Speaker Withdraws Plea Challenging Rajasthan High Court’s Direction as on July 21 

Must Read

Bombay High Court Allows Petition Seeking Lawyers and Legal Clerks To Travel in Local Trains

The present hearing arose out of a batch of Public Interest Litigations that was filed in the Bombay High...

Provisions for Retirement of Teachers Must Be Read With the Larger Interest of Students in Mind: Supreme Court

Supreme Court in Navin Chandra Dhoundiyal v State of Uttarakhand reinstated the appellants to their position as Professor on...

Parties Cannot Deny Specific Performance Merely Due To Delay: Supreme Court

The Supreme Court, in Ferrodous Estate v P Gopirathnam, revisited the law on the specific performance of a contract....

Chandigarh Housing Board Is Bound To Implement the Chandigarh Administration’s Policy Decision: Punjab & Haryana High Court

On 15th October 2020, Justices Jaswant Singh and Sant Parkash heard the case of Bhartendu Sood vs Chandigarh Housing Board...

Bombay High Court Refuses Interim Relief to Doctors Alleging Arbitrary Placement at Government Hospitals for One-Year Mandatory Public Service

The Bombay High Court was hearing a plea against the arbitrary placement of doctors for a mandatory period of...

Uttarakhand High Court Dismisses Writ Petition Seeking Relief for the Cancellation of Selection Process

On 13th October 2020, a Single Judge Bench of Hon'ble Justice Lok Pal Singh, heard the case of Ashish...

Follow us

The Bench was informed by Senior Advocate Kapil Sibal that the petition relating to the disqualification notice served on Sachin Pilot and 18 other MLAs was being withdrawn. The withdrawal is taking place in light of the order passed by the High Court on July 24.

Facts of the Case 

Speaker of the Rajasthan Assembly CP Joshi has withdrawn his petition before the SC. It challenged the Rajasthan HC order of July 21. The plea was for the case about the disqualification notice served on Sachin Pilot and 18 other MLAs.

A Bench of Justices Arun Mishra, BR Gavai, and others were informed by Senior Advocate Kapil Sibal today that the petition was being withdrawn. This was being done in light of the order passed by the High Court on July 24.

Arguments

Senior Advocate Kapil Sibal submitted that after the Supreme Court refused to stay the High Court’s order passed on July 21 (The order in question directed the Speaker to take no coercive action). The High Court proceeded to pass a detailed order on July 24.

He said that the order passed on July 21, which is the subject matter of challenge in the present SLP, has merged with the High Court’s later order of July 24. Thus, taking this into consideration the same has resulted in a plea.

Therefore, the SLP was withdrawn with liberty to file a fresh SLP, keeping all grounds open.

Court’s Observations

On July 23, a three-judge Bench of the Apex Court had agreed to hear at length the plea filed by the Speaker. The case in question was about disqualification notices served to 19 MLAs. The Court had refused to grant a stay on the High Court order.

Soon after the hearing before the SC, on July 24, the Rajasthan High Court ordered status quo on the disqualification notice. This stay was in favour of the 19 rebels Congress lawmakers, including sacked Deputy Chief Minister Sachin Pilot.

The status quo implies that Speaker Joshi would not be able to proceed further on the show-cause notice which was issued to 19 dissident Congress MLAs on July 14, even if these legislators did not submit their replies.

The HC had also allowed the petition filed by the Pilot camp to add the Union of India as a respondent. This was done in view of the challenge to Para 2(1)(a) of the 10th Schedule of the Constitution of India, which deals with anti-defection.

Rajasthan Assembly Speaker CP Joshi had moved the SC against the order of the Rajasthan HC. The order directed the speaker to refrain from proceeding against rebel MLAs till the High Court pronounces its order.

Decision

It has been stated that the July 21 order, which is the subject matter of challenge in the present SLP, has merged with the HC subsequent order of July 24. 

The plea before the SC has become infructuous. Hence, the SLP was withdrawn with liberty to file a fresh SLP, keeping all grounds open. Thus, in the light of the aforementioned events, the Speaker withdrew his plea before SC.


Libertatem.in is now on Telegram. Follow us for regular legal updates and judgments from the court. Follow us on Google News, InstagramLinkedInFacebook & Twitter. You can also subscribe to 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

Bombay High Court Allows Petition Seeking Lawyers and Legal Clerks To Travel in Local Trains

The present hearing arose out of a batch of Public Interest Litigations that was filed in the Bombay High Court to permit the members...

Provisions for Retirement of Teachers Must Be Read With the Larger Interest of Students in Mind: Supreme Court

Supreme Court in Navin Chandra Dhoundiyal v State of Uttarakhand reinstated the appellants to their position as Professor on basis of re-employment till the...

Parties Cannot Deny Specific Performance Merely Due To Delay: Supreme Court

The Supreme Court, in Ferrodous Estate v P Gopirathnam, revisited the law on the specific performance of a contract. It reiterated that mere delay...

Chandigarh Housing Board Is Bound To Implement the Chandigarh Administration’s Policy Decision: Punjab & Haryana High Court

On 15th October 2020, Justices Jaswant Singh and Sant Parkash heard the case of Bhartendu Sood vs Chandigarh Housing Board & Anr., via video-conferencing. Deeming the...

Bombay High Court Refuses Interim Relief to Doctors Alleging Arbitrary Placement at Government Hospitals for One-Year Mandatory Public Service

The Bombay High Court was hearing a plea against the arbitrary placement of doctors for a mandatory period of one year. The petitioners prayed...

Uttarakhand High Court Dismisses Writ Petition Seeking Relief for the Cancellation of Selection Process

On 13th October 2020, a Single Judge Bench of Hon'ble Justice Lok Pal Singh, heard the case of Ashish Bisht & Anr. v. State...

Madras High Court Dismisses Writ Petition Against National Stock Exchange For Lack Of Merit

In the case of A. Kumar v. Financial Intelligence Unit & Ors., A. Kumar filed a writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution...

The Federal Appeals Court Holds Trump’s Diversion of Military Funds To Build the Wall To Be Unlawful

The Federal Appeals Court held that US President Donald Trump’s diversion of military funds to build the wall is unlawful. A grey area in the...

Supreme Court Dismisses Appeal Filed Challenging the Judgment of Madras High Court in Ganesan v. State Represented by Its Inspector of Police

An appeal was filed before the Supreme court, challenging the judgment & order of Madras High Court. The Supreme Court upheld the HC judgment...

Bombay High Court Refuses Interim Relief to Doctors Alleging Arbitrary Placement at Government Hospitals for One-Year Mandatory Public Service

The Bombay High Court was hearing a plea against the arbitrary placement of doctors for a mandatory period of one year. The petitioners prayed...

More Articles Like This

- Advertisement -