Twenty-Six Abstentions and a Merger Claim That Does Not Add Up
A 210-member Assembly has Party A 84, Party B 70, Party C 30, independents 16, and 10 vacancies. Party A governs with Party C and eight independents. Party B moves a no-confidence motion. On voting day, 26 MLAs of Party A abstain; the motion is defeated 96–78. Party A expels the 26 and asks the Speaker, who belongs to Party A, to disqualify them. Twenty-two of the 26 then announce a merger with Party B and claim protection under Paragraph 4 of the Tenth Schedule. The Speaker rejects the merger claim and disqualifies all 26. They move the High Court. The Speaker argues that his decision is final under Paragraph 6 and that courts cannot review it. One of the 26 had earlier publicly resigned from Party A's primary membership but continued to sit as an MLA and vote with Party A on other Bills. Party A says the abstention violated a three-line whip; the 26 say the whip was not served on them and that they were protesting a corruption allegation against a Minister.
1. Apply Paragraph 4 of the Tenth Schedule to the 26 MLAs. Does the merger with Party B protect them? What majority is required and from what date is it counted?
Read the worked answer
Paragraph 4 protects a member whose original political party merges with another party if he claims and proves that he and other members, not less than two-thirds of the members of the legislature party, agreed to the merger. Party A's legislature party has 84 MLAs. Two-thirds of 84 is 56. Only 22 of the 26 claim the merger, and even the full 26 is far below 56. The exception therefore fails on arithmetic alone.
The merger must be of the political party, not a faction, and must have actually occurred before the claim is made. A post-expulsion announcement cannot retrospectively cure the abstention. The 2003 amendment deleted the one-third split defence, so the 26 cannot argue that they represent a split.
Separately, Paragraph 2(1)(b) applies only if a direction or whip was served and the member voted or abstained contrary to it. The 26 deny service. The Speaker must decide that factual issue. If no whip was served, abstention alone may not attract disqualification; but if the conduct shows a deliberate severance of ties with the party, Paragraph 2(1)(a) may still apply. The merger claim, however, does not protect them.
2. Can the Speaker reject the merger claim and disqualify all 26? Discuss the Speaker's role, Paragraph 6 finality and judicial review.
Read the worked answer
Paragraph 6 makes the Speaker's decision final, but finality is not immunity. In Kihoto Hollohan the Supreme Court held that the Speaker acts as a tribunal and that his decision is subject to judicial review under Articles 226, 227 and 32 on grounds of jurisdictional error, mala fide, violation of natural justice and perversity. The Speaker must give reasons and hear the members before deciding.
Here the Speaker belongs to the complainant party. That does not automatically disqualify him, because the Constitution assigns the function to the Speaker. But it heightens the duty of impartiality and makes a reasoned order essential. If he rejected the merger claim without considering the numbers or without a hearing, the order is vulnerable. He also cannot decide the merger claim as a preliminary issue in order to avoid the disqualification question; both must be determined.
In Keisham Meghachandra the Court held that the Speaker must decide within a reasonable time. The High Court should quash an order that lacks reasons or natural justice and remit the matter, rather than substitute its own decision. Courts generally respect the Speaker's constitutional role, but they do not accept the claim that Paragraph 6 ousts review altogether.
3. One of the 26 had resigned from Party A's primary membership but continued as an MLA. Is he disqualified under Paragraph 2(1)(a)? Does 'voluntarily giving up membership' require resignation from the House?
Read the worked answer
Paragraph 2(1)(a) disqualifies a member who voluntarily gives up membership of his original political party. It does not require resignation from the House. The Supreme Court in Ravi S. Naik held that voluntary giving up can be inferred from conduct, not only from a formal letter of resignation. Publicly resigning primary membership and severing ties is strong evidence of giving up membership.
But the inference must be firm. Continuing to sit as an MLA and vote with Party A on other Bills may show that he had not fully severed ties. If the resignation was from a party post, or was conditional, or was later withdrawn, it may not amount to giving up membership. The Speaker must give him notice and a hearing and record a finding on his actual conduct.
The key distinction is between resignation from the House and resignation from the party. Only the latter is relevant. On these facts, disqualification is likely if the public resignation was unequivocal and accepted; it is not automatic merely because he remained an MLA. The Speaker's finding is subject to judicial review on the usual grounds.