In rare move, SC invokes plenary power to remove Manipur minister for switching over to BJP after winning election
In a rare move, the Supreme Court Wednesday invoked its plenary powers and ordered forthwith removal of BJP lawmaker and Manipur Forest Cabinet Minister TH Shyamkumar, restraining him from entering the Assembly till further orders
New Delhi: In a rare move, the Supreme Court Wednesday invoked its plenary powers and ordered forthwith removal of BJP lawmaker and Manipur Forest Cabinet Minister TH Shyamkumar, restraining him from entering the Assembly till further orders.
The top court rarely invokes its plenary power under Article 142 of the Constitution to remove a cabinet minister from any government.
Shyamkumar had won the Assembly polls in 2017 as a Congress candidate but later joined the BJP government. The plea of his disqualification is still pending with the Speaker.
The top court had on 21 January taken note of inordinate delays in deciding 13 pleas for disqualification of lawmakers pending since April 2017 and had asked the Manipur Assembly Speaker to decide within four weeks the plea of a Congress leader seeking disqualification of Shyamkumar.
The Speaker on Tuesday appealed to the top court for deferment of the matter till 28 March and said that by that time, there would definitely be a judgment on the disqualification applications by the Speaker.
A bench of Justices RF Nariman and S Ravindra Bhat said that given the extraordinary facts in the present case, "we are constrained to use our powers under Article 142 of the Constitution of India".
"Respondent Number-3 (TH Shyamkumar) is restrained from entering the Legislative Assembly till further orders of this Court. Needless to add, he will cease to be a Minister of the Cabinet immediately," the bench said, posting the matter for further hearing on 30 March.
The top court said that in its 21 January verdict, it had gone out of the way to give the Speaker a chance to perform his functions under the Tenth Schedule of the Constitution of India by stating, "given the fact that such a long period had already gone by without any decision, one month should suffice for the Honourable Speaker to decide the disqualification petitions before him".
It said after one month expired, an application was filed by the Speaker requesting for eight more weeks in order to decide the cases before him.
The top court said that on 4 March, when the matter was taken up for hearing, the Speaker had not pressed his application and stated that a decision would be forthcoming within 10 days from that date.
It said that when the matter was taken up today, Solicitor General Tushar Mehta appeared for the Speaker and sought deferment of the matter till 28 March saying that by that time, definitely, there would be a judgment on the aforesaid disqualification applications by the Speaker.
Mehta also said that 28 March has been notified for pronouncement of judgment by the Speaker on the disqualification plea.
Senior advocate Kapil Sibal, appearing for the petitioner Congress leader Keisham Meghachandra Singh, said the court should decide the disqualification pleas as even after the one month period given an application for adjournment of eight weeks has come up followed by prayer for 10 days time.
He said the court should decide the matter on Wednesday itself.
The top court on 21 January, in a path-breaking ruling had said the Parliament should "rethink" whether the Speaker of a House should continue to have powers to disqualify lawmakers as such a functionary "belongs to a particular political party".
Parliament may seriously consider amending the Constitution to substitute Speaker of Lok Sabha and Legislative Assemblies as the arbiter of disqualification issues with "a permanent Tribunal headed by a retired Supreme Court Judge or a retired Chief Justice of a High Court" or some other mechanism to ensure swift and impartial decisions, the apex court had said.
While taking note of the role played by Speakers and inordinate delays in deciding pleas for disqualification of lawmakers, the top court had asked the Manipur Assembly Speaker to decide within four weeks the plea seeking disqualification of Shyamkumar.
"In case no decision is forthcoming even after a period of four weeks, it will be open to any party to the proceedings to apply to this Court for further directions/ reliefs in the matter," the bench had said.
A time has come when Parliament should have "a rethink on whether disqualification petitions ought to be entrusted to a Speaker as a quasi-judicial authority when such Speaker continues to belong to a particular political party either de jure or de facto", the top court had said.
The high court had refused to direct the speaker to decide the plea for disqualification of Shyamkumar on the ground that the "very same issue" whether the speaker can be directed by the courts to decide disqualification was pending adjudication before a 5-judge bench of the top court.
The polls for 60 seats of the Manipur Legislative Assembly were conducted in March 2017 in which Congress Party emerged as the single largest party with 28 seats and BJP came second with 21 seats.
However, a BJP led government was sworn in and Shyamkumar, a Congress MLA, switched side and became a minister in the state government leading to the submission of several pleas in April 2017 with the Speaker, seeking the MLAs disqualification under the anti-defection law.
COVID-19 vaccine: SC questions Centre over policy of mandatory registration on CoWIN, flags 'digital divide'
The apex court bench headed by DY Chandrachud also stated that the policy makers must have an 'ear to the ground' and make the process accessible to all
The plea, filed by advocate Mamata Sharma, contended that the exam can't be conducted due to the surge in COVID-19 cases
Class 12 board exams: Will take final decision in two days on whether to conduct tests, Centre tells SC
The apex court, which was hearing a plea seeking cancellation of CBSE, ICSE Class 12 exams, said govt needs to give 'tangible reasons' if it decides to hold the exam