Supreme Court Upholds Disqualification of Rajya Sabha Member: Ram Chandra Prasad Singh vs. Sharad Yadav (2020)

LEGAL ISSUE: Whether subsequent conduct of a disqualified Member of Parliament can be considered in a writ petition challenging the disqualification order. CASE TYPE: Disqualification of Member of Parliament under the Tenth Schedule of the Constitution. Case Name: Ram Chandra Prasad Singh vs. Sharad Yadav. Judgment Date: 19 March 2020

Introduction

Date of the Judgment: 19 March 2020
Citation: (2020) INSC 265
Judges: Ashok Bhushan, J., M.R. Shah, J.
Can subsequent actions of a Member of Parliament, after being disqualified, be used to challenge the validity of the disqualification order? The Supreme Court of India addressed this question in a case concerning the disqualification of a Rajya Sabha member. The core issue revolved around whether the High Court was correct in rejecting additional evidence of the member’s conduct after his disqualification. The judgment was delivered by a two-judge bench comprising Justice Ashok Bhushan and Justice M.R. Shah.

Case Background

The case involves a dispute over the disqualification of Sharad Yadav, a Member of Parliament (Rajya Sabha), who was elected on a Janata Dal (United) [JD(U)] ticket. Ram Chandra Prasad Singh, also a Member of Parliament and leader of JD(U) in Rajya Sabha, filed a petition seeking Sharad Yadav’s disqualification under the Tenth Schedule of the Constitution. The petition alleged that Sharad Yadav had voluntarily given up his membership of JD(U) by aligning with a rival political party, Rashtriya Janata Dal (RJD), through his public statements and actions. The Chairman of Rajya Sabha, after due procedure, disqualified Sharad Yadav on 4 December 2017. Sharad Yadav then challenged this disqualification order in the Delhi High Court. During the High Court proceedings, Ram Chandra Prasad Singh sought to introduce additional documents showing Sharad Yadav’s subsequent conduct, which was rejected by the High Court. This rejection led to the appeal before the Supreme Court.

Timeline:

Date	Event
08 July 2016	Sharad Yadav elected as Member of Parliament (Rajya Sabha) from Bihar on a JD(U) ticket.
26 July 2017	JD(U) decides to withdraw from the Mahagathbandhan and coalition Government in Bihar.
02 September 2017	Ram Chandra Prasad Singh files a petition before the Chairman, Rajya Sabha, seeking Sharad Yadav’s disqualification.
10-12 August 2017	Sharad Yadav campaigns with RJD leaders and workers in Bihar.
27 August 2017	Sharad Yadav attends a public rally called by RJD in Patna.
04 December 2017	Chairman, Rajya Sabha, disqualifies Sharad Yadav as a member of the House.
2017	Sharad Yadav files Writ Petition No. 11102 of 2017 in Delhi High Court challenging his disqualification.
07 July 2018	Ram Chandra Prasad Singh files C.M. Application No. 27159 of 2018 seeking permission to place additional documents on record.
18 May 2018	Sharad Yadav forms/launches a new political party called “Loktantrik Janata Dal”.
11 September 2018	Delhi High Court dismisses the application to submit additional documents.
19 March 2020	Supreme Court dismisses the appeal, upholding the High Court’s decision.

Course of Proceedings

The Chairman of the Rajya Sabha, after considering the petition filed by Ram Chandra Prasad Singh and Sharad Yadav’s comments, disqualified Sharad Yadav on 4 December 2017. The Chairman noted that Sharad Yadav’s conduct, actions, and speeches indicated that he had voluntarily given up his membership of JD(U). Sharad Yadav challenged this order in the Delhi High Court. During the High Court proceedings, Ram Chandra Prasad Singh filed an application seeking to submit additional documents, including evidence of Sharad Yadav forming a new political party after his disqualification. The High Court rejected this application, stating that the scope of the writ petition was limited to examining the legality of the disqualification order and that subsequent events were not relevant.

Legal Framework

The core legal issue revolves around the interpretation of Paragraph 2(1)(a) of the Tenth Schedule of the Constitution of India, which deals with disqualification of a Member of Parliament on the ground of defection. The provision states:

“2. Disqualification on ground of defection. — (1) Subject to the provisions of paragraphs 4 and 5, a member of a House belonging to any political party shall be disqualified for being a member of the House—
(a) if he has voluntarily given up his membership of such political party; or”

The explanation to this paragraph clarifies that an elected member is deemed to belong to the political party by which he was set up as a candidate. The Supreme Court has previously interpreted the phrase “voluntarily given up his membership” in Ravi S. Naik Vs. Union of India and Others, 1994 Supp (2) SCC 641, stating that it has a wider connotation than “resignation” and can be inferred from the conduct of a member even without a formal resignation.

