The World Opinion

Tag: Anti defection law

  • Two Jharkhand MLAs Disqualified Under Anti-defection Law |

    Ranchi: Jharkhand Assembly Speaker’s Tribunal on Thursday disqualified two legislators under the anti-defection law with effect from July 26. 

    The order disqualifying JMM’s Lobin Hembrom and Congress’s Jai Prakash Bhai Patel from the House came on the eve of the assembly’s six-day monsoon session beginning on Friday. 

    The Jharkhand Mukti Morcha (JMM) and the BJP had initiated proceedings under the anti-defection law against Hembrom and Patel respectively in the Speaker’s Tribunal. 

    Hembrom contested independently from the Rajmahal Lok Sabha seat, challenging JMM’s official candidate, Vijay Hansdak. Patel, on the other hand, joined the Congress ahead of the Lok Sabha polls and contested from Hazaribag seat. Both, however, were defeated in the elections. 

    “Jai Prakash Bhai Patel has voluntarily given up the membership of his original political party BJP as is clear from the aforesaid facts and the circumstances and conduct of the honourable member,” Speaker Rabindra Nath Mahto said. 

    The Speaker also made a similar observation on JMM’s Hembrom. 

    Hence, Patel and Hembrom were disqualified from the fifth Jharkhand Legislative Assembly with effect from July 26, Mahto said. 

    The JMM had earlier expelled Hembrom from the party for “working against the interest of the coalition” by filing nomination from the Rajmahal seat. 

    According to the seat-sharing agreement in the ruling alliance in Jharkhand, the Rajmahal seat went to JMM, which had fielded its sitting MP Vijay Hansdak. 

    Hembram, the Borio legislator, had contested from Rajmahal to protest against Hansdak’s selection by the party. 

    Responding to the development, Hembrom claimed that though the Speaker is “impartial”, he did this under pressure. 

    “Many have changed parties in the past but their cases pending for two years. What crime Lobin Hembrom had done? You give me notice at 3 pm and pronounce judgment at 4 pm,” he said. 

    Alleging that he was not given a chance to present his case, Hembrom said he would move court to seek justice. 

    The disqualified claimed that the JMM-led alliance was afraid since he was emerging as a powerful leader and would raise issues of tribals in the assembly. 

    “The people will question the chief minister about what happened to his promises of job and allowances to unemployed…land etc,” he said. 

    Leader of Opposition in Assembly Amar Kumar Bauri said it would have been better had Patl resigned himself. 

    “We had initiated an anti-defection case. The Speaker’s court has debarred his membership. It was bound to happen. We had lodged a complaint in March against him,” Bauri said.

  • Maharashtra disaster: All you want to understand in regards to the anti-defection regulation and the disqualification of revolt MLAs

    Through Categorical Information Carrier

    NEW DELHI: The tussle over the disqualification of 38 revolt Shiv Sena legislators has introduced the highlight at the anti-defection and disqualification regulation but even so the position of the Speaker in taking a choice in this factor.

    Because the struggle between the rebels and the Uddhav Thackeray faction reached the Very best Court docket, the Nebam Rebia case was once cited by means of the breakaway team’s recommend to underline the ‘illegality’ of the Deputy Speaker’s motion serving them the disqualification realize for defection. The rebels’ recommend Neeraj Kishan Kaul argued that the Very best Court docket had held within the Nebam Rebia case that it was once “constitutionally impermissible for a Speaker to adjudicate on disqualification petitions underneath the Charter’s 10th Time table whilst a realize of answer for his personal elimination from the Place of job of the Speaker was once pending”.

    Relating to the Speaker’s put up being vacant for the reason that resignation of Nana Patole in February 2021, Kaul identified that “there was once no authority who can adjudicate the disqualification petition” and that it was once “no longer maintainable”.

    Showing for the Deputy Speaker Narhari Zirwal, ruling Thackeray camp leaders Ajay Chaudhary and Sunil Prabhu, senior advocates Rajeev Dhawan and Abhishek Manu Singhvi took the stand that the awareness of answer for the previous’s elimination (by means of the Eknath Shinde team) was once despatched from an unverified e-mail ID and was once subsequently suspect.

    Inserted by means of the Rajiv Gandhi executive in 1985, the 10th Time table lays down the principles and procedures for disqualification of a member from the home by means of the presiding officer. The presiding officer can act in opposition to such individuals on lawsuits won by means of every other member of the home. A member draws the disqualification provision if he voluntarily resigns from the get together or when he defies the get together’s directives by means of both balloting in opposition to the get together’s directives or abstains from balloting by means of defying the get together whip.

    The definition of ‘voluntary resignation’ was once previous expanded by means of the Very best Court docket. If a member indulges in anti-party actions with out resigning from the get together, it can be inferred that he has voluntarily given up the club of the get together, the court docket had stated.

    Previous to 1992, the 10th Time table barred judicial scrutiny of a Speaker’s determination to disqualify a member for defection or anti-party actions. Within the 1992 judgment, the Very best Court docket struck down this provision, maintaining {that a} presiding officer’s determination was once open to judicial scrutiny by means of the top courts and the apex court docket.