Allow Cookies!
By using our website, you agree to the use of cookies
A notice was issued by the Supreme Court on Monday challenging the interim order passed by the Delhi High Court in the case concerning the disqualification of Sharad Yadav, of Janata Dal (United) Party, as a member of the Rajya Sabha in December last year.
The bench, comprising of Justice AK Sikri and Ashok Bhushan, also requested the Delhi High Court to adjourn the proceedings listed before them and postthe case for a hearing after two weeks. The plea was filed by Ram Chandra Prasad Singh, the leader of JD(U) in the Rajya Sabha, who was represented by Senior AdvocateRanjit Kumar and Advocates Gopal Singh and Manish Kumar.
M.Venkaiah Naidu,Vice President, in his capacity as the Chairman, Rajya Sabha, disqualified Mr. Yadavfrom the membership of Rajya Sabha, who was a Member of Parliament and the General Secretary of JD(U)under the Anti-Defection law. It was alleged that by his repeated conduct, public/press statements against the JD(U) and their leadership and openly alignment with a rival political party, namely, the Rashtriya Janata Dal, he has given up the membership of the party voluntarily. Specifically, he was disqualified under paragraph 2(1)(a) of the 10th Schedule of the Indian Constitution, read with Rule 6 of the Members of Rajya Sabha (Disqualification on ground of Defection) Rules,1985. Mr. Yadav then approached the Delhi High Court and challenged this decision.
The interim order, passed by the Delhi High Court on September 11, now stands impugned by the petition when the High Court dismissed Mr. Singh’s application to place additional materials and documents on record. The High Court Bench, comprising Justice HimaKohli and Justice RekhaPalli, rejected the application on the ground that the documents pertained to Mr. Yadav’s conduct, subsequent to the filing of the application submissions, which the Court did not find necessary to consider. However, Mr. Singh claimed that those additional documents established, beyond any doubt, that Mr. Yadav formed another political party after voluntarily giving up his membership of JD(U). His subsequent conduct, he asserts, is relevant to the dispute and thus, establishes the falsity of his claim that he continues to be a party member. Explaining that the documents submitted are merely copies of the public utterances which are culled out from his speeches and press clippings, showing his active participation while patronizing the launch of his new political party by his followers.
Further, Mr. Singh points out the fact that even if the writ petition is to be allowed in Mr. Yadav’s favour, his conduct during the pendency of the petition might not be considered as a valid ground to file another application for his disqualification. He also asserts that the HC should have kept the application pending till the disposal of the petition and should have decided its relevance only after hearing the final arguments of the parties.The petition therefore demands a stay on the impugned interim order during the pendency of the petition.
86540
103860
630
114
59824