The court also referred to Rajendra Singh Rana and Others Vs. Swami Prasad Maurya and Others, (2007) 4 SCC 270, where it was held that the act of disqualification occurs when a member voluntarily gives up membership, and the Speaker’s decision does not postpone the disqualification. The court also relied on Shrimanth Balasaheb Patil Vs. Hon’ble Speaker Karnataka Legislative Assembly and Others, (2019) 15 Scale 533, which held that the Speaker’s decision relates back to the date of the disqualifying action.

Arguments

Appellant’s Arguments (Ram Chandra Prasad Singh):

The subsequent conduct of Sharad Yadav reaffirms the Chairman’s findings that he had voluntarily given up his membership of JD(U).
Since the appellant cannot approach the Chairman again based on Sharad Yadav’s subsequent conduct, the High Court should consider this evidence in the writ petition.
Sharad Yadav contested the Lok Sabha Election from RJD, which proves that he had voluntarily given up his JD(U) membership and joined RJD.
Disqualification is a continuous cause of action.
Section 8 of the Indian Evidence Act makes both previous and subsequent conduct relevant.

Respondent’s Arguments (Sharad Yadav):

The High Court rightly rejected the application to introduce additional evidence of subsequent events.
Under the Tenth Schedule, disqualification is incurred when a member voluntarily gives up their membership.
The disqualification order relates back to the date when the member voluntarily gave up their membership.
Subsequent events are not relevant for determining the validity of the disqualification order.
Sharad Yadav had been wrongly disqualified.

Main Submission	Sub-Submissions of Appellant (Ram Chandra Prasad Singh)	Sub-Submissions of Respondent (Sharad Yadav)
Relevance of Subsequent Conduct	Subsequent conduct reaffirms the disqualification. Cannot approach Chairman again, so High Court should consider it. Contesting election from RJD proves voluntary abandonment of JD(U). Disqualification is a continuous cause of action. Section 8 of Evidence Act makes subsequent conduct relevant.	High Court rightly rejected additional evidence. Disqualification happens when membership is voluntarily given up. Disqualification order relates back to the date of abandonment. Subsequent events are not relevant to the validity of the order. Wrongly disqualified.

Issues Framed by the Supreme Court

The main issue before the Supreme Court was:

Whether the High Court was correct in rejecting the application filed by the appellant seeking to bring additional documents on record.

Treatment of the Issue by the Court

The following table demonstrates as to how the Court decided the issues

Issue	Court’s Decision and Reasoning
Whether the High Court was correct in rejecting the application filed by the appellant seeking to bring additional documents on record.	The Supreme Court upheld the High Court’s decision, stating that the disqualification order was based on events that occurred before the Chairman’s decision. The additional evidence of Sharad Yadav forming a new party was not relevant to the original disqualification. However, the Court clarified that subsequent events could be relevant if they pertain to the state of affairs at the time of disqualification.

Issue

Court’s Decision and Reasoning

Whether the High Court was correct in rejecting the application filed by the appellant seeking to bring additional documents on record.

The Supreme Court upheld the High Court’s decision, stating that the disqualification order was based on events that occurred before the Chairman’s decision. The additional evidence of Sharad Yadav forming a new party was not relevant to the original disqualification. However, the Court clarified that subsequent events could be relevant if they pertain to the state of affairs at the time of disqualification.

Authorities

Cases Relied Upon by the Court:

Ravi S. Naik Vs. Union of India and Others, 1994 Supp (2) SCC 641: The Supreme Court of India clarified that “voluntarily given up his membership” has a wider meaning than resignation and can be inferred from conduct.
Rajendra Singh Rana and Others Vs. Swami Prasad Maurya and Others, (2007) 4 SCC 270: A Constitution Bench of the Supreme Court held that disqualification occurs when a member voluntarily gives up membership, and the Speaker’s decision does not postpone the disqualification.
Shrimanth Balasaheb Patil Vs. Hon’ble Speaker Karnataka Legislative Assembly and Others, (2019) 15 Scale 533: The Supreme Court held that the Speaker’s decision on disqualification relates back to the date of the disqualifying action.
Mohd. Ikram Hussain Vs. State of Uttar Pradesh and Others, AIR 1964 SC 1625: The Supreme Court observed that if the Court requires evidence, it can always be received.
Pasupuleti Venkateswarlu Vs. The Motor & General Traders, (1975) 1 SCC 770: The Supreme Court stated that courts can take cognizance of subsequent events to make the remedy meaningful.

