Ram Chandra Prasad Singh vs Sharad Yadav

6 – Respondent no.1 was elected as Member of Parliament (Rajya Sabha) on JD(U) ticket – Appellant, Member of Parliament (Rajya Sabha) and leader of JD(U) in Rajya Sabha filed a petition under Art.102(2) read with Paragraph 6 of the Tenth Schedule of the Constitution of India praying that respondent no.1 be disqualified under the Tenth Schedule and his seat be declared vacant in Rajya Sabha – Allegation was that respondent no.1 who was elected to Rajya Sabha on the ticket of JD(U), by his repeated conduct, public/press statements against JD(U) and its leadership and openly aligning with rival political party (RJD), voluntarily gave up his membership thus acquiring disqualification under the Tenth Schedule to the Constitution – The Chairman, Rajya Sabha after following the due procedure and after giving opportunity of hearing passed an order disqualifying the respondent as a member of the House in terms of paragraph 2(1)(a) of the Tenth Schedule of the Constitution – Aggrieved respondent filed writ petition before High Court – In the said writ petition, appellant filed application praying for seeking permission to place additional documents to demonstrate some purported post disqualification conduct of respondent which was denied by the respondent – High Court by impugned order dismissed application holding that the scope of writ petition is limited to examining the legality of the order passed by Chairperson disqualifying the respondent from being a member of the Rajya Sabha and any event subsequent to passing of the said order cannot be a consideration for High Court to test the legality of the said order – Impugned order challenged in the instant appeal – Held: In the instant case, the Chairman passed the order on 04.12.2017 on the application filed on 02.09.2017 by the appellant seeking disqualification of the respondent – The order passed by the Chairman was based on a petition dated 02.09.2017 as well as the material and evidence, which was brought on record before the Chairman – On 7.7.2019, appellant filed application for seeking permission to place additional documents – Additional evidence sought to be brought on record of the writ petition was not the basis for seeking disqualification of the respondent, thus, there was no error in the order of the High Court rejecting the application – The order of the High Court is upheld, however, subject to observations that 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 u/Art.226 – Thus, the observations made in paragraph 4 need not to be read as laying down a law that in any case subsequent event cannot be considered for testing the legality of the order impugned or for moulding the relief in a writ petition u/Art.226.

Dismissing the appeal, the Court

HELD: 1. The facts and sequence of the events on the basis of which the Chairman came to the conclusion that a person has incurred disqualification under paragraph 2(1) (a) of the Tenth Schedule are all facts, which had occurred prior to adjudication by the Chairman. The application which was filed by the appellant seeking disqualification of the respondent was filed on 02.09.2017 in which application, the foundation of disqualification of respondent was already laid down. The order passed by the Chairman was based on a petition dated 02.09.2017 as well as the material and evidence, which was brought on record before the Chairman. Additional evidence sought to be brought on record of the writ petition was not the basis for seeking disqualification of the respondent, hence, there is no error in the order of the High Court rejecting the application. [Paras 12, 14] [1071-C-D; 1072-B-D]

Rajendra Singh Rana and Others v. Swami Prasad Maurya and Others (2007) 4 SCC 270 : [2007] 2 SCR

591 ; Shrimanth Balasaheb Patil v. Hon’ble Speaker Karnataka Legislative Assembly and Others (2019) 15 SCALE 533 – followed.

Ravi S. Naik v. Union of India and Others (1994) 2 Suppl. SCC 641 : [1994] 1 SCR 754 – relied on.

2. The observations made by the High Court in paragraph 4, i.e., “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”may be generally correct but there can be exception if the above statement is treated as statement of law. In a writ petition under Article 226 subsequent events can be taken note of for varied purposes. The observations made in paragraph 4 need not to be read as laying down a law that in any case subsequent event cannot be considered for testing the legality of the order impugned or for moulding the relief in a writ petition under Article 226. The order of the High Court is upheld subject to observations. [Paras 16-19] [1072-H; 1073-A-B-H; 1074-A]

Mohd. Ikram Hussain v. State of Uttar Pradesh and Others AIR 1964 SC 1625 : [1964] SCR 86 ;

Pasupuleti Venkateswarlu v. The Motor & General Traders (1975) 1 SCC 770 : [1975] 3 SCR 958 – relied on.