar Verdict which declares the Aadhar act constitutional and valid was dismissed by a 5-judge bench in a 4:1 verdict. In January the petitions were considered by a bench of Justices A M Khanwilkar, D Y Chandrachud, S Abdul Nazeer, Ashok Bhushan, and B R Gavai in the chamber and the order was up on the website on Wednesday.

New Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code (IBC) Amendments Are Valid Says Supreme Court

On Tuesday, the Supreme Court upheld the amendments in the insolvency and bankruptcy code which makes it mandatory for a minimum of 100 or 10% of home buyers of a project to initiate insolvency proceedings against a builder for not delivering flats or commercial shops on time.

[HUL – Sebamed Ad War] Bombay High Court Passed Injunction; Permits Sebamed Ad Against HUL’s Dove

The ad war between the German personal care brand Sebamed and the consumer goods giant Hindustan Unilever Ltd (HUL) has come to an end. On January 19th, Bombay High Court passed an injunction order permitting the Sebamed ad against Hindustan Unilever’s Dove without any changes. It was observed that Sebamed ads were backed with evidence-based data. However, Sebamed was ordered to put an end to its advertisement that compared HUL soap bars Lux, Pears, and Santoor with Rin and detergent category.

Bombay High Court Says White Collar Crimes Are More Dangerous Than Murder and Dacoity

The Aurangabad Bench of the Bombay High Court rejected 4 petitions of 4 businessmen after observing that white-collar crimes are more serious than murder and dacoity. The businesspersons were booked for fraud of evading GST by producing fake invoices.

Right To Protection Can’t Be Granted To Married Woman Involved in Live-in Relationship: Allahabad High Court

The Bench of Allahabad High Court dismissed a petition of a live-in couple, observing that a married woman in a live-in relationship is not entitled to any sort of legal protection whatsoever. The Court remarked that they are adults and should live as ‘husband and wife’ if they want no one to interfere in their lives.

Follow us

The Rajasthan High Court on Tuesday reserved verdict on the petition. The petition challenged the notices issued by the Speaker to start disqualification proceedings.

Facts of the Case

It was on July 14 that the Speaker, Dr C P Joshi, served the notices to the 19 dissident MLAs, including Pilot, amid their rebellion. Furthermore, till 1 PM, July 17 they have to submit the replies.

The basis of the notices was the complaint filed by Mahesh Joshi, the Congress Party Whip. Furthermore, Mahesh alleged that rebel MLAs had to be disqualified under the 10th Schedule due to their anti-party statements.

Meanwhile, the 19 MLAs approached the High Court, challenging the Speaker’s action. Hence, the Court started hearing the matter on Friday. Similarly, given the pendency of the proceedings, the Speaker extended the time for a reply.

Arguments by the Parties

Arguments of the Petitioners 

Senior Advocates Harish Salve and Mukul Rohatgi appeared for the petitioners. It was argued that the petitioners had not defected or given up the membership of Congress party. They are expressing dissent against the functioning of the Chief Minister, by staying within the party and stating that intra-party dissent cannot be regarded as voluntary giving up of party membership.

Speakers Jurisdiction to issue notice was contended. As well as invoking Paragraph 2(1)(a) of the Tenth Schedule of the Constitution. That this was their argument that the Speaker was acting with mala side intentions. The Speaker granted only 3 days for a reply. However, the legislative rules stipulate 7 days for responding to the notice.

The petitioners also argued that whip applied only to proceedings within the House. Thus, defiance of party whip’s directions cannot attract disqualification proceedings.

Further Arguments 

The petitioners asserted that the High Court has powers under Article 226 to interfere with the Speaker’s action. Courts can quash a show-cause notice if it is issued without jurisdiction; other reasons include:

  1. Being over the jurisdiction;
  2. There is a colourable exercise of power;
  3. There is mala-fide intention when issuing the notice;
  4. Or, that it is in violation of the principles of natural justice.

Arguments of the Respondent  

Senior Advocate Dr Abhishek Manu Singhvi appeared for the Speaker. Singhvi submitted that Courts have restrictions in interfering with proceedings within the House.

Article 212 of the Constitution prescribes that the legality of house proceedings cannot be called into question. The proceedings for disqualification are deemed to be as per Para 6(2) of 10th Schedule. They relied on the SC decision in Kihoto Hollohan vs Zachillhu. It held that the Courts could not interfere at a stage anterior to the Speaker’s decision. Therefore, a Speaker of the Legislative Assembly is not like any tribunal over which the HC exercises supervisory jurisdiction.

Senior Advocate Devadatt Kamat, appeared for the Congress Whip Mahesh Joshi. Furthermore, he pointed out the petitioner’s exit from the party was voluntary.