Authority	Court	How the Authority was Considered
Ravi S. Naik Vs. Union of India and Others, 1994 Supp (2) SCC 641	Supreme Court of India	Explained the meaning of “voluntarily given up his membership” as broader than resignation.
Rajendra Singh Rana and Others Vs. Swami Prasad Maurya and Others, (2007) 4 SCC 270	Supreme Court of India	Clarified that disqualification occurs when the act of giving up membership takes place, not when the Speaker decides.
Shrimanth Balasaheb Patil Vs. Hon’ble Speaker Karnataka Legislative Assembly and Others, (2019) 15 Scale 533	Supreme Court of India	Affirmed that the Speaker’s decision relates back to the date of the disqualifying action.
Mohd. Ikram Hussain Vs. State of Uttar Pradesh and Others, AIR 1964 SC 1625	Supreme Court of India	Stated that courts can receive evidence if required.
Pasupuleti Venkateswarlu Vs. The Motor & General Traders, (1975) 1 SCC 770	Supreme Court of India	Held that courts can consider subsequent events to make the remedy meaningful.

Judgment

Submission by Parties	How the Court Treated the Submission
Appellant’s submission that subsequent conduct reaffirms disqualification	The Court acknowledged the submission but held that the High Court was correct in rejecting the application as the disqualification order was based on events prior to the Chairman’s decision.
Appellant’s submission that subsequent conduct should be considered as the appellant cannot approach the Chairman again	The Court did not accept this argument as a ground to admit additional evidence, stating that the core issue was the legality of the original disqualification order.
Appellant’s submission that Sharad Yadav contesting election from RJD proves voluntary abandonment of JD(U)	The Court did not accept this as a ground to admit additional evidence, as it was a subsequent event.
Appellant’s submission that disqualification is a continuous cause of action	The Court did not accept this argument as a ground to admit additional evidence.
Appellant’s submission that Section 8 of Evidence Act makes subsequent conduct relevant	The Court did not accept this argument as a ground to admit additional evidence, as the disqualification was based on previous conduct.
Respondent’s submission that High Court rightly rejected additional evidence	The Court upheld this submission, stating that the High Court was correct in rejecting the application.
Respondent’s submission that disqualification is incurred when membership is voluntarily given up	The Court agreed with this submission, referring to previous judgments.
Respondent’s submission that disqualification order relates back to the date of abandonment	The Court agreed with this submission, referring to previous judgments.
Respondent’s submission that subsequent events are not relevant to the validity of the order	The Court agreed with this submission, stating that the core issue was the legality of the original disqualification order.

How each authority was viewed by the Court?

Ravi S. Naik Vs. Union of India and Others, 1994 Supp (2) SCC 641: The Court used this case to interpret the meaning of “voluntarily given up his membership,” emphasizing that it is broader than formal resignation.
Rajendra Singh Rana and Others Vs. Swami Prasad Maurya and Others, (2007) 4 SCC 270: The Court relied on this case to affirm that the disqualification occurs at the point of giving up membership, not at the time of the Speaker’s decision.
Shrimanth Balasaheb Patil Vs. Hon’ble Speaker Karnataka Legislative Assembly and Others, (2019) 15 Scale 533: The Court used this case to reiterate that the Speaker’s decision relates back to the date of the disqualifying action.
Mohd. Ikram Hussain Vs. State of Uttar Pradesh and Others, AIR 1964 SC 1625: The Court referred to this case to highlight that courts can receive evidence if required, although it did not find it necessary in this case.
Pasupuleti Venkateswarlu Vs. The Motor & General Traders, (1975) 1 SCC 770: The Court cited this case to emphasize that courts can consider subsequent events to ensure a meaningful remedy, but clarified that this principle does not apply to the present case.

What weighed in the mind of the Court?

The Supreme Court emphasized that the disqualification under the Tenth Schedule is triggered when a member voluntarily gives up their party membership. The Court reiterated that the decision of the Chairman of the Rajya Sabha relates back to the date of the disqualifying action. The Court clarified that while subsequent events might be relevant in certain contexts, they were not relevant in this case to challenge the validity of the disqualification order, which was based on the member’s conduct before the order was passed. The Court also emphasized that the scope of the writ petition was limited to examining the legality of the disqualification order.

Reason	Percentage
Disqualification under Tenth Schedule occurs when a member voluntarily gives up membership.	30%
Chairman’s decision relates back to the date of the disqualifying action.	30%
Subsequent events were not relevant to challenge the validity of the disqualification order.	30%
Scope of the writ petition was limited to examining the legality of the disqualification order.	10%

Category	Percentage
Fact	20%
Law	80%

Logical Reasoning:

Issue: Whether subsequent conduct is relevant to challenge disqualification order?

