Case Note & Summary
The writ petition (No. 107/2005) was filed before the High Court of Bombay at Goa by a Member of the Legislative Assembly (MLA) of Goa challenging his disqualification from the House by the Speaker’s order dated 28.02.2005. The petitioner, an independent MLA from Velim Constituency, had been elected on 1 June 2002 and originally supported the Bharatiya Janata Party (BJP)-led coalition government, even serving as a minister. Political developments in early 2005 led to the petitioner resigning as minister and withdrawing support to the government, which then faced a confidence vote. On 1 February 2005, the first respondent (a private individual) filed a disqualification petition before the Speaker under Clause (6) of the Tenth Schedule to the Constitution, alleging that the petitioner had joined the BJP, thereby incurring disqualification under Paragraph 2 of the Tenth Schedule and Article 191(2). The petition was filed hurriedly on the eve of a specially summoned Assembly session on 2 February 2005 for the confidence motion. The Speaker issued a public notice in a newspaper the very next day, fixing the hearing for 2 February 2005 at 10 a.m., without any prior personal service on the petitioner. The petitioner’s advocate appeared and sought time, but the Speaker only adjourned the matter to 12 noon the same day. When the advocate again requested time to file a reply, the Speaker rejected the application and reserved orders on an interim injunction. The petitioner contended that no interim order was communicated to him; however, during the Assembly session that afternoon, the Speaker allegedly passed an interim order restraining the petitioner from participating in the proceedings until 4 February 2005. The petitioner was then physically removed from the House by the Marshal on the Speaker’s direction under Rule 289 of the Rules of Procedure and Conduct of Business of the Goa Legislative Assembly, 1992. The petitioner obtained a certified copy of the interim order only on 7 February 2005. Subsequently, on 28 February 2005, the Speaker passed the final order disqualifying the petitioner. In the writ petition, the petitioner argued that the entire proceeding was malafide, biased, and in gross violation of natural justice. He alleged that the timing and haste were designed to prevent him from voting in the confidence motion, thereby aiding the ruling party. The petitioner’s counsel contended that the disqualification petition itself was defective, not conforming to Rule 6 of the Disqualification Rules regarding verification and documentation, and ought to have been dismissed under Rule 7(2). The petitioner further argued that the Speaker’s refusal to grant reasonable time, his partisan attitude, and the forcible removal from the House demonstrated bias and rendered the disqualification order void. The matter was heard by a Division Bench of the High Court, and judgment was reserved on 29 November 2005 and pronounced on 21 December 2005. The provided text does not include the court’s analysis, findings, or operative order.
Headnote
A) Constitutional Law - Disqualification under Tenth Schedule - Principles of Natural Justice - Constitution of India, Tenth Schedule, Para 2, Clause 2 - The petitioner contended that the Speaker passed the disqualification order without giving him an adequate opportunity to be heard; the matter was hurriedly taken up on the same day as the confidence vote, notice was served only by publication, and adjournment requests were rejected, thereby violating natural justice (Paras 4-7).
B) Constitutional Law - Disqualification under Tenth Schedule - Bias and Mala Fides - Constitution of India, Tenth Schedule - The petitioner alleged that the Speaker acted with bias and mala fide, as shown by the partisan timing of the petition, refusal to grant time, and the forcible removal of the petitioner from the House under Rule 289, rendering the order void (Paras 8-9).
C) Interpretation of Rules - Disqualification Rules - Non-compliance with Rules 6 and 7 - Goa Legislative Assembly (Disqualification on Ground of Defection) Rules - The petitioner argued that the disqualification petition did not comply with Rule 6 regarding verification and should have been dismissed under Rule 7(2), but the Speaker ignored this defect for collateral purposes (Para 9).
D) Parliamentary Practice - Role of Speaker - Partisanship - The petitioner stressed that the Speaker must act above party lines, and the Speaker's conduct of acting in haste and forcibly ejecting the MLA demonstrated partisan bias, which vitiated the proceedings (Para 8).
Issue of Consideration
Whether the order of disqualification dated 28.02.2005 passed by the Speaker under the Tenth Schedule to the Constitution is vitiated by violation of principles of natural justice, bias, and malafides; and whether the disqualification petition was maintainable in view of non-compliance with the Disqualification Rules.
