CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION – SLP ( C ) NOs 33333-33335
COURT – THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
BENCH – J. Altamash Kabir, J. Cyriac Joseph
HELD ON – 16/12/2010
PARTIES INVOLVED – D. N Jeevaraju & Anr ( Petitioner)
D. Sudhakar & Ors (Respondent)
BRIEF FACTS OF THE CASE :
The Writ Petitioners, D. Sudhakar, Venkataramanappa, Gulihatti D. Shekar, Shivaraj S. Thangadgi and P.M. Narendra Swamy,(Respondent No.1-5 ), were all elected as independent Members in the General Elections held to the 13th Karnataka Legislative Assembly.
On 6th October, 2010, each of the independent Members informed the Governor that due to corruption and nepotism in the functioning of the Government, they had become disillusioned and were thus withdrawing their support to the Government headed by B.S. Yeddiyurappa.
D.N. Jeevaraju and Shri C.T. Ravi, who were the Chief Whip and Member Secretary of the B.J.P. in Karnataka, filed a petition before the Speaker for disqualification of the five independent Members from the Assembly under paragraph 2(2) of the Tenth Schedule to the Constitution.
On 8 October, A show-cause notice was issued against the respondents by the assembly, requiring them to file objections in writing on 10th October by 5:00 PM. If the said Respondents failed to be present or to file their objections on or before the said date, the matter would be decided in accordance with law. on 10th October, 2010, at 11.00 a.m. They were provided with the copies of the show-cause notice and copies of the complaints and documents filed by the Respondents. According to the said Respondents, they filed interim replies dated 9th October, 2010, to the show-cause notice and sought for time to file complete objections thereto. The matter was taken up for hearing at 3.30 p.m. On 10th October 2010, the speaker of the assembly disqualified the said members.
The very next day, the vote of confidence sought by the 8th Respondent in the Writ Petition, the Chief Minister of the State, before the Karnataka Legislative Assembly, was to take place.
The Respondents, therefore, hurriedly filed Writ Petition Nos.32764-78 of 2010 challenging the order dated 10th October, 2010, in Disqualification Application No.2/10 filed by D.N. Jeevaraju and C.T. Ravi, in order to obtain stay of the order of the High Court and enable them to participate in the proceedings of the House.
A Division Bench was convened with the Chief Justice and the Hon’ble Judge , certain unintended errors appear to have been incorporated in the writ petitions filed by the Respondents containing certain statements which were, in fact, part of another set of writ petitions, which had been filed on behalf of eleven B.J.P. M.L.As., who had also withdrawn their support to the Yedddiyurappa Government and had, therefore, faced disqualification proceedings as well.
In the view of the hurry, the two sets of Writ petitions were made, which included certain unintended statements which in context the entire Writ petition Was obviously a mistake.
In view of the said error, in the Writ Petition, An interlocutory application Was filed by the respondents under Order VI Rule 17 of the Code of Civil Procedure read with Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India, for amendment of paragraph 9,a prayer was made for leave to delete the last sentence of the said paragraph.
The High Court by its impugned judgment and order dated 15th November, 2010, after considering the case of the writ petitioners as a whole, allowed the amendment upon holding that if such amendment was permitted, neither the nature of the dispute, cause of action, nor the nature of relief sought for in the writ petitions would change and that no prejudice or injustice would be caused to the Respondents.
The said judgment and order of the High Court is the subject matter of challenge in these Special Leave Petitions.
JUDGEMENT PASSED :
The Court Held that – “The High Court has correctly held that the mistake was unintentional and that nowhere, except in one stray sentence in paragraph 9 of the writ petitions, had the Respondent Nos.1 to 5 stated that they had left the B.J.P. and that the said sentence could not be considered as a categorical admission if looked at from the context of the proceedings itself being under paragraph 2(2) to the Tenth Schedule. The Tenth Schedule provides that an elected member of a House who has been elected as such, otherwise than as a candidate set up by any political party, would be disqualified from being a Member of the House, if he joined any political party after such election”.
They didn’t accept the submissions made on behalf of the Special Leave Petitioners and all the Special Leave Petitions are, accordingly, dismissed without any order as to costs.
Aishwarya Says:
I have always been against Glorifying Over Work and therefore, in the year 2021, I have decided to launch this campaign “Balancing Life”and talk about this wrong practice, that we have been following since last few years. I will be talking to and interviewing around 1 lakh people in the coming 2021 and publish their interview regarding their opinion on glamourising Over Work.
If you are interested in participating in the same, do let me know.
Do follow me on Facebook, Twitter Youtube and Instagram.
The copyright of this Article belongs exclusively to Ms. Aishwarya Sandeep. Reproduction of the same, without permission will amount to Copyright Infringement. Appropriate Legal Action under the Indian Laws will be taken.
If you would also like to contribute to my website, then do share your articles or poems at adv.aishwaryasandeep@gmail.com
We also have a Facebook Group Restarter Moms for Mothers or Women who would like to rejoin their careers post a career break or women who are enterpreneurs.