↓

Tenth Schedule: Disqualification occurs when membership is voluntarily given up.

↓

Chairman’s decision relates back to date of disqualifying action.

↓

Subsequent events not relevant to challenge the validity of the original disqualification order.

↓

High Court correctly rejected additional evidence.

The Court considered the argument that the subsequent conduct of the respondent reaffirmed the disqualification. However, the Court rejected this argument, stating that the disqualification order was based on the facts and events prior to the order. The Court also considered that the respondent had contested the Lok Sabha election from a different party, but again stated that it was a subsequent event and could not be considered for the purpose of the writ petition. The Court held that the High Court was correct in rejecting the additional evidence as the scope of the writ petition was limited to the legality of the original disqualification order.

The Court also clarified that the observations made by the High Court that “any event subsequent to the passing of the said order, cannot be a consideration for this Court to test the legality of the said order” should not be treated as a statement of law. The Court stated that subsequent events can be considered if they are relevant to the state of affairs at the time of disqualification. The Court also referred to Pasupuleti Venkateswarlu Vs. The Motor & General Traders, (1975) 1 SCC 770, stating that courts can take cognizance of subsequent events to make the remedy meaningful.

The Supreme Court stated:

“The disqualification is incurred by member of the House as soon as he has voluntarily given up his membership of such political party.”

“The decision taken by the Speaker, thus, has to be on the basis of conduct or actions taken by member, which may amount to voluntarily giving up his membership.”

“An event or a conduct of a person even though subsequent to passing of an order of Speaker or Chairman ordinarily may not be relevant for determining the validity of the order of the Speaker or Chairman but in a case where subsequent event or conduct of member is relevant with respect to state of affairs as pertaining to the time when member has incurred disqualification, that subsequent events can be taken into consideration by the High Court in exercise of its jurisdiction under Article 226.”

The Court did not have any dissenting opinions.

Key Takeaways

Disqualification under the Tenth Schedule occurs when a member voluntarily gives up their party membership, not when the Speaker or Chairman makes a decision.
The decision of the Speaker or Chairman relates back to the date of the disqualifying action.
Subsequent conduct of a disqualified member is generally not relevant to challenge the validity of the disqualification order, unless it pertains to the state of affairs at the time of disqualification.
Courts can consider subsequent events to ensure a meaningful remedy, but this does not apply to challenging the validity of a disqualification order based on prior conduct.

Directions

The Supreme Court requested the High Court to dispose of the writ petition at an early date.

Development of Law

The ratio decidendi of the case is that the disqualification under the Tenth Schedule occurs when a member voluntarily gives up their party membership, and the decision of the Speaker or Chairman relates back to the date of the disqualifying action. The Court clarified that subsequent events are generally not relevant to challenge the validity of the disqualification order, unless they pertain to the state of affairs at the time of disqualification. This judgment reaffirms the existing legal position on disqualification under the Tenth Schedule and clarifies the scope of judicial review in such matters.

Conclusion

The Supreme Court dismissed the appeal, upholding the High Court’s decision to reject additional evidence of Sharad Yadav’s conduct after his disqualification. The Court clarified that the disqualification under the Tenth Schedule is triggered when a member voluntarily gives up their party membership, and the decision of the Chairman relates back to the date of the disqualifying action. The Court also emphasized that subsequent events are generally not relevant to challenge the validity of the disqualification order, unless they pertain to the state of affairs at the time of disqualification.

FAQ

Q: What does “voluntarily giving up membership” mean under the Tenth Schedule?
A: It means a member’s actions and conduct indicate they have left the party, even without a formal resignation.

Q: When does a member get disqualified under the Tenth Schedule?
A: Disqualification occurs when a member voluntarily gives up their party membership, not when the Speaker or Chairman makes a decision.

Q: Can subsequent actions of a disqualified member be used to challenge the disqualification order?
A: Generally, no. Subsequent actions are not relevant unless they pertain to the state of affairs at the time of disqualification.

Q: What did the Supreme Court say about the High Court’s observation regarding subsequent events?
A: The Supreme Court clarified that while the High Court’s observation was generally correct, subsequent events could be relevant if they pertained to the state of affairs at the time of disqualification.

Q: What is the relevance of the Chairman’s decision in disqualification cases?
A: The Chairman’s decision relates back to the date of the disqualifying action, i.e., when the member voluntarily gave up their membership.

Source: Ram Chandra Prasad Singh vs. Sharad Yadav