Case Details
2005 LawText (BOM) (12) 83
Writ Petition No. 107/2005
Mr. S. K. Kakodkar, Mr. M. S. Sonak, Mr. P. S. Rao for petitioner; Mr. S. G. Aney, Mr. V. P. Thali, Ms. G. Pednekar for respondent No.1; Mr. S. G. Dessai, Mr. Shivan Dessai for respondent No.2; Mr. A. F. Diniz for respondent No.3
Shri Filipe Nery Rodrigues
Shri Sadanand Mhalu Shet, Speaker Goa Legislative Assembly, Shri Vishwas Satarkar
Subscribe to unlock Case Details (Citation, Judge, Date & more)
Subscribe Now
Nature of Litigation
Writ petition under Article 226/227 of the Constitution challenging the order of the Speaker of the Goa Legislative Assembly disqualifying the petitioner as a Member of the Legislative Assembly under the Tenth Schedule.
Remedy Sought
Petitioner sought quashing of the disqualification order dated 28.02.2005 and declaration that it is null and void; interim relief pending petition.
Filing Reason
Alleged violation of principles of natural justice, bias, and malafide exercise of power by the Speaker; disqualification petition was processed hastily without adequate opportunity to defend on the eve of a confidence vote.
Previous Decisions
The Speaker had passed an interim order on 02.02.2005 restraining the petitioner from participating in Assembly proceedings, followed by the final disqualification order on 28.02.2005.
Issues
Whether the Speaker’s disqualification order dated 28.02.2005 is vitiated by violation of principles of natural justice, bias, and malafides?
Whether the disqualification petition was maintainable in view of non-compliance with Rules 6 and 7 of the Disqualification Rules?
Whether the Speaker’s conduct, including the hasty processing of the petition, refusal to grant adjournment, and physical removal of the MLA, demonstrated bias and denied fair hearing?
Whether the impugned order is perverse and irrational?
Submissions/Arguments
The disqualification petition was filed malafidely on the eve of the Assembly session for vote of confidence to prevent the petitioner from voting.
Service by newspaper publication was not valid service when no attempt was made to serve personally.
The Speaker gave insufficient time (less than a day) to respond and refused adjournment, violating natural justice.
The interim order was passed without hearing the petitioner on merits and was not communicated.
The Speaker’s partisan attitude and physical removal of the petitioner from the House under Rule 289 showed bias.
The petition did not comply with Rule 6 (verification) and Rule 7(2) required dismissal for non-compliance.
The Speaker acted in haste to aid the political party in power, and the order is mala fide and perverse.
Judgment Excerpts
The writ petition is directed against the order dated 28.02.2005 passed by the Honourable Speaker, Goa Legislative Assembly, declaring the petitioner disqualified as a Member of the House in accordance with Clause 2 of para 2 of the Xth Schedule of the Constitution of India as well under Article 191(2) of the Constitution of India.
The Speaker rejected the application filed by the learned Counsel for the petitioner for grant of time and reserved the order on interim injunction without hearing the petitioner on merits of the case.
The manner in which the petition was processed by the Speaker and the alleged interim order was passed by the Speaker on 2.2.2005 without giving even breathing time to the petitioner to putforth his defence and the happenings during the assembly proceedings on 2.2.2005, has caused bona fide apprehension in the mind of the petitioner that he would not get free and fair justice from the Honourable Speaker Shri Vishwas Satarkar.
The Office of the Speaker is an august office and in our system of Parliamentary democracy, the Speaker has to rise above party affiliation. Unfortunately, the Honourable Speaker Shri Satarkar in utter violation of this reach tradition of the Chair of the Speaker demonstrated the partisan attitude to serve the purpose of political party.
Procedural History
On 01.06.2002 the petitioner was elected as an independent MLA from Velim constituency and later supported the BJP-led coalition, serving as a minister. On 29.01.2005 the petitioner resigned as minister and withdrew support to the government. On 01.02.2005 respondent No.1 filed a disqualification petition before the Speaker, and public notice was issued for hearing on 02.02.2005 at 10 a.m. On 02.02.2005 the petitioner’s advocate appeared at 10 a.m. and sought time; matter adjourned to 12 noon. At 12 noon the advocate sought further time, which was rejected, and the Speaker reserved an interim order. The Assembly session was held at 2:30 p.m. for a confidence vote; the Speaker allegedly passed an interim order restraining the petitioner, and the petitioner was physically removed from the House under Rule 289. On 07.02.2005 the petitioner obtained a certified copy of the interim order. On 28.02.2005 the Speaker passed the final disqualification order. The petitioner then filed Writ Petition No. 107/2005. The High Court reserved judgment on 29.11.2005 and pronounced it on 21.12.2005.
Acts & Sections
- Constitution of India: Tenth Schedule, Para 2, Clause 2; Article 191(2)
- Goa Legislative Assembly (Disqualification on Ground of Defection) Rules: Rule 6, Rule 7(2)
- Rules of Procedure and Conduct of Business of the Goa Legislative Assembly, 1992: Rule 289