Court’s Observations

During the hearing, Chief Justice Mahanty observed that whip could only apply to house proceedings, and not to party meetings. The Chief Justice remarked:

“You say these members have voluntarily given up their membership of the party. Now you have issued suspension against them. The assumption behind suspension is that they are members. Either they are members of your party, or not members. It cannot be both ways”

Court’s Order

A bench comprising Chief Justice Indrajit Mahanty and Justice Prakash Gupta will deliver the verdict on July 24.

Furthermore, the High Court has also requested the Speaker to defer the decision on disqualification proceedings. Thus, the time for filing a reply was extended till a verdict came.


Libertatem.in is now on Telegram. Follow us for regular legal updates and judgements from the court. Follow us on Google News, InstagramLinkedInFacebook & Twitter. You can also subscribe for our Weekly Email Updates. You can also contribute stories like this and help us spread awareness for a better society. Submit Your Post Now.

LEAVE A REPLY

Please enter your comment!
Please enter your name here

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.

Latest News

Supreme Court Directs Government To Provide Free Education To Minor Children of Rape Victims

The Deputy Commissioner of Ranchi was directed by the Supreme Court on Wednesday to make sure that minor children of rape victims are ensured free education till they attain the age of 14 years. The Court made the observation while hearing a plea filed by a woman who claimed that she belonged to the SC/ST group from Jharkhand. She was forced by a man after which her father lodged a complaint.

Aadhar Review Plea Rejected in a 4:1 Verdict by Supreme Court

The petition seeking the re-examination of the 2018 Aadhar Verdict which declares the Aadhar act constitutional and valid was dismissed by a 5-judge bench in a 4:1 verdict. In January the petitions were considered by a bench of Justices A M Khanwilkar, D Y Chandrachud, S Abdul Nazeer, Ashok Bhushan, and B R Gavai in the chamber and the order was up on the website on Wednesday.

New Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code (IBC) Amendments Are Valid Says Supreme Court

On Tuesday, the Supreme Court upheld the amendments in the insolvency and bankruptcy code which makes it mandatory for a minimum of 100 or 10% of home buyers of a project to initiate insolvency proceedings against a builder for not delivering flats or commercial shops on time.

[HUL – Sebamed Ad War] Bombay High Court Passed Injunction; Permits Sebamed Ad Against HUL’s Dove

The ad war between the German personal care brand Sebamed and the consumer goods giant Hindustan Unilever Ltd (HUL) has come to an end. On January 19th, Bombay High Court passed an injunction order permitting the Sebamed ad against Hindustan Unilever’s Dove without any changes. It was observed that Sebamed ads were backed with evidence-based data. However, Sebamed was ordered to put an end to its advertisement that compared HUL soap bars Lux, Pears, and Santoor with Rin and detergent category.

Bombay High Court Says White Collar Crimes Are More Dangerous Than Murder and Dacoity

The Aurangabad Bench of the Bombay High Court rejected 4 petitions of 4 businessmen after observing that white-collar crimes are more serious than murder and dacoity. The businesspersons were booked for fraud of evading GST by producing fake invoices.

Right To Protection Can’t Be Granted To Married Woman Involved in Live-in Relationship: Allahabad High Court

The Bench of Allahabad High Court dismissed a petition of a live-in couple, observing that a married woman in a live-in relationship is not entitled to any sort of legal protection whatsoever. The Court remarked that they are adults and should live as ‘husband and wife’ if they want no one to interfere in their lives.

Police To Decide on the Entry of Farmers To Delhi on Republic Day Says Supreme Court

While the Supreme Court heard a plea seeking an injunction against the tractor rally that is scheduled for January 26th, it held that it is the decision of the Delhi Police officers to see whether the protesting farmers should get entry into Delhi on Republic Day.

[Sushant Singh Rajput Case]: Republic TV & Times Now Hindered Investigation Probe Says Bombay HC

In November last year, the Court had reserved its judgement on the PILs that came from 8 former police officers from Maharashtra, lawyers, activists and NGOs, seeking restraining orders against the media trial in the Sushant Singh Rajput case.

Women Advocates Move To Supreme Court Against the Delhi HC Orders on Resuming Physical Hearing

Another writ petition has been filed by women advocates in the Supreme Court against the decision of the Delhi HC of directing the expansion of physical hearing of cases within the National Capital Territory of Delhi without giving an option to litigants to be represented by their lawyers virtually.

Gujarat High Court Allows Report Filed by Official Liquidator for Dissolution of the Company

The present report had been filed by the Official Liquidator for the dissolution of M/s AtRo Limited under the provisions of Section 497 (6)...

More Articles Like This

- Advertisement -