PANAJI
The Bombay High Court at Goa has dismissed a petition filed by the Indian National Congress party and several of its elected representatives seeking the disqualification of Valpoi MLA on grounds that he disobeyed a party whip and abstained from voting in the vote of confidence of the current Parrikar-led coalition government.
The Congress had argued that Rane earned a disqualification when he absented himself from the vote at the floor test. The party also argued that the Speaker was wrong in accepting his resignation.
The court refused to entertain the argument of Congress. In an extensive order, the court ruled that disqualification "is not automatic or self-operative on the happening of a trigger event."
"There must be a petition alleging disqualification and it must result in a declaration or a decision by the Speaker that the disqualification was earned by the member," the court ruled.
"Once a member resigns, and his resignation is accepted, the Speaker cannot and does not have jurisdiction to decide whether, at some point when he was a member of the House, he had become subject to a disqualification," the court ruled.
"The jurisdiction of the Speaker is not an ‘alternate' remedy. It is the only remedy. The Speaker's jurisdiction is exclusive. In making a decision under that paragraph, the Speaker functions, for the purposes of that paragraph, as a tribunal, and, as such, his decision is subject to judicial review. However, if his jurisdiction does not continue on account of the resignation of the member, say, then a question of ‘disqualification' cannot be decided by the HC under Article 226. That is no part of ‘judicial review'. There is nothing to review," it said.
The Bombay High Court at Goa has dismissed a petition filed by the Indian National Congress party and several of its elected representatives seeking the disqualification of Valpoi MLA on grounds that he disobeyed a party whip and abstained from voting in the vote of confidence of the current Parrikar-led coalition government.
The Congress had argued that Rane earned a disqualification when he absented himself from the vote at the floor test. The party also argued that the Speaker was wrong in accepting his resignation.
The court refused to entertain the argument of Congress. In an extensive order, the court ruled that disqualification "is not automatic or self-operative on the happening of a trigger event."
"There must be a petition alleging disqualification and it must result in a declaration or a decision by the Speaker that the disqualification was earned by the member," the court ruled.
"Once a member resigns, and his resignation is accepted, the Speaker cannot and does not have jurisdiction to decide whether, at some point when he was a member of the House, he had become subject to a disqualification," the court ruled.
"The jurisdiction of the Speaker is not an ‘alternate' remedy. It is the only remedy. The Speaker's jurisdiction is exclusive. In making a decision under that paragraph, the Speaker functions, for the purposes of that paragraph, as a tribunal, and, as such, his decision is subject to judicial review. However, if his jurisdiction does not continue on account of the resignation of the member, say, then a question of ‘disqualification' cannot be decided by the HC under Article 226. That is no part of ‘judicial review'. There is nothing to review," it said.
