Case Note & Summary
Background: The dispute arose from a Public Interest Litigation filed before the Bombay High Court challenging the amendment to the Maharashtra Legislative Assembly Rules, 1960, which altered the procedure for electing the Speaker and Deputy Speaker. The petitioners, Janak N. Vyas and Girish Dattatraya Mahajan, filed two separate PILs invoking Rule 4(e) of the Bombay High Court Public Interest Litigation Rules, 2010. The respondent was the State of Maharashtra. Facts: In November 2019, the Maharashtra Vikas Aghadi coalition formed the government in Maharashtra. On December 2, 2019, Shri Nana Falgunrao Patole was elected as Speaker of the Maharashtra Legislative Assembly. On March 14, 2020, Shri Narhari Zirwal was elected as Deputy Speaker. On February 5, 2021, Shri Patole resigned from the office of Speaker, leaving the post vacant; the Deputy Speaker began discharging duties of the Speaker under Rule 9 of the MLA Rules. On July 16, 2021, The Print published an interview with a senior ruling party member expressing apprehension about electing the Speaker through secret ballot, suggesting that open voting would make it easier to identify dissenters. On December 23, 2021, the State issued notification No. 1/D-9/2021 amending Rules 6 and 7 of the Maharashtra Legislative Assembly Rules, 1960. The amendment changed the election of the Speaker from secret ballot to open voting by show of hands or voice vote, and provided that the date of election would be fixed by the Governor on the recommendation of the Chief Minister. The petitioners challenged this notification as unconstitutional and illegal, seeking a writ of certiorari to quash it and a writ of mandamus to prevent its implementation. Legal Issues: The core legal issues included whether the amendment to Rules 6 and 7 was unconstitutional; whether the PILs were maintainable given non-impleadment of the Principal Secretary who issued the notification, allegations of perjury, delay and laches, lack of locus standi of a general public member, and legislative assembly privileges. Arguments: The State, through the Advocate General, raised preliminary objections. It argued that the Principal Secretary of the Maharashtra Legislative Assembly, who issued the impugned notification, was not impleaded as a respondent and that the petitioner in PIL 5741/2022 was guilty of perjury. It contended that the petition was belated, having been filed on February 24, 2022, after the Chief Minister had requested the Governor to fix March 9, 2022 for the Speaker's election, without satisfactory explanation for the delay. It further submitted that the petitioner, as a member of the general public, had no connection with the election of the Speaker or Deputy Speaker, and that the powers and privileges of the Assembly barred judicial review. The petitioners, through their counsel, sought quashing of the notification as unconstitutional and illegal. Court's Analysis: The High Court, comprising Chief Justice Dipankar Datta and Justice M.S. Karnik, first invoked Rule 7A of the Bombay High Court Public Interest Litigation Rules, 2010 on February 28, 2022, directing the petitioner in PIL 5741/2022 to deposit a security of Rs. 2 lakh by March 3, 2022, failing which the petition would stand dismissed. The petitioner complied, and the matter was heard on March 4, 2022, where the State's preliminary objections were argued. The court was in the midst of hearing these objections; the extracted text ends without a final ruling on the merits or on maintainability. Decision: No final decision is recorded in the provided judgment text. The court was considering preliminary objections as of the date of the common judgment and order, March 9, 2022. The extracted portion does not disclose the final outcome.
Headnote
A) Constitutional Law - Judicial Review of Legislative Assembly Rules - Rule 4(e) of Bombay High Court Public Interest Litigation Rules, 2010 and Rules 6, 7 of Maharashtra Legislative Assembly Rules, 1960 - Amendment changed election of Speaker from secret ballot to open voting and made date-fixing subject to Governor on recommendation of Chief Minister - The Public Interest Litigations challenged notification dated 23.12.2021 as unconstitutional and illegal. The High Court was considering preliminary objections to maintainability, delay, locus standi and Assembly privileges; no final determination on merits appears in the extracted text (Paras 1-6). B) Public Interest Litigation - Maintainability - Non-Impleadment - State argued that quashing of notification was sought but Principal Secretary, Maharashtra Legislative Assembly who issued it was not impleaded as respondent; also alleged petitioner guilty of perjury based on paragraph 6 of petition - The court heard these preliminary objections but did not rule in the extracted portion (Para 6). C) Public Interest Litigation - Delay and Laches - Rule 7A Bombay High Court PIL Rules, 2010 - The impugned notification was dated 23.12.2021 and petition filed 24.02.2022 after Chief Minister requested Governor to fix 09.03.2022 for Speaker election - State contended petition was belated with no satisfactory explanation; court considered this objection (Para 6). D) Public Interest Litigation - Locus Standi - State contended that petitioner as general public member had nothing to do with election of Speaker/Deputy Speaker - Locus standi was a preliminary issue raised by State (Para 6). E) Constitutional Law - Legislative Privileges - State submitted that powers and privileges of the Assembly may bar judicial review - Court was hearing arguments on preliminary objection regarding powers and privileges of Assembly in Speaker election matters (Para 6).
Issue of Consideration
Whether amendment to Rules 6 and 7 of Maharashtra Legislative Assembly Rules, 1960 changing election of Speaker from secret ballot to open voting and altering date-fixing procedure is unconstitutional; whether PILs are maintainable despite non-impleadment, delay, lack of locus standi, and Assembly privileges.
Law Points
- Rule 4(e) of Bombay High Court Public Interest Litigation Rules
- 2010
- Rules 6 and 7 of Maharashtra Legislative Assembly Rules
- 1960
- Rule 7A security deposit
- judicial review of legislative assembly rules
- secret ballot versus open voting
- locus standi in public interest litigation
- delay and laches in PIL
