Case Note & Summary
The appeal arose from an interlocutory order of the Delhi High Court rejecting an application filed by the appellant, Ram Chandra Prasad Singh, seeking permission to place additional documents on record in a pending writ petition. The respondent, Sharad Yadav, was elected to the Rajya Sabha on a Janata Dal (United) ticket in 2016. The appellant filed a petition before the Chairman, Rajya Sabha under Article 102(2) read with paragraph 6 of the Tenth Schedule, alleging that the respondent had voluntarily given up his membership of JD(U) by his conduct and public statements aligning with the Rashtriya Janata Dal (RJD). The Chairman, after due process, passed an order on 04.12.2017 disqualifying the respondent. The respondent challenged this order by filing a writ petition in the Delhi High Court. During the pendency of the writ petition, the appellant filed an application seeking to place additional documents (Annexures 1 and 2) on record, which allegedly showed subsequent conduct of the respondent, including contesting Lok Sabha elections on an RJD ticket. The High Court rejected the application, holding that the scope of the writ petition was limited to examining the legality of the disqualification order and that subsequent events could not be considered. The appellant appealed to the Supreme Court. The Supreme Court considered the submissions of both sides. The appellant argued that subsequent conduct reaffirmed the disqualification and that Section 8 of the Evidence Act makes subsequent conduct relevant. The respondent contended that disqualification is incurred on the date of voluntarily giving up membership and subsequent events are irrelevant. The Supreme Court held that the disqualification under paragraph 2(1)(a) of the Tenth Schedule is incurred on the date when the member voluntarily gives up membership, and the Chairman's order adjudicates that earlier date. Subsequent conduct after the order cannot be used to test the legality of the order. The Court found no error in the High Court's decision and dismissed the appeal.
Headnote
A) Constitutional Law - Tenth Schedule - Disqualification - Voluntary Giving Up Membership - Paragraph 2(1)(a) - The disqualification is incurred on the date when the member voluntarily gives up membership; subsequent events after the disqualification order are not relevant for testing the legality of the order. (Paras 7-10) B) Evidence Act - Section 8 - Relevance of Subsequent Conduct - Subsequent conduct after the disqualification order cannot be considered to validate the earlier disqualification, as the cause of action crystallizes on the date of voluntary giving up. (Paras 4, 9-10) C) Civil Procedure - Interlocutory Application - Additional Evidence - The High Court correctly rejected the application as the scope of the writ petition is limited to examining the legality of the disqualification order dated 04.12.2017. (Paras 2.7, 4, 10)
Issue of Consideration
Whether the High Court erred in rejecting the application filed by the appellant seeking permission to place additional documents on record regarding subsequent conduct of the respondent after the disqualification order.
Final Decision
The Supreme Court dismissed the appeal, holding that the High Court correctly rejected the application as subsequent conduct after the disqualification order is not relevant for testing the legality of the Chairman's order.
Law Points
- Tenth Schedule disqualification
- voluntary giving up membership
- subsequent conduct relevance
- scope of judicial review
- Evidence Act Section 8
