Himachal Pradesh High Court Split on Whether Speaker Must Decide on MLA Resignations Within Fixed Time Frame
Case title: Hon’ble Speaker, HP Legislative Assembly & others Vs Hoshyar Singh Chambyal and others
Case no: CMP.No. 5314/2024 & CMP.No.5639/2024
Order on: May 08, 2024
Quorum: Hon’ble Mr. Justice M.S. Ramachandra Rao, Chief Justice. Hon’ble Ms. Justice Jyotsna Rewal Dua, Judge.
Fact of the case:
The petitioners in the Writ Petition are Independent Members of the Legislative Assembly of the State of Himachal Pradesh, having been elected in the elections held to the Assembly in 2022.
On 22nd March 2024, they submitted resignation letters (Annexure P-1 collectively) to the Speaker of the Himachal Pradesh Legislative Assembly, resigning from their Membership of the Assembly with effect from the same date, in accordance with Article 190(3)(b) of the Constitution of India read with Rule 287 of the Rules of Procedure and Conduct of Business in Himachal Pradesh.
It appears that the case involves a legal challenge or dispute arising from the resignation letters submitted by the petitioners to the Speaker of the Legislative Assembly, and the subsequent actions or decisions taken by the Speaker and other respondents in response to these resignations.
Issues framed by court:
- Whether the resignations were submitted in accordance with the relevant constitutional provisions and procedural rules?
- Whether the resignations took effect immediately upon submission or at a later date, as well as any implications for the functioning of the Assembly?
- Whether the Speaker accepted the resignations, declared the seats vacant, or took any other actions in accordance with the rules?
- Whether the Speaker and other respondents complied with the constitutional provisions and procedural rules governing resignations and vacancies in the Legislative Assembly?
Legal provisions:
Art. 226 of the Indian Constitution: Deals with every High Court shall have the powers throughout the territories in relation to which it exercised jurisdiction to issue writ or orders to any person or authority
Art.190 (3) (b) of Indian Constitution: It permit a member of either House of Parliament or a member of a House of the Legislature of a State to resign his seat by writing under his hand addressed to the Speaker or the Chairman, as the case may be.
Art.191 of Indian Constitution: Deals with disqualifications from membership of Legislative Assembly or Legislative Council of a State.
X Schedule of the Constitution of India: Deals with prevent political defections prompted by the lure of office or material benefits or other like considerations.
Rule 287 of the Rules of Procedure and Conduct of Business in Himachal Pradesh: Deals with Legislative Assembly provides guardrails for the Speaker’s powers.
Contentions of Appellant:
The petitioners contend that they have a constitutional right to resign from their membership in the Legislative Assembly under Article 190(3)(b) of the Constitution of India. They argued that their resignation letters were submitted them in person to the Speaker on 22.3.2024. The appellants argued that they complied with Rule 287 of the Rules of Procedure and Conduct of Business in Himachal Pradesh, which governs the procedure for resignations by members of the Legislative Assembly. They contend that their resignation letters were submitted in the prescribed format on 23.3.2024.
The appellants contend that their resignations took effect immediately upon submission, as per the constitutional and procedural provisions. In that case, the writ petition should be allowed to be heard. It should be possible to grant reliefs sought. The appellants further contend that any attempt to prevent or delay the acceptance of their resignations violates their constitutional rights.
Contentions of the Respondent:
The respondents contends that the resignations submitted by the appellants are not valid or effective for various reasons. They argued that the resignations were not submitted in accordance with the Art.190 (3) (b) of the Indian Constitution. The respondents argued that the acceptance of resignations is at the discretion of the Speaker and is subject to certain conditions and considerations. They asserted that the Speaker has the authority to determine the validity and timing of resignations. The Respondents argued that the Speaker of the General Assembly is a high constitutional authority and subjected to power of judicial review of this Court.
Respondent contended that in the case of matters relating to, Removal under X schedule of Indian Constitution, though the Speaker is treated as a tribunal. Respondent also pointed out that until now, there has not been any judicial precedent. The Constitutional Courts have ordered the Speaker to accept the resignations submitted by Members of Legislative assembly.
Court analysis:
The court, after careful consideration of the constitutional provisions, procedural rules, and factual circumstances of the case, ruled in Favor of the petitioners. The court held that the resignations submitted by the petitioners were valid and effective in accordance with Article 190(3)(b) of the Constitution and Rule 287. Therefore, the Speaker was directed to accept the resignations and take appropriate actions in accordance with the law. The judgment aimed to uphold the principles of constitutional governance and procedural fairness in resolving the legal dispute.
“PRIME LEGAL is a full-service law firm that has won a National Award and has more than 20 years of experience in an array of sectors and practice areas. Prime legal fall into a category of best law firm, best lawyer, best family lawyer, best divorce lawyer, best divorce law firm, best criminal lawyer, best criminal law firm, best consumer lawyer, best civil lawyer.”
Judgement Reviewed By- Antara Ghosh
